1
10
40
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/21dcb98128d272af596012b22fd333a7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=E%7EXm0yNd9lMgxyh2aKO0Q7P0Yb9kgyPXtUKBZqnf2imaa3C6bGbZ%7EG-iDAxcy4F5QM23rZ10LtlPys3972XXPqa7lhy2i2CsgcB7mX9u4GDWHmFPGxODvYw230Qoq%7EgW0QtPTBOxCwSZVryC3kCKKgiDyT8Lppaet4quWp27SQicWv%7EfE%7EeLz4N5W2165XAlf61sVzcXAH1rEz6c5WLy8IEV-y71-M92Gf4VirgXh0emQJ24is%7EReqcTXrscBYXQz03xTsWISvrvKWxUPqrSPtDfz%7Et-DQhrFDUGX6TjPxZ3qTcag7iaYUqJX35fSMZOa1tFe0OWkF22mPZ%7E0nyICA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
56e4f61a03cb86567f1d91a5a45dc6c3
PDF Text
Text
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A secularist's principles, or: Which is the true religion?
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 94 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Christopher Charles is pseudonym of Charles Cockbill Cattell.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Charles, Christopher
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1864
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Frederick Farrah
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 (A secularist's principles, or: Which is the true religion?), 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
N085
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9da8cdbd3edb18aa2c5be0b3afe02111.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XeWyjo5rHh2x5gDgGt7rvS-tGDOzDbYQVO3Ny6qNg5iYdFj68wyyiPUaXgu1y4clfVRw2I4dEIE9bEWPkHa8ZM96KrwyfYgNGlU-iH-2xQb49A6kQH8ZvNKqUK2zuIlRMW72ewl7nVEQjAVA8UnlX55t2dVaoQVC7hjroW6tZy9sSo94glI%7EEEGwDwhY26l%7ECctmfx32cGBZy6sFjtBVi0uSEFEHqZjKU1-67YVP4VU9qZQ%7EV2lPylrIPoLG31BTgHchl2WLFdq1PWiXujzdZKcRb4XLJxIrovhAxZb0KKGQbajjh4Q6mVwPkszgQUeSAR9zNDbH6QANhv2q2kvZTg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3297c1449aebe6cd8a2da5c1fb866b82
PDF Text
Text
Is It Founded
on
Reason, and Is It Sufficient to
Meet the Needs of Mankind ?
DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING
MAIL (Halifax, N.S.) AND CHARLES WATTS,
EDITOR OF SECULAR THOUGHT.
WITH PREFATORY LETTERS
BY
GEO. JACOB HOLYOAKE
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
and
AND AN INTRODUCTION
BY
HELEN
H.
GARBENER
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
- 25
CENTS.
��PREFACE,
The following discussion was conducted during 1889, the paper
of each ^disputant appearing both in the Halifax Evening Mail
and in Secular Thought. The debate originated in the Editor
of the Mail issuing, in his paper of July 3rd, 1889, the sub-,
joined challenge to Mr. Watts, which, it will be seen, contains
also the conditions that governed the controversy:—“ If Mr.
Watts is anxious to present his views to the public, the Evening
Mail offers him an audience larger than could by any possibility
be packed in any public building in Halifax. The Evening Mail
denies Mr. Watts’ affirmation : ‘ That Secularism is based on
human reason and is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind.’
To the discussion of this question we challenge Mr. Watts to a
controversy, he to take the initiative. Mr. Watts on his part
will have the privilege of publishing three articles in our col
umns alternately with three articles written by the Editor of
the Evening Mail, Mr. Watts to close the controversy in a fourth
article one-third of a column in length, in which he shall be
allowed to introduce no new, matter.” On July 10th Mr. Watts
sent the following reply : “ To the Editor of the Evening Mail:
Sir,—My attention has been called to an editorial in your issue
dated July 3, in which you invite me to discuss the proposition,
‘ That Secularism is based on human reason, and is sufficient to
meet the needs of mankind.’ This you deny, and challenge me
to affirm the proposition in your columns. Your invitation is
given in such courteous language, and accompanied with stipu
lations so fair, that I accept your challenge upon the following
conditions, viz.: That my opening article appear first in Secular
Thought, from which you can copy it in the Mail, wherein you
will also insert your reply, which I will reproduce in Secular
�iv
PREFACE.
Thought; the subsequent articles in the debate to also appear in
a similar manner in each of the above-named papers.”
The conditions mentioned above being mutually agreed upon,
the discussion commenced in Secular Thought August 3rd, 1889.
That what has been advanced by either disputant may be
carefully read and studied is my earnest and sincere wish.
Charles Watts.
February 27th, 1890.
THE OPINION OF THE “ FATHER OF SECULARISM.”
“ Mr. Watts’ statement of Secular principles and policy, in his
debate with the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail is the best
I have ever seen. He distinguishes clearly and boldly that the
Secularist moves on the planes of Reason and Utility.
“ George Jacob Holyoake.”
(In his letter to the Toronto Secular Convention, 1889.)
�V
PREFACE.
COLONEL INGERSOLL’S OPINION.
400 Fifth Avenue, Feb. 9th, 1890.
My Dear Mr. Watts,—I have just read the debate between
yourself and the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail, N. S.
Your statement as to what Secularism is could not be improved
and your definitions of certain terms are accurate and lucid. I
have never read better. The Editor of the Mail does not under
stand you. He has not enough intelligence to grasp your
meaning. When you ask for a better guide than Reason, he
does not see that he cannot even deny that reason is the best of
all guides without admitting that it is. Suppose he had said
that the Bible is a better guide than reason, he would have been
compelled tc have given his reasons for the assertion, and in
doing this would have admitted that reason had been his guide.
I can hardly call this a debate that you had with the editor of
the Mail. In a debate there ought to be arguments on tooth
sides All the argument is on your side. Your antagonist refused
to come into the ring. He kept outside the ropes and even in
that place threw up the sponge.
You are doing a great and splendid work in Canada. Every
Freethinker ought to stand by you, and no one can afford to do
without Secular Thought. Best regards to Mrs Watts from
us all and to you.
Yours always,
R. G. Ingersoll.
�I
�INTRODUCTION
BY
HELEN H. GARDENER.
When Mr. Charles Watts told me, about four years ago, that he
was going to Canada to start a Freethought paper I made up my
mind that he had taken leave of a large part of his usual good
judgment and was about to fly in the face of providence—so to
speak.
Canada and a Freethought paper impressed me as elements
that would refuse to mix. I thought I knew the characteristics
of both, somewhat intimately. I expected to hear of the arrest
of Mr. Watts and the discontinuance of his paper by the end of
the first month. I did not believe that Canada was ready for
his sturdy, vigorous style of advocacy of Secularism.
It appears, however, that I mistook the temper and trend
of the times and things in Canada, and that the past ten
years have made a vast change, not only in the States, but over
the border as well. And so to-day we see Mr. Watts not only
successfully conducting an able and fearless Freethought journal
in Toronto, and lecturing throughout the provinces ; but, also,
able to induce one of the editors of a leading daily paper to en
gage in a debate on the relative merits of Secularism and Chris
tianity, and to publish the same in the columns of his paper—the
Halifax Evening Mail. Thus Mr. Watts reaches not only the
avowed Liberal thinkers, but the conservatives also.
In reference to the debate, it is not necessary for me in this
Introduction to go into the merits of the case and attempt to point
out the defects in the argument of the Editor of the Mail. Mr.
�viii
INTRODUCTION.
Watts has proved himself fully able to do that. Indeed, the first
time I heard Mr. Watts debate in public I was so sorry for his
opponent that I felt almost inclined to take his side of the ar
gument. Mr. Watts gave him such an unmerciful intellectual
drubbing that it seemed to me every mental bone in his body
must have been broken, and that when Mr. Watts should let go
of his collar—as one might say—he would sink into mere pulp.
Yet it was all done with that courtesy of language and manner
which distinguishes Mr. Watts in debate.
Mr. Watts does not find it necessary to “ call names ” in lieu
of argument. He has facts on the tip of his tongue and logic
always “ on call.” He is not compelled to dodge the issue and take
refuge in vocal pyrotechnics—mere mental and verbal gymnastics
—to befog the minds of his readers and so cover his own retreat.
In short, I have always looked upon Mr. Watts as a masterly
debater, and I know’of few people—if any—who would not be
running a very serious danger of defeat in venturing to join
issue with Mr. Watts on the platform. There is one point to
which I wish to call especial attention touching this discussion.
It is to the splendid fact that the day is past when such a debate
as this can be suppressed. Only a little while ago not only Mr.
Watts would have “ found his occupation gone,” but the editor
of the Evening Mail would not have dared to give an honour
able, honest hearing to his opponent through the columns of his
paper. He could not have ventured to give Mr. Watts an open
field and to print ungarbled what was said by his antagonist in
belief. Canada is to be congratulated that she is now free
enough to do this and that some of her editors dare give the real
arguments and opinions of the unbelievers in organised supersti
tion. Until the Press is wholly free to do this; until it cannot
be boycotted or intimidated for it, there will be no such thing as
a free Press, and without an absolutely free Press all liberty is
in constant danger. This debate, therefore, serves a double
purpose. It not only enables Secularism and Christianity to try
conclusions ; but it gives the measure of liberty and freedom of
speech and Press to which Canada has attained in the year 1889.
�INTRODUCTION.
ix
The daily papers are a reflex of the public pulse. It is the easiest
and surest way to determine the stage of civilisation at which
we have arrived to simply watch the daily papers and read
between the lines.
If any subject or class is refused an honest hearing we may
be very sure that there is an iron hand on the throat of some
body. The grip is loosening when an editor here and there
•dares to give space to both sides—to all sides. The measure of
manhood is lengthening. The power of superstition is broken.
A better day is dawning. The Press no longer crawls at the
feet of dogmatic belief chained io the dead and ignorant past.
No honest cause ever needed suppression as an ally. The truth
is not afraid to measure conclusions with a mistake and give the
mistake an open field. Any argument that can hold its own
only by silencing its antagonist by force, thereby proclaims itself
built upon falsehood and sustained by fraud.
The pioneers of this new and real liberty of speech and Press
are, therefore, the landmarks in the new era. For this reason I
feel like congratulating Canada that the Halifax Mail and its
•editor as well as Mr, Charles Watts chose homes within her
borders. I think we may say that all thoughtful people will be
interested in the arguments of the Christian editor, who not only
has the courage of his own convictions, but the courage and
manliness to present to his readers the ungarbled convictions
•of his opponent also. Courage is a noble quality, and when it is
mental and moral as well as physical its possessor is well on his
way to a high order of civilisation.
I need not commend Mr. Watts and what he says to the
Liberal public. He has done that for himself; but I want to
repeat that there are other reasons than admiration of his ability
why such a debate as this should be- welcomed and widely read
by both sides. It shows which way the wind is blowing in more
ways than one. It shows what thoughts and opinions are on
the down grade. It is a landmark of our progress toward fair
play, and there is something for both parties to be proud of when
neither one skulks behind silence and suppression. Which ever
�X
INTRODUCTION.
argument the reader finds to his liking, therefore, he need not be
ashamed to say, “ This is my champion. He has come to the
front like a man for our cause and he has refused to take advan
tage of ‘kis adversary.” This is a proud boast, and it could be
made of few debates where a representative of organised super
stition had charge of one end of the arrangements and of an
organ which printed the discussion.
Therefore let us congratulate Christianity that she has at last
reached a point where she feels herself capable of fairness and
possessed of sufficient courage to be honest. And let us felicitate
Secularism that she had within her ranks the right man to ably,
courteously, and with the self-poise of the veteran, conduct her
side of the debate on a plane of thought and with a dexterity of
touch which all who know Mr. Watts so greatly admire.
Helen H. Gardener.
�SECULARISM:
A DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OE THE HALIFAX,
N.S., “EVENING MAIL” AND CHARLES WATTS.
The Proposition : “ Secularism is bastd on human reason, and is suffi
cient to meet the needs of mankind.”
Mb.. Watts affirms;
the
Editor of the Evening Mail denies.
Opening of the Debate.
BY CHARLES WATTS.
In supporting my affirmation of the above proposition, I have
been requested by my opponent to do three things : First, to
explain what Secularism is ; secondly, to define the leading terms
in the proposition ; and, in the last place, to show in what way
Secularism is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind.
What is Secularism? In its etymological signification, it
means the age, finite, belonging to this world. Secularists, how
ever, use the term in a more amplified sense, as embodying a
■philosophy of life and inculcating rules of conduct that have no
necessary association with any system of theology. By this is.
meant that, while there are some phases of theology to which a
■Secularist could give his assent, it is quite possible to live noble
and exemplary lives apart from any and all theologies. For in
stance, Theists who are not orthodox can belong to a Secular So
ciety, as can also Atheists, although Secularism does not exact
either the affirmation of the one or the negation of the other. The
word Secularism was selected about 50 years ago by Mr. George
Jacob Holyoake to represent certain principles which recognized
“ the moral duty of man in this life, deduced from considera
tions which pertain to this life alone.” Such a selection was
deemed desirable, in order to enable those persons who could not
accept orthodox Christianity as a guide in mundane affairs to
find elsewhere principles to direct and sustain them in the cor
�4
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
rect performance of their respective duties. Secularism is as far
as possible, the practical application of all knowledge’to the
regulation of human conduct, and apart from speculations and
beliefs which are unfounded, or unproved, or opposed to reason
Secular Principles. These, as Mr. Holyoake has frequently
-explained, “ relate to the present existence of man and to methods
of procedure the issues of which can be tested by the experience
of this life. . . . Secular principles have for their object to fit
men for time. Secularism purposes to regulate human affairs by
'Considerations purely human. Its principles are founded upon
mature, and its object is to render men as perfect as possible in
this life,” whether there be a future existence or not. The Six
great Cardinal Principles of Secularism, as officially taught
by the Canadian Secular Union (incorporated under the general
Act of Parliament in 1877-1885), are briefly as follows:—
1. That the present life being the only one of which we have
any knowledge, its concerns claim our earnest attention. 2. That
Reason, aided by Experience, is' the best guide for human con
duct. 3. That to endeavour to promote the individual and
general Well-being of Society to the best of our ability is our
highest and immediate duty. 4. That the only means upon
,-which we can rely for the accomplishment of this object is
human effort, based upon knowledge and justice. 5. Conduct
is to be judged by its results only—what conduces to the general
^Vell-being is right, what has the opposite tendency is wrong.
6. That Science and its application is our Providence, or Pro
vider, and upon it we rely in preference to aught else in time of
need.
Secular Teachings.—(1) That truth, justice, sobriety, fidelity,
honour and love are essential to good lives. (2) That actions
are of more consequence to the welfare of Society than beliefs
in creeds and dogmas. (3) That “prevention is better than
curewe therefore, as Secularists, seek to render, as far as cir
cumstances will permit, depraved conditions impossible. (4)
That the best means of securing this improvement are, self-re
liance, moral culture, physical development, intellectual disci
pline, and whatever else is found necessary to secure this object.
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
5
provided our actions do not, unjustly and unnecessarily, infringe
upon the rights of others. (5) That the disbelief in Christianity,,
or in other systems of theology, may be as much a matter of:
honest conviction as the belief in it or them. (6) That persecu
tion for disbelieving any or all the doctrines of theology is acrime against society, and an insult to mental freedom. (7) That
the Secular good and useful in any of the religions of the world
should be accepted and acted upon, without the obligation of'
having to believe in any form of alleged supernaturalism.
(8)«
That a well-spent life, guided and controlled by the highest,
possible morality, is the best preparation for a safe and?
happy death. (9) That the principle of the “ Golden Rule ”
should be observed in all controversy, and that courtesy, good
will, kindness, and a respectful consideration for the opinions
of those who differ from us should characterize our deal
ings with opponents. (10) That from a domestic standpoint
there should be no attempt at superiority between husband
and wife; that equality should be the emblem of every home,,
and that the fireside should be hallowed by mutual fidelity, affec
tion, happiness, and the setting of an example worthy of chil
dren’s emulation. These principles and teachings form the basis
of the Secularists’ faith—a faith which rests not upon conjec
tures as to a future life,'but upon the reason, experience, and
requirements of this.
Basis of Secularism. The exercise of Freethought, guided by
reason, experience, and general usefulness. By Freethought is
here meant the right to entertain any opinions that commend
themselves to the judgment of the honest and earnest searcher
after truth without his being made the victim of social ostracism
in this world, or threatened with punishment in some other.
The law of mental science declares the impossibility of uniform
ity of belief upon theological questions, therefore, Freethought
should be acknowledged as being the heritage of the human race.
Secular Morality. This consists in the performance of acts
that will exalt and ennoble human character, and in avoiding
conduct that is injurious either to the individual or to society at
large. The source of moral obligation is in human nature, and
�f)
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
the sanctions of, and incentives to, ethical culture are the pro
tection and improvement both of the individual and of the
community.
Secularism and Theology. The relation of Secularism to the
great problems of the existence of God and a Future life is that
of Agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying. If a person think
that he has evidence to justify his belief in a God and immor
tality, there is nothing in Secularism to prevent his having such
a belief. Hence, Atheism should not be confounded with Secu
larism, which is quite a different question. The subjects of Deity
and a Future life Secularism leaves for persons to decide, if
possible, for themselves. Being unable to inform, it refuses to
dogmatize upon matters of which it can impart no information.
Secularism, therefore, does not exact Atheistical profession as
the basis of co-operation. Atheists may be Secularists, but it is
not considered necessary that a man should accept Atheism to
enable him to become a Secularist. The Secularist platform is
sufficiently broad to admit the fellowship of Atheists or non
orthodox Theists. Secularism fetters man with no theological
creeds ; it only requires moral conduct, allied with the desire to
pursue aprogressive career independent of all speculative theology.
Negative Aspect of Secularism. Secularism is positive to the
true and good in every religion, but it is negative towards that
which is false and injurious. Our destructive work consists in
endeavouring to destroy that which has too often interfered
with our constructive efforts. Our negative policy “has been
to combat priests and laws, wherever priests or laws interfere
with Freethought—that is, our mission has been to act as a John
in the wilderness, to make way for science, and to make silence
for philosophy.”
Definition of Terms. Reason we define as being man’s highest
intellectual powers, the understanding, the faculty of judgment,
the power which discriminates, infers, deduces, and judges, the
ability to premise future probabilities from past experience and
to distinguish truth from error. Reason, says Morell, is that
which gives unity and solidarity to intellectual processes, “ aid
ing us at once in the pursuit of truth and in adapting our lives
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
7
to the state of things in which they exist” (“Mental Philosophy,’’
p. 232). “ It is the guide and director of human activity ” {Ibid.,
p. 235). Hooker, in his “ Ecclesiastical Polity,” says reason de
termines “ what is good to be done ; ” and Chillingworth, the
eminent Christian writer, in his “Religion of Protestants,” ob
serves :—“ Reason gives us knowledge; while faith only gives us
oelief, which is a part of knowledge and is, therefore, inferior to
it. . . .it is by reason alone that we can distinguish truth from,
falsehood ” * (quoted by Buckle in his “ History of Civiliza
tion ”). Bishop Butler remarks, “ Reason is indeed the only
faculty we have wherewith to judge concerning anything, even
revelation itself ” (“ Analogy of Religion,” p. 176).
Experience. This represents knowledge acquired through
study, investigation, and observation in the broadest sense
possible. We do not use the word in the limited form, as
Whately employs it, simply as individual experience, but as
comprising the world’s legacy of thought, action, scientific appli
cation and mental culture, so far as we are enabled to avail our
selves of these intellectual agencies.
Intuition. This I regard to be a mental recognition of an
impression or sensation as being the truth without the process
of reasoning. Intuition, therefore, differs from rehson and ex
perience inasmuch as it excludes the possibility of correcting a
mental impression by reflection and philosophical investigation.
The nature and value of intuition depend upon the intellectual
condition of the person who has it, upon his training, and the
surroundings which have formed and moulded his conceptions
or beliefs. The intuition of a savage is very different from that
of a civilized person, and the same difference obtains among the
devotees of the different religions of the earth. Moreover, my
opponent’s intuition may suggest to him that a certain thing
was right which my intuition in all probability would consider
wrong. In such cases, what is the factor that is to decide which
is the correct decision ? Secularism says that although Reason,
when assisted by Experience, may not be a perfect guide, it
* The italics are mine.
�8
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
is the best known to us up to the present time. If the
editor of the Evening Mail has a monitor superior to the one
^elected by Secularists, let him produce it, and then we can
judge which is the better by comparison.
The terms Needs and “ Sufficient.
I place the following
interpretation upon these words in connection with the proposi
tion under debate. By needs is meant that which 'is actually
necessary, essential to the physical intellectual moral and emo
tional development of the human family. In this controversy
needs should be distinguished from wants, inasmuch as in many
cases a want is only a desire caused by habits not necessary tn
the well-being of society. I regard that as being sufficient the
nature of which is adequate to meet the requirements and to
satisfy the demands of the needs of mankind.
The request of my opponent has now been complied with, so
far as the space allowed me would permit. I have stated what
Secularism is, and have given a brief intimation of its principles,
teachings, and ethical basis. A definition has also been furnished
of what we mean by the terms reason, experience, intuition,
needs and sufficient. A statement of what human needs are and
wherein Secularism is sufficient to satisfy them must be reserved
for my next article. In the meantime I shall read with consid
erable interest whatever my respected opponent may have to
say in reply to what is herein set forth.
THE “ EVENING MAIL’S ” FIRST ARTICLE, IN REPLY TO CHA REFS
WATTS.
In consenting to this debate we desired such a precise definition
of terms as would enab.e us both at the outset clearly to com
prehend the subject matter and scope of the discussion. Though
Mr. Watts’ thesis bears the stamp of sincerity, its definitions are
laboured and involved, vague or tautological; and the difficulties
which perplex his mind and unnerve his hand are manifestly
those which have for the most part entirely disappeared before
the enlightened thought of these more modern days.
We asked Mr. Watts for a clear and precise definition of
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
“ Secularism ; ” but he responds with numerous variations and
repetitions which only serve to confuse the reader’s mind, while
demonstrating beyond a doubt that Mr. Watts has never yet ob
tained a clear and comprehensive conception of the tenets of the
so-called Secularist faith. • For instance, under “ Secular prin
ciples,” we are furnished with “ the six great cardinal principles
of Secularism as officially taught.” But not content with this
official” statement, Mr. Watts reinforces it with a statement of
“ Secular teachings,” six [ten] in number, which differ more or less
from the preceding principles as they are “ officially taught.”
Then, as if fearful that “ Secular principles ” as “ officially
taught,” even though combined with “ Secular teachings,” might
not convey a clear conception of what “ Secularism ” is, Mr
Watts proceeds to state “the basis of Secularism” and to define
*
“ Secular morality,” as if these were different and distinct from
confusion, although under “ Secularism and theology ” we are
*
informed that “ Secularism fetters man with no theological
creeds,”—a purely negative aspect,—Mr. Watts proceeds to de
fine under another head “ the negative aspect of Secularism.”
All this serves to convince the reader that even Mr. Watts, the
professed exponent of this new faith, is in the unfortunate pre
dicament of having no clear and definite conception of his own
beliefs, and that, as a result, his attempts at elucidation only
serve to bewilder, confuse, and perhaps amuse those who intelli
gently strive to follow him through his illogical and labyrinthine
meanderings.
Equally unhappy is Mr. Watts in his antiquated allusion to
reason as a faculty of the mind, more especially as it is coupled
with the affirmation that “ Secularism is based on human reason.”
As if a faith, which is supposed to satisfy all human needs, could
be based on a faculty of mind ! But our purpose is not to raise
mere quibbles in this debate, but rather to tear aside the covering
of antiquated verbiage with which Mr. Watts has cloaked his
views, and to consider these, carefully yet courteously, in all
their naked reality. It is gratifying to us, therefore, that Mr.
Watts has not been completely bewildered by his wide knowledge
�10
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
of philosophical antiquities, but that his sound common «ense
leads him to reject the discarded conceptions of Butler, and more
correctly to define reason as “ the understanding, the faculty of
judgment, the power which discriminates, infers, deduces and
judges.” With this view we are more disposed to coincide, and
therefore, for the purposes of discussion we will consent to per
sonify reason as that which “ discriminates, infers, deduces and
judges; ” in a word, as that which weighs evidence.
Even Mr. Watts appears to have been convinced of the absurd
ity of his own affirmation that the Secularist faith is based on a
faculty of mind, and to have inclined to his other view that
reason is that which weighs evidence; for he immediately pro
ceeds to define Experience and Intuition as two sources of evi
dence, although these terms had hitherto been utterly foreign
to the controversy.
Ip closing Mr. Watts says: “ A statement of what human
needs are and wherein Secularism is sufficient to satisfy them
must be reserved for our next article ”; and therefore we are
forced to restrict ourselves for the present to Mr. Watts’ first
affirmation “ that Secularism is based on human reason ”; in a
word, that Secularism is based on evidence.
What then is Secularism ? Its first principle is, we are told,
“ that the present life being the only one of which we have any
knowledge, its concerns claim our earnest attention.” But herein
lies the assumption that our present individual existence is the
only life of which we may be cognizant. Where is the evidence
to support that assertion ? The “ concerns ” of this life “ claim
our earnest attention ! ” What evidence is there of the validity
of this claim ? What obligation is there to live at all ?
2. “ That reason aided by experience is the best guide for
human conduct.” Then reason alone is not the sole basis of
Secularism! And again we are told that “ although reason,
when assisted by experience, may not be a perfect guide, it is
the best known to us up to the present time.” Again we call for
evidence to substantiate this statement. Surely . Secularism
would make no assumptions ?
3. “ That to endeavour to promote the individual and general
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
11
well-being of society, to the best of our ability, is our highest
and immediate duty.” Again we ask what right has Secularism
to assume that there is any “ duty ” obligatory upon us ? Can
we impose such a “ duty ” upon ourselves ? If not, who has
imposed these duties upon us ?
4. Thus we might go through the list of “ Secular principles,”
and ask if “ knowledge and justice,” as alleged, are alone suffi
cient to promote the highest well-being of the individual and of
society. Are not benevolence and self-sacrifice equally essential ?
5. What claim to validity has the suspicious statement that
conduct is to be judged by results alone ? The doctrine of
these “ expediency moralists ” has been rejected by the vast
majority of men since it was first propounded over twenty
centuries ago. What evidence is there forthcoming to show that
this principle is based on reason ?
6. That we should rely upon Science as our Providence or
Provider in preference to aught else ! Science may provide food,
drink and apparel. But it depends upon the nature of the man
as to whether these provisions are complete and satisfactory.
The Hottentot knows few scientific appliances, and discards fine
raiment as well as savoury viands. Neither Hottentot modes of
life nor Hottentot morality may be expected to satisfy the needs
of this nineteenth century civilization.
These six Secular principles are assumed by Mr Watts, who
furnishes no evidence whatever as to their validity. The ten
teachings of Secularism must also be proved on grounds of utility
alone, since Mr. Watts accepts without evidence the utilitarian
tenet that “whatever conduces to the general well-being is right,
whatever has the opposite tendency is wrong.” But if Mr, Watts
will only furnish evidence of our personal obligation to speak
the truth, it may, perhaps, surprise him to find equally reliable
evidence of his obligation to believe in the existence of a God.
But these Secular teachings are of slight importance to this con
troversy. They are not new to Christian morality. That actions
are of more consequence than beliefs may, doubtless, be disputed,
since beliefs may be the ultimate source of actions. The third
teaching that “ prevention is better than cure ” cannot be accepted
�I
12
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
a Secularist novelty, seeing that centuries ago it passed into a
proverb. The fourth teaching is the theme of every Sunday
school teacher as well as of the Secularist; and what is more to
the point, the Sunday school teacher may make a claim of
priority to this teaching. The fifth teaching that disbelief may
be as much a matter of honest conviction as positive belief makes
against Secularism as much as against Catholicism.
As
for persecution, it is not now upheld in this free country.
And as for the prejudice which Mr. Watts has against “ alleged
supernaturalism,” that would doubtless be allayed if he would
but persist in making a closer study into the deepest of these
problems. The dividing line between the natural and the
supernatural was always an arbitrary one, and is now scarcely
recognized. What more natural than thought ? What more
supernatural than the existence of the thinker ? The “ golden
rule” and the rule for domestic government make up the ten
teachings of Secularism ? The body of these teachings is
accepted by all ? They are chiefly more or less crudely expressed
tenets ef an ethical system which is recognized by the majority,
and to which Secularism can make no special claim.
Nor is there any novelty in the basis of Secularism, which is
defined as the exercise of “ the right to entertain any opinions
that commend themselves to the honest and earnest searcher.”
That is, in exactly the same sense, the basis of politics, of
journalism, of digging drains or breaking stones. Nor does this
basis find any support in what is here crudely expressed as “a
law of mental science.” No “ law of mental science ” declares
the “ impossibility of uniformity of belief upon theological
questions.” We simply find from experience that men think
differently about the same thing, whether it be theology or the
best methods of drainage.
Nor is “ Secular morality ” more properly so described. The
doctrine, that the end of life consists in the perfection of individual
character and the good of the race, is as much a part of
“ Methodist morality ” as of “ Secular morality.”
Here then is the conclusion of this prolonged investigation.
“Secularism ” Is an arbitrarily selected part of our prevalent
as
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
13
moral beliefs. Such additions as are made are of very dubious
validity. The emendations are made without authority; and
the selections are accepted without evidence. For if evidence
were forthcoming it would be found to make the belief in God
as the belief in the morality of truth or justice. Herein is Mr.
Watts’ dilemma. He accepts in part a system of morality which
all accept; or else Secularism is Scepticism, or Agnosticism, pure
and simple. Scepticism which rejects one portion of our moral
beliefs will find no validity or obligation in the other portions
which Mr. Watts accepts. On the other hand, the evidence by
which Mr. Watts could establish the validity of one portion,
gives a like support to all. Secularism must be either identified
with orthodox morality or with scepticism; it cannot be differ
entiated from them both.
But, Mr. Watts adds, by way of excuse for the anomalous
position which he has assumed, “ the subjects of deity and a
future life Secularism leaves for persons to decide, if possible,
themselves. Being unable to inform, it refuses to dogmatise
upon matters of which it can impart no information. ” But
herein lies the abject weakness of Secularism. Kant has said
that we cannot assume an air of indifference toward God, free
dom of the will, and immortality, which are always of deepest
interest to mankind. Mr. Watts refuses to think of these
problems which are of deepest interest to mankind; so other
men might determine to give up thinking altogether and live the
life of the brutes; but could they expect the majority of man
kind to follow their example ? Secularism refuses to inform us
upon these problems, and very properly so! So might the
sayage refuse to inform us of the moral principles which obtain
even in Mr. Watts’ meagre system of ethics.
In conclusion we scarcely need to ’remind Mr. Watts that it
yet remains for him to establish that Secularism “ is sufficient
to meet the needs of mankind,” a proposition which he has
elected to deal with in his second article. But before entering
upon that discussion it will be pertinent to the enquiry upon
which we have already entered for him to establish the validity
of those ethical principles and teachings which even Secularism
�14
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
is found to uphold. Mr. Watts professes to reject unreservedly
the Theistic system of ethics, and yet holds to certain of these
very same ethical teachings. He can only satisfy the needs of
this discussion by bringing forward evidence of the validity of
these accepted teachings, which evidence must, if he is consistent,
be found to have valid authority, even though the Theistic belief
be utterly rejected.
MR. WATTS’ SECOND ARTICLE.
In times before science had demonstrated the folly of the belief
in witchcraft and in the existence of a peregrinating devil,
there lived, it is said, a great magician.
He claimed to have a
secret by which he could at any moment summon King Beelze
bub and compel him to do his bidding. The magician had an
apprentice who one day listened at the keyhole of his master’s
sanctum, and learned the great secret of raising the Devil. The
next day during the absence of the magician the boy performed
the necessary incantations, and, lo and behold the devil came
up at his bidding. But, horror of horrors ! the boy got terrified
and he wanted his satanic majesty to retire again by the way
he had come. But this could not be accomplished, and the devil
remained, sadly to the discomfort of the poor lad.
This story aptly illustrates the present position of the
Editor of the EvcTt'i'tiQ Alciil in this debate. Enamoured by
certain theological incantations, he probably thought that he
could call forth such definitions that would paralyze the force of
the affirmation of the proposition. But, lo and behold when
the said definitions appeared they so terrified him as to “ perplex
his mind and unnerve his hand,” and he could take no definite
exception to any of them but the first, and with this one he
actually imagined “ difficulties which have for the most part
entirely disappeared before the enlightened thought of these
more modern days.”
My opponent in issuing his challenge to debate this question
very properly made the “demand ” that I should define Secular
ism and give its “ basic element ” ; that I should explain “ reason
�DERATE ON SECULARISM.
15
as distinguished from intuition and from experience ”; that I
should present a “statement of the ethical teachings of Secularism,
and the grounds of their validity.” Furthermore, he requested
a specification of the interpretation to be placed upon the terms
“ sufficient ” and “ needs.” To these fair requirements I readily
acceded in my opening article. Unfortunately, however, in doing
so I failed to please my opponent. Frankly, this did not surprise
me; still, it might, perhaps, have been more dignified on his
part if, instead of finding so much fault with my style of writing,
he had tried to answer my arguments.
According to my opponent I do not understand Secularism.
He says that “ beyond a doubt ” I have not a clear and com
prehensive conception ” of Secular tenets; and he charges me
with “ repetitions,” ignoring the fact that he does the same thing
himself in repeating, in almost the same words, this very charge.
But it is significant that he does not once make an effort to sub
stantiate his allegation; neither does he offer any other definition
of Secularism than the one given by me. In a debate of this kind
mere assertion is not enough, therefore, I await the proof for the
statement that “ Mr. Watts is in the unfortunate predicament of
having no clear or definite conception of his own beliefs.” It
•may also strengthen my opponent’s position if he can verify his
assertion that the Secular teachings which I mentioned “ differ
more or less,” from the Secular principles as “officially taught.”
The gentleman is also premature in charging me with affirming
that “the Secularist faith is based on a faculty of the mind.”
The term “ mind ” is not used by me in any of my definitions,
but as my opponent has introduced the word perhaps he will
define in what sense he employs it, and then I may deal with
his exclamation, “ As if a faith, which is supposed to satisfy
all human needs, could be based on a faculty of mind ! ” We are
next told that Experience and Intuition are terms that had
hitherto “been utterly foreign to the controversy,” and yet my
opponent demanded in his challenge that I should define these
very terms. Is not this “verbiage,” and a fair specimen of
“ illogical and labyrinthine meanderings ? ”
As I am pledged to deal in this article with the second part of
�16
DEBATE ON SECULARISM^
our proposition, namely, the sufficiency of Secularism to meet
the needs of mankind, I am compelled to reserve for my third
article a review of my opponent’s remarks upon Secular prin
ciples and teachings. These remarks, though bearing “ the
stamp of sincerity,” appear to me to be exceedingly “ laboured,
vague, and tautological.”
In order that I may not misrepresent the position of my no
doubt well-intentioned antagonist when I further reply to his
criticism, will he kindly answer in his next article the following
questions ? (1) Does the first Secular principle necessarily involve
the “ assumption ” that there is no future life ? (2) What better
guide is known for human conduct than that which Secularism
offers ? (3) Where does Secularism teach that “ knowledge and
justice alone ” are sufficient to promote the welfare of society ?
(4) What does my opponent understand by the term “ expedi
ency moralists ” ? (5) In what part of Christian morality is it
taught that any or all of the theological systems of the world
can be rejected by the honest searcher for truth, without his in
curring the risk of punishment hereafter ? (6) In what way *
does the fifth Secular teaching, as given in my previous article,
“ make against Secularism ” ? (7) What evidence is there that
the “ existence of the thinker is supernatural ” ? (8) Did Kant .
admit that by reason the existence of God and the belief in im
mortality could be demonstrated ? (9) Where is the proof that
" Mr. Watts refuses to think of these problems ” ?
I am requested to establish the validity of Secular principles
and teachings. Does not my opponent see that such validity
consists in the necessity and adaptability of Secularism to human
needs ? In the second paragraph of my opening article I men
tioned one fact to prove the necessity of Secular philosophy,
namely, that inasmuch as moral conduct is indispensable to the
well-being of society, Secularism has been found necessary to
enable those persons who could not accept orthodox Christianity
as a guide in mundane affairs to find elsewhere principles to direct
and sustain them in the correct performance of their respective
duties. Upon this point my opponent has hitherto remained
silent.
/
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
17
I will now show in what way Secularism is sufficient to
meet the needs of mankind. What are these needs ?
(1.) Development of Man’s Physical Organisation. This is
regarded by Secularists as being the first important need, inas
much as upon the due observance of the laws of healtend,h dep
not only personal and general physical soundness, but also, to a
large extent, mental vigour and intellectual usefulness. To
satisfy this need Secularism urges the necessity of studying and
adopting the best means possible to secure sound bodies and
pure surroundings. Experience proves that health has obtained
and life has been prolonged, in proportion to practical attention
being given to the facts of science. This truth establishes the
reasonableness of the Secular principle that applied Science is
the Providence of Man.
(2.) Cultivation of our Moral Nature. To put it plainly and
briefly, by moral action we mean the performance of deeds that
will encourage virtue and discourage vice; that will foster
truth, honour, justice, temperance, industry, and fidelity; and
that will enhance the welfare both of the individual and of
society. Secularism teaches that the source of morality is in
human nature, and that its inspiration is in the happiness, pro
gress, and elevation of the human race. Experience furnishes
the means that enable us to judge of the ethical superiority of
some actions over others, and reason is the standard whereby we
can discriminate and judge right from wrong.
(3.) Cultivation of our Intellectuality. Secularism alleges
that such cultivation can be effectually acquired only by the
possession of knowledge and its correct application, which con
stitutes true education. This, as Taine remarks, “ draws out and
disciplines a man ; fills him with varied and rational ideas : pre
vents him from sinking into monomania or being exalted by
transport; gives him determinate thoughts instead of eccentric
fancies, pliable opinions for fixed convictions; replaces impetuous
images by calm reasonings, sudden resolves by the result of re
flection; furnishes us with the wisdom and ideas of others;
gives us conscience and self-command.” Surely such a course of
�18
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
training as this must be admitted to have its source in reason
and to be justified by experience.
(4.) Fostering of domestic happiness. Secularism alleges that
happiness and just contentment in the home are of paramount
importance. Domestic misery destroys the usefulness of indi
viduals, robs life of its sweetest charms, and wrecks the peace
smd comfort of whole families. To avoid this deplorable evil,
Secularism teaches that purity, love, fidelity, mutual confidence,
and connubial equality should reign in every household; that
between husband and wife there should be no claim to superi
ority in their matrimonial relationship; that “ a man possessing
the love of an honourable and intelligent woman has a priceless
treasure, worthy of constant preservation in the casket of his
affections.” It is, therefore, but just that the wife should main
tain her position of equality in the domestic circle, for without
this the blessings of unalloyed happiness and the inestimable
advantages of pure love will never adorn the “ temple of home.”
(5.) Promotion of social harmony. This, according to Secu
larism, consists in the human family living peaceably and amic
ably together upon the principle of the brotherhood of man.
The strong should help the weak, and the wealthy should respect
the interests and rights of the poor. Benevolence and self-sacri
fice should be ever ready to bestow a service when and where
necessity calls for their aid. Personal pleasure should never be
had at the cost of the public good, and the utmost individual
freedom should be granted, provided that in its exercise the rights
of others are not invaded. To fully realize such harmony, there
should be no forced theological belief and no persecution, or
social ostracism, for unbelief. Other things being equal, the sin
cere sceptic should be regarded with the same degree of respect
and fairness as the honest Christian. No one system has all the
truth, and no one religion can command universal assent; there
fore Secularism says that differences of opinion ought never to
be allowed to sever the ties of love andffriendship, or to mar the
usefulness of mutual fellowship and co-operation.
(6) Religions aspirations and emotional gratification. To
meet these needs, Secularism would substitute personal liberty
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
19
for theological dictation. It is not claimed even by theologians
that religious aspirations are uniform in all nations and among
all peoples. Such aspirations depend for their distinctive features
upon climate, organization, birth, and education. They assume
very different forms among the Chinese, the Buddhists, the
Mohammedans, the Jews and the Christians. Recognising this
diversity of feeling, Secularism deems it right that each person
should be permitted to believe or to disbelieve as he feels justi
fied, and to worship or not to worship as his reason dictates.
The Secular motto is, Freedom for all and persecution for none.
The emotional part of human nature is to the Secularist a reality
to be regulated by cultivated reason and to be controlled by
disciplined judgment. Where this is the case pleasure will not
degenerate into licentiousness and religion will not be degraded
into fanaticism.
The affirmation of the proposition under discussion has now
been stated. In the remaining two articles which by arrange
ment I am to write, my duty will be to analyse my opponent’s
objections to Secular philosophy, and in doing so (to use my
opponent’s words), my object will be “ not to raise mere quibbles,,
.... but rather to tear aside the covering of antiquated verbiage
with which ” the Editor of the Evening Mail “ has cloaked his
views, and to consider these, carefully yet courteously, in all their
naked reality.”
THE EDITOR OF THE “EVENING MAIL’S” SECOND ARTICLE
IN REPLY TO CHARLES WATTS.
It will have been made clear to thoughtful readers of the pre
ceding articles that, stripped of all extraneous matter, the vital
issues at stake in this discussion are those which Mr. Watts has
deemed it expedient to avoid as much as possible in his second
contribution to the controversy. At the same time, our opponent
manifests an altogether undue anxiety to win unmerited prestige
by intimating that in calling him forth from the quietude of his
sanctum we have succeeded in “ raising the Devil.” We were
very suspicious at the outset, and this second article has only
�20
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
served to confirm the impression, that Mr. Watts is a far less for
midable adversary. For, if the traditions brought down from
the olden times may be relied upon as accurate, his satanic
majesty, though equally clever at begging the question, had
nevertheless the courage of his convictions, and was withal ever
.ready to give a plausible reason for the faith that was in him.
Without being intentionally offensive, we must confess at the
outset that Mr. Watts appears to have coloured the whole reli
gious, moral and social life of man with the false light of his
own personal prejudices. He appears most apprehensive lest his
free expression of opinion should subject him to religious perse
cution, to moral obloquy or to social ostracism. While sym
pathizing deeply with Mr. Watts, if it has been his misfortune
to experience such indignities, we may declare at the outset that
for the sincere seeker after truth, no matter where his investi
gations may lead him, we entertain the most profound respect.
Though educated in the Christian faith, we have the same
respect for Francis Newman, whose deep erudition drove him
into scepticism, as for his brother, John Henry Newman, whose
equally undoubted conscientiousness and profundity of thought
drew him within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church.
Secularism, as somewhat crudely defined by Mr. Watts, em
braces nothing more than a few arbitrarily selected tenets of our
prevailing moral beliefs. Christianity finds the authority and
validity of its ethical code, and an explanation of the personal
obligation of man, his sense of duty, in the existence of a per
sonal and intelligent God, who has a purpose concerning man, in
accord with which he has committed to man’s care an immortal
soul, a personality and consciousness that survive the death of
the body. The Christian religion which prescribes these ethical
teachings as the direct commands of God, gives a meaning to
this sense of duty, of personal obligation, by directly appealing
to our fear, our hope, our love, the most potent passions of the
human heart. Secularism, on the other hand, says Mr. Watts,
assumes the attitude of Agnosticism, neither affirming nor deny
ing the existence of God nor the immortality of the soul. In a
word, it declares that there is no evidence for such beliefs; and
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
21
therefore the moral code which Secularism arbitrarily selects
from the Christian code is by that affirmation denied the author
ity for its validity which Christianity finds in the Theistic belief.
Secularism Mr. Watts has defined as “embodying a philosophy
of life and inculcating rules of conduct which have no necessary
association with any system of theology.” If we would question
the authority of this Secularist code of morals, we are told by
Mr. Watts that “ the sanctions of and incentives to ethical culture
are the protection and improvement both of the individual and
of the community.”
So far as morality is concerned, Mr. Watts practically denies
the existence of God, at least he would exclude all such consider
ations from the discussion of his fragmentary moral code, and
would find in considerations alone affecting the well-being of
society and of the individual, the meaning and authority of
duty which Secularism declines to derive from theologic religion.
On first analysis it will be found that the underlying assumption
here is that society is constantly improving and approaching
perfection; and that this consummation, devoutly to be wished,
is sufficient to incite men to live moral lives, purely from a desire
to accomplish this end. But Professor Huxley, the leader of this
Agnostic school, has himself shown that this theory is wholly
inadequate and ineffective. Instead of finding such progress
exemplified in history as would incite men to worship humanity,
to live for humanity for humanity’s sake, the results of his study
are declared by himself to have proved unutterably saddening;
and, whatever their real merits may be, his words will doubtless
have due weight with Mr. Watts:
“ Out of the darkness of pre-historic ages man emerges with
the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a brute,
only more intelligent than the other brutes; a blind prey to im
pulses which, as often as not, lead him to destruction; a victim
to endless illusions which, as often as not, make his mental exist
ence a terror and a burden, and fill his physical life with barren
toil and battle. He attains a certain degree of physical comfort,
and develops a more or less workable theory of life, in such
favourable situations as the plains of Mesopotamia or Egypt, and
then, for thousands and thousansd of years, struggles with vary-
�‘22
DEBATE ON SECULARISM,
ing fortunes, attended by infinite wickedness, bloodshed and
misery, to. maintain himself at this point against the greed and
the ambition of his fellow-men. He makes a point of killing or
otherwise persecuting all those who try to get him to move on;
and when he has moved on a step foolishly confers post-mortem
deification on his victims. He exactly repeats the process with
all who want to move a step yet further. And the best men of
the best epoch are simply, those who make the fewest blunders
and commit the fewest sins.....................I know of no study so
unutteiably saddening as that of the evolution of humanity as
it is set forth in the annals of history 5 . . . . £and] when the
Positivists order men to worship Humanity—that is to say, to
®,dore the generalized conception of men, as they ever have been,
and probably ever will be—I must reply that I could just as
soon bow down and worship the generalized conception of a
‘ wilderness of apes.’ ”
But let us admit that from a scientific study of the history of
mankind—in a word, that from human experience it has been
ascertained that certain lines of conduct must be adhered to in
order to conserve the best interests of society as a whole. Society
may enact certain laws embodying that code of morals, and affix
pains and penalties for their transgression ; yet our conception
of the necessity for such laws is very different indeed from our
sense of duty, of personal obligation to pursue a certain line of
conduct in strict conformity with them. The “ must ” and the
“ ought ” are nowise identical. Passive obedience to an external
law differs altogether from a voluntary and active obedience to
a law that is internal. The Secularist fails utterly to give any
satisfactory account of duty; and we make bold to assert that
no satisfactory account ever has been found beyond the pale of
Theism.
But before proceeding further we must congratulate Mr. Watts
upon having radically improved his Secularist code since the
composition of his first article. Benevolence and self-sacrifice
have now for the first time in the discussion found a place among
the Secularist virtues. The Secularist code is without doubt ap
proaching completeness ! To Mr. Watts some credit is due for
having accepted the Christian code as his own, even though his
ethical system is deficient in all that energises and ennobles its
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
prototype. Does Mr. Watts deny that his is, in the main, the
Christian code ? We repeat, as an historical fact, that Christian
teaching first stamped benevolence and self-sacrifice upon the
moral consciousness of the race. It was Christ who first taught >
that he who loseth his life shall find it, that life should consist not in getting for self but in doing for others. For the duty of
benevolence and self-sacrifice, Secularism has, and can find, no
satisfactory explanation. Acting the part of an intellectual
Ananias it cloaks itself in the garb of Christian ethics, while.
dishonestly refusing to pay the only possible price, belief in the
existence of God, the moral ruler of the universe. Secularism
virtually admits that we ought to do something which many
leave undone, and which involves in the doing a painful struggle,
amounting even to self-sacrifice to do. We enquire, when and
why should we undertake this struggle ? Whenever necessity
calls, says Mr. Watts. Which merely amounts to the declaration
that when it is necessary that others should be happy, it is ne
cessary that I should be miserable. But of this necessity Secu
larism gives no satisfactory explanation ! On the one hand is
the way of self-indulgence and of pleasure, on the other the way
of pain and struggle, self-sacrifice, yea, even to the death. Though
human experience may say that it is necessary for the good of
the race that I should follow the path of pain, yet Secularism
leaves unexplained the crucial mystery—that I feel that I ought
to follow this path, not for the public good so much as for my
own good—that though in the struggle I lose my life I shall
nevertheless find it again. The mystery of that word “ ought ”
has never yet been fully explained outside the pale of Christen
dom. Secularism, profiting from prevalent Christian teaching,
may point out what its duties are ; but it fails utterly to create
an all-powerful desire to do them.
And just here it is admissible to revert to a question which Mr.
Watts propounds: “ Did Kant admit that by reason the existence
of God and the belief in immortality can be demonstrated ? ”
Certainly not. He did not admit that these facts could be de
monstrated any more than that the law of the uniformity of
nature can be demonstrated, or than Mr. Watts can demonstrate
�24
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
that his own father once had an existence. Mr. Watts must
know that he cannot, without making a vital assumption, demon
strate to me the fact of his own existence. All existence is
supernatural; phenomena, as made known to the consciousness
through the senses, is alone natural. What Kant did admit is
briefly this: “ My moral nature is such—I possess such a sense
of obligation and feel such imperious calls to holiness—that
unless there be a God and an immortality of the soul I can find
no explanation for it.” Nor does such a method of demonstra
tion differ essentially from that pursued by the natural scientist.
Prof. Huxley has told us that from the nature of ratiocination
it is obvious that it must start from axioms which cannot be
demonstrated by ratiocination, and that in science it must start
from “ one great act of faith ”—faith in the uniformity of
nature.
“ If there be a physical necessity,” says he, “ it is that a stone
unsupported must fall to the ground. But what is all that we
know and can know about this phenomena ? Simply that in all
human experience stones have fallen to the ground under these
conditions; that we have not the smallest reason for believing
that any stone so circumstanced will not fall to the ground ; and
that we have, on the contrary, every reason to believe that it
will so fall.”
From the experience of a stone falling we, by “ one great act
of faith ” in the uniformity of nature, a belief that is neither
demonstrated nor demonstrable, we reach the law of gravitation,
an axiom of natural science. The scientist finds that only by
assuming the fact of the uniformity of nature by this “ one
great act of faith,” can the universe of nature be satisfactorilyexplained. Theologic Religion, to use the pertinent words of
W. H. Malock, replies in like manner : “ And I, too, start with
faith in one thing. I start with a faith which you, too, profess
to hold—faith in the meaning of duty and the infinite import
ance of human life ; and out of that faith my whole fabric of
certainties, one after the other, is reared by the hand of reason.
Do you ask for verification ? I can give you one only which you
may take or leave as you choose. Deny the certainties which I
declare to be certain—deny the existence of God, man’s freedom
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
25-
and immortality, and by no other conceivable hypothesis can you
vindicate for man’s life any possible meaning, or save it from the
degradation at which you profess to feel so aghast.” There is
no other way by which the dignity of life may be vindicated!
Our beliefs in the existence of God and in the immortality of
the soul are facts ascertained by the same method and accepted
for the same necessary reasons, and by an act of faith, in like
manner as the law of the uniformity of nature is ascertained
and accepted.
If Secularism accepts the teachings of natural science, it is only
by exercising Huxley’s “great act of faith.” This Christian law
of self-sacrifice which Secularism enjoins, finds its validity and
authority only in a similar act of faith. Does not all meta
physics serve to show that the belief in the existence of nature,
as well as in our own existence, rests on a similar act of faith ?
In fact, no less profound a philosopher than Berkeley has said
“ I see God as truly as I see my neighbour.” What I know
is that I have certain sensations which I call sights and sounds..
What I infer or reason is the existence of a being—my neigh
bour. In fact, does not that very act of reason rest upon the
assumption, an ultimate unreasoned fact, of the existence of my
self ? It is precisely here in self-consciousness, that Descartes,
Sir William Hamilton' Jacobi, and others, have found the
fulcrum for the demonstration of the divine existence. In like
manner by faith alone we choose the right and shun the wrong.
I see that A is higher and better than B, and has the right to
me; and I surrender myself to it in reverential obedience,
though no science proves it, or no expediency makes it a duty
to me. By faith alone Mr. Watts accepts the teachings of
natural science. By faith alone can he accept the Christian law
of self-sacrifice. What we demand to know now is, by what
authority and on what evidence Mr. Watts would thus determine
and limit the bounds of faith to science and to Secularist
morality ?
To Mr. Watts’ general description of the needs of mankind
we are not disposed to take special exception. Man’s physical
needs no doubt find their satisfaction in food, drink, sleep, exer
�26
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
cise, etc,
Man’s intellectual needs find their satisfaction in
science, that is, knowledge in its widest signification. Man’s
aesthetic needs find their satisfaction in art. Man’s social and
political needs find their satisfaction in the family, in society,
and in the state. Man’s moral needs find satisfaction in right
living. Man’s religious needs are satisfied by religion. But the
significant fact is that Secularism, which has proposed to satisfy
all the needs of mankind, finds no place in Mr. Watts’ category.
In our opinion the omission is clearly vindicated by the fact that
Secularism, as a distinct form of science, or as a distinct faith,
has no proper place, either in the economy of knowledge or in
the economy of religion. To declare that Secularism can satisfy
our religious aspirations, and gratify our religious emotions, is
an obvious disregard for the meaning of the terms. A man’s
clothes may remain after his body has mouldered away, but
religious emotions, apart from a belief in God, are but the shrouds
of a ghost. The laws of heredity may transmit them to the
second or third generation, yet, except their object be revived,
their ultimate extinction is inevitable. But are we to understand
that Mr. Watts would substitute Secularism for theologic religion?
With equal authority and no less presumption would another
substitute sensuality for science. For a truth, our intellectual
needs require for their satisfaction the focussing of the results of
all science, of all knowledge. Such satisfaction theologic religion
supplies in the conception of God. This is the ultimate intellec
tual principle as the law of gravitation is the ultimate physical
principle. Secularism accepts the latter, but it utterly destroys
its usefulness in rejecting the first.
MR. WATTS’ THIRD ARTICLE.
In my last article, being anxious to give my reasons for affirming
the latter clause of the proposition in debate, I was necessitated
through the limited space at my disposal to omit a reply to many
of the criticisms offered by the Editor of the Evening Mail in
his first article. The reader is particularly requested to again
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
27
read that article and then note my answer here given. For the
sake of brevity the paragraphs containing the criticisms will be
taken in order. First, as to what my opponent has said upon
Secular principles:—
1. Herein there is no “ assumption,” but a definite declaration
“ that the present life is the only one of which we have any
knowledge.” If my opponent possess a knowledge of another
life, I shall be glad to ascertain what it is. The existence of
belief upon this subject is not denied ; but many persons are un
able to discover sufficient evidence to justify their acceptance of
such belief. If to some individuals the doctrine of immortality
appears true, Secularism does not interfere with their convictions.
The “ validity ” of our claim that the “ concerns of this life ”
should command “our earnest attention” consists in the fact
that its duties are known and their results are apparent in this
world; whereas, if there be a future existence, its duties and
results can only be understood in a “ world that is to come.”
Our•“ obligation ” to live is derived from the fact, that being here
and being recipients of certain advantages from society, we deem
it a duty to l'epay by life-service the benefits thus received. To
avoid this obligation either by self-destruction, or by any other
means, except driven to such a course by “ irresistible forces,”
would be, in our opinion, cowardly and unjustifiable.
2. It is true that “ reason alone is not the sole basis ” of the
Secularist’s guide; hence, we avail ourselves of the aid of experi
ence allied with moral and intellectual culture. The “ evidence ”
that these constitute, although not a perfect guide, the best
known to us, is shown in the absence of a better one. If my op
ponent is aware of a guide that is superior to the one we offer,
let him mention it, but until he does we are justified in claiming
ours as the “ best.”
3. By “ duty ” we mean an obligation to perform actions that
have a tendency to promote the welfare of others, as well as that
of ourselves. The phrase “ self-imposed duties ” is not mine.
Obligations are imposed upon us by the very nature of things
and the requirements of society.
4. Secular principles nowhere teach that “ knowledge and
�28
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
justice are alone sufficient” to secure the well-being of the indi
vidual and society. I have never made such an assertion either
in this or in any other debate. Certainly, benevolence and
self-sacrifice are, as Secularism teaches, sometimes “ essentials ”
in the battle of life.
5. The “ validity ” of this principle appears to me to be ex
ceedingly clear, in the fact that actions which conduce to general
and personal improvement must be a benefit to the human race.
All modern legislation that is approved by the general public is
based upon the usefulness of actions. Even Christ is said in the
New Testament to have taught a similar principle. [See Matt.
7 : 16-20 : 25 : 34-40; 1 Tim. 1: 8.] To borrow an idea from
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, that which is good both for the
swarm and for the bee must be of reasonable service to the com
munity, and, inasmuch as the fifth Secular principle inculcates
such service, it is “ based on reason.”
6. No doubt it depends upon “ the nature of the man” as to
how far scientific appliances “ are complete and satisfactory.”
This is one reason why Secularists recognise the necessity of
moral and intellectual cultivation. It enables individuals the
better to receive the application of science. Secularism does not
by any means recommend the regulation of life by “ Hottentot
morality,” with which science has little or nothing to do. The
Hottentot is a specimen of the influence of some other <c Provi
dence ” than that of science.
So much for my opponent’s criticism of Secular principles.
Now, as to his comments upon our teachings in the same article.
1. The Secular “ obligation to speak the truth ” is obtained
from experience, which teaches that lying and deceit tend to
destroy that confidence between man and man which has been
found to be necessary to maintain the stability of mutual societarian intercourse. It would indeed “ surprise ” me to find that
the same reason makes it an “ obligation to believe in the exist
ence of God.” Truth fortunately is not the monopoly of Theism.
2. If it could be shown that Secular teachings were “ not new
to Christian morality,” it would not thereby invalidate their
force from a Secular standpoint. It should be remembered that
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
29
Secularism is eclectic, and selects from many sources whatever is
good or useful. The truth is, however, that Secular teachings
numbered four, five, six, eight and ten are not only “ new to
Christianity,” but they are the very opposite to what is taught
by orthodox Christians.
3. Of course it may be “ disputed that actions are of more
consequence than beliefs; ” but to dispute a fact does not neces
sarily destroy it. While “ beliefs may be the ultimate source of
actions,” it is the actions, nevertheless, that affect society.
4. True, the proverb that “ prevention is better than cure ” is
no “ Secular novelty.” Secularism adopts that which experience
has proved to be useful rather than that which is novel.
5. If persecution “ is not now upheld in this free country,” it
is because the Secular tendencies of the age will not permit it.
Where the Church has the power, even now, it practises perse
cution, as my opponent would speedily discover were he a
Secular propagandist. If he has any doubt upon this point,
numerous instances can be given him where unbelievers in
Christianity in this “ free country ” have had to encounter a
variety of petty acts of persecution in consequence of their hold
ing heretical opinions. Not long since in Halifax, where my
opponent resides, efforts were made by the Christian party to
prevent me having a hall to lecture in.
6. I admit that “ thought is natural,” but again I ask for evi
dence that the “ thinker is supernatural.” Why does my opponent
remain silent upon this point, introduced by himself ?
7. Exception is taken to my phrase, “ law of mental science,”
but my opponent admits the very point for which I contend in
this matter. He says experience teaches “ that men think dif
ferently about the same thing.” Exactly, and from the same
monitor, assisted by the process of reasoning, we learn that uni
formity of opinion is impossible, and why it is so, and this con
stitutes a part of “ mental science.” The philosophy of Secularism
comes in here and says all honest and intelligent opinions
should be welcomed as an advantage, and no penalty for unbelief
should be inflicted either in this or in any other world.
8. It is misleading to assert, as my opponent does, that, accord
�30
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
ing to Methodist morality, “ the end of life ” is human improve
ment. Methodism goes farther than this and teaches that the
true object of life is to secure the belief in and hope of a future
life of blissful immortality. It also inculcates that mundane
affairs are only to be regarded as being of secondary importance.
For such teachings the Methodists have the sanction of the NewTestament. [See Matt. 6 : 19-25, 31-34; 16 : 26 ; Col. 3:2; 1
John 2: 15.]
9. In the application of the eclectic process to existing systems
of morality, “ Mr. Watts’ dilemma ” is not apparent. He does
“ accept in part a system of morality which all [many] accept.”
The validity of such selection is found in its usefulness, while
the invalidity of the portions he rejects is discovered in their
uselessness, and in some instances their positively injurious
character for the practical purposes of life.
10. Mr. Watts does not “ refuse to think ” of the problems of
the existence of God and a future state. He has thought of
these subjects seriously and impartially for nearly forty years,
and as a result he has come to the conclusion that the Secular
position in reference to both questions is the logical one. Being
unable to inform, Secularism does refuse to dogmatise upon
matters in reference to which it can impart no information, and
for the same reason as my opponent’s “ savage ” would “ refuse ”
to inform us of the moral principle, namely, that he knows
nothing about it, although the said savage belongs to a race said
to have been created “ in the image of God.” The position of the
Secularist here is that of the Agnostic: he neither affirms nor
denies, and in not denying the Secularist remains open to con
viction, being ever ready to receive whatever evidence may be
forthcoming. In the meantime, if there be a God of love and of
justice, and a desirable immortality, Secularism prescribes such a
course of action during life as should win the approval of the
one and secure the advantages of the other.
We now come to the consideration of the last article by the
editor of the Evening Mail, and without “ being intentionally
offensive,” I “ must confess ” that, as a controversial document it
is exceedingly defective, being very assertive and, in many in
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
31
stances, irrelevant to the proposition under discussion. I was
“ very suspicious at the outset ” that in his opposition to Secu
larism my opponent would not prove a's formidable adversary,”
and his “ second article has only served to confirm the impres
sion.” It is rather difficult to decide which is the more conspicu
ous in his “ reply,” his sins of omission or those of commission.
The attentive readers of this debate are requested to note the
persistent silence of my opponent in reference to most of the
questions put to him in my last article. The questions there
submitted involved “ the vital issues at stake in this discussion,”
and yet he has avoided noticing nearly the whole of them. Has
he discovered that silence is the better part of valour ? In my
previous article, paragraph four, proof was requested of the
assertion that I had misrepresented Secularism, and that its
teachings differed from its principles; a definition was also soli
cited of the term “ mind in the sixth paragraph, nine import
ant questions were submitted; and in paragraph seven, proof was
given of the validity of Secular principles. To all these, with
two exceptions, be it observed, ray opponent has not even at
tempted a reply.
Instead of grappling with “ the vital issues at stake,” what
has my opponent done ? After a misapplication of the incident
of “ raising the Devil,” and a few, probably unintentional, mis
representations, he indulges in some well-known Theistic and
Christian platitudes, which by his own request should have been
excluded from this debate. As to the jest of “ raising the Devil,”
if my opponent will again read my application of the story, he
may see that the monarch of the lower regions was not induced
to appear through my being called from my sanctum, but in con
sequence of the force of the definitions that were presented at
the command of my antagonist. This slight correction, to use a
humorous phrase, “ plays the devil ” with what no doubt was
intended by my opponent to be a harmless joke. True, I am a
“less formidable adversary” than his “ Satanic Majesty,” for “if
the traditions brought down from the olden times may be relied
upon as accurate,” that gentleman would have soon settled the
Editor of the Mail, by giving him a warm reception in apart
�-82
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
ments where he would have had no opportunity for cool reflection
upon the errors he had made and the shortcomings that he had
manifested.
But, to be serious. Will my opponent name what “ extraneous
matter ” has been introduced into this debate upon my part, and
wherein I have “ deemed it expedient to avoid as much as pos
sible ” the “ issues at stake.” Will he also state in what part of
my last article I appeared apprehensive lest my free expression
of opinion should subject me “ to religious persecution,” etc. ? It
must be repeated that proof, not mere groundless assertion, is
required in debate. Perhaps, when my antagonist penned these
allegations, he was not quite free from the influence of the “ arch
deceiver.”
It is to be regretted that my opponent, in his last article, did
not confine himself to Secularism, as he agreed to do. In his
original challenge to debate with me he wrote : “ Secularism, and
not Christianity, is on trial before the bar of public opinion, and
it is obviuosly out of place to introduce irrelevant discussions of
the merits or demerits of Christianity,” etc. {Evening Mail, July
16th, 1889.] It would be interesting to learn why this change
of front has taken place. Let it be distinctly understood that I
have not the slightest objection to discuss the irrelevant matter
that has been introduced by my opponent, at the proper time.
At present, my business is to show the reasonableness and suffi
ciency of Secularism. When this debate is finished I shall be
ready to do my best to demonstrate that Christianity is thor
oughly unreasonable and quite inadequate to meet the modern
needs of mankind; also that Agnosticism is preferable to Chris
tian Theism. If my opponent, or any of his representative
colleagues, will accept an invitation to discuss these two ques
tions, either orally or in writing, I am at their service. Nothing
would be more easy, in such a debate, than for one to prove the
complete fallacy of the supposed validity of the Christian’s
ethical code, that the obligation of man and his sense of duty
find an explanation in the “ direct commands of God,” and the
very reckless statement that “ Christian teaching first stamped
benevolence and self-sacrifice upon the moral consciousness of the
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
33
race.” There is not a particle of truth in these wild assertions,
and to me it is marvellous how any man of intelligence could
entertain such palpable delusions.
My opponent says that Secularism teaches that, because society
is constantly improving, “ this is sufficient to incite men to live
moral lives.” Secularism enjoins more than this, namely, that
during the process of improvement truth, justice, love, and ethi
cal purity should adorn men’s lives. Such nobility of character
would enable us to make the best of this life, and at the same
time to secure the felicity of a future life if there be one.
I perfectly agree with the point that Prof. Huxley enforces in
the extract given by my opponent. What the Professor says is
no argument against Secularism, but it rather tells against
Theism. Furthermore, the Professor contends in his works,—
his “ Lay Sermons,” for instance,—that during the progress of
the human race theology and orthodox teachings have been a
mighty obstacle to its onward career.
I have already given the Secularist’s account of duty, and
when my opponent asserts “ that no satisfactory account ever has
been found beyond the pale of Theism,” he repeats an orthodox
error which has been discarded long since by the leaders of
modern thought. Duty involves morality, and it has been ad
mitted again and again, even by eminent Christians, that the
moral actions of a man do not necessarily depend on his belief in
God. Atheists have been and are as good and useful members
of society as Theists. Jeremy Taylor, Blair, Hooker, and Chal
mers have all admitted that it is possible for a man to be moral
independently of any religious belief; and the Bishop of Here
ford, in his Bampton Lectures, says : “ The principles of morality
are founded in our nature independently of any religious belief,
«!,nd are, in fact, obligatory even upon the Atheist.”
As to the word “ ought.” The only explanation orthodox
Christianity gives to this term is pure selfishness. It says you
“ ought ” to do so and so for “ Christ’s sake,” that through him
you may avoid eternal perdition. On the other hand, Secularism
finds the meaning of “ ought ” in the very nature of things, as
involving duty, and implying that something is due to others.
�34
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
As Mr. J. M. Savage aptly puts it: “ Man ought—what ?—ouo-ht
to fulfil the highest possibility of his being; ought to be a man •
ought to be all and the highest that being a man implies. Why ?
That is his nature. He ought to fulfil the highest possibilities
of his being; ought not simply to be an animal. Why ? Because
there is something in him more than an animal. He ought not
simply to be a brain, a thinking machine, although he ought to
be that. Why ? Because that does not exhaust the possibilities
of his nature: he is capable of being something more, something
fhigher than a brain. We say he ought to be a moral being.
Why ? Because it is living out his nature to be a moral being.
He ought to live as high, grand, and complete a life as it is pos
sible for him to live, and he ought to stand in such relation to
his fellow-men that he shall aid them in doing the same. Why ?
Just the same as in all these other cases : because this and this
only is developing the full and complete stature of a man, and
he is not a man in the highest, truest, deepest sense of the word
.until he is that and does that; he is only a fragment of a man
■so long as he is less and lower.”
Of course Secularists accept the “one great act of faith,”
because experience teaches the necessity of such. There is, how•ever, this great difference between Secular and theologic faith,
the one is based upon experience and the other on conjecture,
the one upon what we know and the other upon what we
surmise. Secularism accepts the first for the reason that it has
an experimental basis for its “ authority ” and utilitarian “ evi
dence ” as to its results.
From a Secularistic standpoint sensuality could not be substi
tuted for science “ with equal authority ” that Secularism could
be put in the place of theologic religion. Sensuality encourages
the lowest of human passions which are injurious to society,
while Secularism fosters the noblest aspirations of our nature,
which are beneficial to the general good of all.
My opponent’s objections to Secularism have now been
answered, and an invitation has been tendered him to discuss his
system based on Christianity and Theism. It remains for him
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
to accept or to refuse the opportunity now offered him to defend
his faith, as I have endeavoured to defend mine.
THE EDITOR OF THE “EVENING MAIL’S” THIRD AND LAST
REPLY TO CHARLES WATTS.
Although the Evening Mail had considered this debate at an
end in view of Mr. Watts’ delay in replying to our last article
(Sept. 6th) it is nevertheless with pleasure that we publish his
reply at this late date, more especially as we are personally
■assured that the delay on his part was owing to unavoidable
circumstances.
In the limited space at our disposal it would not be possible
and probably not profitable, to follow out every side issue that
may perchance have been raised during this discussion, though
we will endeavor to pay due attention to those of Mr. Watts’
arguments which are not altogether irrelevant to the vital ques
tion : Is Secularism sufficient to satisfy the needs of mankind ?
Mr. G. J. Holyoake is quoted by Mr. Watts in his second article
as saying :
“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 in
it, else it would never exist. . . . We have no wants and wish to
have none which truth will not satisfy.”
But this is merely reasoning in a circle in the first instance
and begging the question in the second. When Secularism is
boldly offered to the Christian world as a substitute for preva
lent religious beliefs, with the express declaration that “Secular
ism is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind,” it is an obvious
avoidance of the issue to meet the doubting enquirer with an
illogical argument such as this :
Every system meets the wants of those who believe in it, else it
would not exist.
Secularism is an existing system.
Therefore Secularism is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind
�36
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
This is obviously a non sequitur. It would be quite as conelusive to assert that:
Buddhism is an existing system.
Therefore Buddhism is sufficient to meet the needs of man
kind.
Or to syllogise thus :
Every system meets the wants of those who believe in it.
Die Schopenhauerische Philosophio is a system.
Therefore Schopenhauer’s pessimism is sufficient to meet.the
needs of mankind.
In the second instance, the reasoning of my Secularist friend
is equally inconclusive, involving as it does a glaring petitio
principii such as this :
Truth will satisfy all the wants (needs?) which we have in the
present or wish to have in the future.
Secularism is Truth.
Therefore Secularism will satisfy all our needs.
Yet it is obvious at a glance that right here Messrs. Holyoake
and Watts make the unwarranted assumption that Secularism is
Truth—the very point at issue. For what we demand to know
at the outset is, by what criterion can the Secularist discriminate
between the true and the false, in order that we, by this same
standard, may measure the truth or the falsity of Secularist prin
ciples and teachings ?
Again, when pressed on this point, Mr. Watts replies in his
second article:
I am requested to establish the validity of Secular ■ principles
and teachings. Does not my opponent see that such validity consists
in the necessity and adaptability of Secularism to human needs ? In
the second paragraph of my opening article I mentioned one fact to
prove the necessity of Secular philosophy, namely, inasmuch as moral
conduct is indispensable to the well-being of society, Secularism has
been found necessary to enable those persons who could not accept
orthodox Christianity as a guide in mundane affairs to find elsewhere
principles to direct and sustain them in the correct performance of
iheir respective duties. Upon this point my opponent has hitherto
remained silent.”
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
ST
This reasoning is far from conclusive. The argument em
ployed by Mr. Watts resolves itself into a syllogism such as the
following:
Moral conduct -is indispensable to the well-being of society.
Orthodox Christianity cannot be accepted by a society of Secu
larists, so-called, as a moral guide to direct and sustain them
in the correct discharge of their duties—i. e. in moral con
duct.
Therefore the teachings and principles of Secularism are suffi
cient to satisfy all human needs.
Or: Therefore orthodox Christianity should forswear its beliefs
and accept Secularism as a guide to moral conduct.
The Secularist argument might also be stated thus:
A body, called Secularists, have accepted certain principles and
teachings as their guide to all moral conduct.
Moral conduct is indispensable to the well-being of society.
Therefore, all members of society should embrace the Secularist
guide.
So, we repeat, with equal authority- and no less presumption,
might a South African native contend that Hottentot modes of
■life and Hottentot morality are sufficient to satisfy the needs of
this nineteenth century civilisation.
Now, we desire it to be clearly understood that we do not seek
to disparage the motives of any body of men who, finding that
they can no longer accept Christianity and its doctrinal teach
ings, and yet conscious that “moral conduct is indispensable to
the well-being of society,” resolve, after due consideration, to
place before themselves certain “principles to direct and sustain
in the correct performance of their respective duties.” In one of
his early discourses with Charles Bradlaugh, Mr. Holyoake, to
whom Secularism owes its name, admits that he was not unin
fluenced by such considerations of expediency in formulating the
Secularist principles and teachings. He said :
“ They were principles which we had acquired by the slow accretion
■of controversy, by contesting for them from platform to platform all
over the country; and, when they were drawn up, I submitted them
�88
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
in the aggregate form, many years after they had been separately for
mulated, to Mr. J. S. Mill, and asked him whether or not, in his judg
ment, we had made such a statement of Secular principles as wereworthy to stand as self-defensive principles of the working class, as an
independent mode of opinion which would no longer involve them in
the necessity of taking on their shoulders the responsibilities of an.
Atheistic or Infidel propagandism, except when it suited the purpose
of a member to do it.”
This desire to protect the working classes against the dire
consequences that too often issue from a rash espousal of Agnos
tic or Atheistic views, which led Mr. Holyoake to formulate a
body of arbitrarily selected principles for their guidance in tho
correct performance of certain duties, was without doubt a
commendable one. And so long as the Secularists confine their
energies to constructive efforts of this nature, we heartily wish
them “ God speed ! ” Though their methods may be less effi
cacious than those employed by Christian philanthropists, their
efforts in this direction will, though their sphere is circumscribed,
no doubt conserve the interests of morality. But when with a
presumption that is not born of knowledge and discretion,
Secularism impudently declares that its trite teachings—which
were arbitrarily selected and arranged at a particular crisis, to
administer, even though inadequately, to the needs of a limited
class who had been seduced from their early faith—are suf
ficient to meet the intellectual, moral, religious and aesthetic
needs of the whole human race, we may be pardoned if we find
ourselves unable to treat so preposterous a proposition with be
coming seriousness.
However, upon examination of the ten teachings of Secularism
which Mr. Watts has kindly outlined for us in his first article
we were forced to conclude that they were, of themselves, of
slight importance to this controversy, inasmuch as they containvery little that is new to Christian morality, and were chiefly
more or less crudely expressed tenets of an ethical system which
is recognised by the majority of the Christian world, and to
which Secularism can make no special claim. To invalidate-
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
39
this argument, and, ostensibly, to show that Secularism is a,
more excellent system, Mr. Watts retorts that the following five
Secularist teachings are not only new to Christianity but the
very opposite of what is taught by orthodox Christians:
“4. That the best means of securing this improvement (i. e. render
ing depraved conditions impossible) are self-reliance, moral culture,
physical development, intellectual discipline, and whatever else is
found necessary to secure this object provided our actions do not
unjustly and unnecessarily infringe upon the rights of others.”
(Note.—-The capitals are ours.)
“ 5. That the disbelief in Christianity, or in other systems of the
ology, may be as much a matter of honest conviction as the belief in
it or them.”
“ 6. That persecution for disbelieving any or all the doctrines of
theology is a crime against social and an insult to mental freedom.”
“8. That a well spent life, guided and controlled by the highest
possible morality, is the best preparation for a safe and happy
death.”
(Note.—-The capitals are ours.)
“10. That from a domestic standpoint there should be no attempt
at superiority between husband and wife; that equality should be the
emblem of every home; and that the fireside should be hallowed by
mutual fidelity, affection, happiness and the setting of an example
worthy of children’s emulation.”
“ The truth is,” says Air. Watts. “ that Secular teachings
numbered four, five, six, eight and ten are not only new to
Christianity, but that they are the very opposite to what is
taught by orthodox Christians.” Mr. Watts’ statement is worthy
of a denial as emphatic as can courteously be conveyed in the
language of debate. With regard to the 10th teaching of Secu
larism it is only necessary to refer to 1 Cor. 7: 3-4 ; Eph. 5:
22-33; Col. 3 : 18-19 ; Titus 2 : 4-5 ; 1 Peter 3. And if there is
found to be any discrepancy between the teachings of Mr.
Watts and those of Paul, we are disposed to accept the apostle’s,
even on the ground of utility solely. With regard to the 8th
teaching, we need only to say that Christ taught the highest
�40
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
morality. With regard to the 6th, that Christ never counten
anced persecution, except to turn the other cheek when first
smitten on the right! With regard to the 4th, that these virtues
are not only taught, but repentance and forgiveness for past
sins, and pureness of heart and holiness of life are inculcated
by the Christian, and accredited by personal experience, as the
only efficacious means of “rendering depraved conditions im
possible.
The 5th is more difficult of discussion in the limited
space at our disposal. Christ taught no “ system of theology.”
But it is clear that positive disbelief in the cardinal doctrine of
the existence of God, for instance, can never be a matter of
honest conviction. Even though unbelief may, in exceptional
eases, be justified, yet there can be no grounds for positive dis
belief. That there is no God is a negative that is incapable of
proof. The verdict may be that the existence of a God is not
proven; it can never bethat it is disproven. ' Even Mr. Holyoake, of whom Mr. Watts is proud to be known as a disciple,
has admitted (Reasoner xi., 15,232) that “ denying implies in
finite knowledge as to the ground of disproof.” The human
mind may be reduced to the dreary condition of saying “ there
is no knowing whether there be a God or not,” “ it doth not yet
appear.” Yet we repeat that positive, active disbelief in this
cardinal doctrine can never be a matter of honest conviction.
And furthermore it is clear that no sooner does the unbeliever
undertake to undermine the positive Atheistic belief of another
mind than he takes upon himself the terrible responsibility of
presuming to say in his heart that “ there is no God !”
We have thus far examined the five teachings which are alleged
to be “new to Christianity,” and which are, in fact, alleged to
be “ the very opposite to what is taught by orthodox Christians.”
From the analysis which we have made it will appear, we think,
to every reader of ordinary intelligence—that the Secularist
claim that its principles are new to Christianity and opposed to
Christian teaching is utterly untenable, if we except its affirma
tion that disbelief may be an honest conviction—an affirmation
•on the part of Secularism which is a self-evident absurdity. This
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
41
then is the proposition that Secularism makes to Christianity.
“ It is our peculiar glory that we admit to our fold all who deny
the existence of God. Do ye then forswear Christianity, for
swear your positive belief in God, and become partakers with
Atheists of this glory of unbelief !” And to make his meaning
clear, beyond all possibility of doubt, Mr. Watts has closed his
third article with the bald, bold affirmation that Christianily is
quite inadequate to meet the needs of mankind, and that Ag
nosticism is preferable to Christianity ; though the sole claim as
to the superiority of Secularist teachings, is made on the ground
that it recognises positive disbelief. The basis of this strange
and unnatural fellowship between the Theist and the Atheist, the
believer and the infidel, is thus set forth in Mr. Watts’ first
article :
“ Secularism, therefore, does not exact Atheistic profession as the
basis of co-operation. Atheists may be Secularists ■ but it is not con
sidered that a man should accept Atheism to enable him to become a
Secularist. The Secularist platform is sufficiently broad to admit the
fellowship of Atheists or non-orthodox Theists.”
If Secularists who believe in God, actually associate themselves
with Atheists—pardon us if we decline to accept an affirmation
to that effect!—they must be prepared to subject themselves to
the restraints which society in self-preservation is compelled to
place upon the active propagandists of Atheism. For “what
concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that
believeth with an infidel ?” For if Mr. Watts in his definition
of the ‘ basis of Secularism,” and in his declaration in his
second article—that there should be no persecution, or social
ostracism for unbelief—means to assert that society has no right
to protectitself from the hopeless national ruin that the triumph
of Atheism would bring in its train, then we must most em
phatically dissent from his views so expressed. Yet the penal
or social prohibition of an active propagation of Atheistic views,
which is necessary for the protection of society, should be care
fully distinguished from religious or any other form of persecu
tion. Such 'a distinction is recognised by the common law of
�42
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
England, as Mr. Bradlaugh has had the temerity to discover, and
is certainly justifiable on grounds which are recognised even in
Secularist morality—the preservation of the social organism.
This then is our reply to Mr. Watts: All the positive truth of
your Secularism, all the science, all the social duty is mine no
less than yours, though I utterly reject all that is peculiar to
your Secularism, and maintain that man has no higher duties
than those which I owe to God, and to the Moral Idea which
commands my unconditional obedience ; and that it is sheer folly
for a man to live as if death were the end of all.
But what is the criterion by which Mr. Watts would discrimi
nate between right and wrong, the moral and the immoral ? Let
us examine the point more closely ? Mr. Watts says in his
second article that: “Reason is the standard whereby we can
discriminate between and judge right from wrong.” And, al
though he has thus made Reason the standard
w
* hereby
we dis
criminate, he has also said in his first article that Reason is “ the
power which discriminates,” “ the ability * * * * to dis
tinguish truth from error.” Yet, herein, Mr. Watts claims for
human reason those absolute functions which Theists assert of
the Divine Reason. Human reason, he would have us believe,
discriminates between right and wrong by the sole aid of its
own supreme light. Yet herein there is affirmed of the human
mind an attribute which is declared to be inconceivable when
predicted of the Divine Mind ! Nay more! Mr. Watts in open
ing the debate endorsed Hooker’s saying that “Reason gives us
knowledge,” and that “itis by reason alone that we distinguish
truth from falsehood.” Absolute reason, it is clear, cannot be
predicted of the human mind; since human knowledge is ad
mittedly very imperfect. But whence this idea of absolute
reason, of perfect knowledge, of truth unmixed with error,
which Mr. Watts, wittingly or not, assumes to exist ?
Again in his last article, Mr. Watts refers to “ truth, justice,
love and ethical purity” and “ nobility of character,” absolute
and infinite, to the realisation of which we are impelled. The
reference does credit to his heart, but not to his intelligence 1.
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
43;
For what are these but attributes which are predicated by the
Theist of the Divine Ideal, the Deity, towards whom Mr. Watts,
as a Secularist, affects to assume an attitude of utter indiffer
ence, neither affirming or denying his existence ?
Again, Mr. Watts quotes with approbation a passage from Mr.
Savage, which we too most heartily endorse ; but which finds no
place in the tenets of consistent Secularism. Read that passage !
Man ought to fulfil “ the highest possibilities of his being ! ”
What are these but the capacities which are gradually realised
by us in time, by means of a.progress of personal character to
personal character—which capacities are eternally realized for
and in the Eternal Mind ? What are these possibilities toward
which we are impelled, but the realisation of the Moral Idea of
our own moral perfection ? But why ought man to fulfill these
possibilities ? Let Mr. Watts’ own quotation answer ! “ Because
there- is something in him more than animal ?
Because “ he
is capable of something more, Something higher than brain !”'
What is this occult and mysterious something, “more than
animal ” and “ higher than brain ? ” What can it be but the
human soul within us, with its infinity of moral and spiritual
possibilities, and its deep yearnings after God and an immortality?
Who, that has experienced the agony of soul that permeated the
very centres of our being in the more memorable crises of this
human life, can sincerely say with the Secularist that the needs
of his intellectual, moral and spiritual nature are satisfied by
assuming an attitude of indifference toward God and immortality?
Who can disregard that soul’s divine relationship, order his con
duct, as the Secularist prescribes, by “ considerations which
pertain to this life alone,” and yet develop his manhood “in the
highest, truest, deepest sense of the word ? ”
We might proceed with the reflections which Mr. Savage’s
words inevitably suggest; or we might discuss at length the
minor issues that Mr. Watts has raised. But for the present let
this suffice.
Is Secularism, then, sufficient to satisfy tbe needs of mankind ?
We reply that it offers nothing to satisfy the needs of that
�44
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
SOMETHING in our nature, which is “more than animal,” and
“ higher than brain,” the human soul. Secularism in-Mr. Watts’
category of needs, recognises “ religious aspirations and emotional
gratification;” but it fails utterly to satisfy what, as human
experience in all ages will conclusively attest, is one of the
supreme needs of the soul of man,—divine consolation. Secular
ism, gives no satisfaction to our faith, our hope, our reverence,
our love, and completely severs itself from all that will develop
the higher emotional principles of human nature. Secularism
not only fails to satisfy our reason, but it is, as we have
shown, inconsistent with itself and a gross violation of
the conditions of rational belief. Moreover, it affects, toward
God and immortality, an indifference which mankind must, by
reason of the very nature of man, find it impossible to maintain.
Secularism thus ignores not only our religious, moral and intel
lectual needs; but as it fails to energise the moral and spiritual
nature of man, so in like manner it affords no inspiration to art
and literature of an elevating and purifying character. “ All
epochs,” wrote Goethe, “ in which faith, under whatever form,
has pravailed, have been brilliant, heart elevating, and fruitful,
both to contemporaries and to posterity. All epochs, on the
contrary, in which unbelief, under whatever form, has maintained
a sad supremacy, even if for the moment they glitter it with a
false splendour, vanish from the memory of posterity, because
none care to torment themselves with that which has been
barren.”
Mr. Watts in closing challenges the editor of the Evening Mail
to a second discussion of the relative merits of Christianity and
Agnosticism; but while this proposition may be entertained at
some future day, when Mr. Watts is visiting this province, its
acceptance at the present time is not practicable. In fact, unless
Mr. Watts can assure us that, having received new light on the
subject, he is prepared to advance more reasonable arguments on
behalf of Agnosticism than he has thus far presented on behalf
of Secularism, a second debate would appear quite unnecessary
and unprofitable.
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
45
MR. WATTS’ CONCLUDING ARTICLE.
After a delay of over six weeks since my last article in this de
bate appeared, my respected opponent has penned his final reply
in the present discussion. I have good reasons for believing that
the delay which has arisen was caused by circumstances beyond
his control.
The reader is particularly requested to again read carefully
the whole of the debate and note in how few instances my
opponent has grappled with the main issues between us. I regret
that while I have answered every important question put to me
by the Editor' of the Mail, he has treated most of my requests
with either silence or evasion ■ and instead of combatting my
arguments he has indulged in good-natured generalisations of a
very indefinite character. He has made no attempt whatever to
verify his assertion that I did not understand Secularism, neither
has he given any other definition of that system than the one I
furnished. He has also omitted to show that Secular teachings
“ differ more or less ” from Secular principles, and in what sense
he used the term “ mind.” In my second article nine most im
portant questions were submitted to him, but with the excep
tion of one he has not taken the slightest notice of them. A
demand was made that I should deal with the word “ ought’’
and the question of duty from a Secular standpoint. I did so,
and showed that with Secularists these terms have a higher and
nobler meaning than is attached to them by orthodox Christian
ity. Furthermore, I indicated our “ one great act of faith ” and
upon what it was based ; also why sensuality could not be sub
stituted for science “ with equal authority.” To all these points
my opponent has given no attention, neither has he adduced any
proof that Secular morality, with its basis and incentives, is
defective, or that the Secular conception of human needs is
wrong. How far such an evasive mode of procedure will make
good the negative side of the proposition that we should have
discussed, the reader is left to decide for himself.
The Editor’s “ last reply ” is a peculiar specimen of contro
�-46
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
versial ingenuity, which may do “ credit to his heart, not to hi#
intelligence.” His syllogistic comments present a sad confusion
of logical precision and a lack of philosophical reasoning. The
limited space at my disposal prevents me showing the want of
harmony between the premises and the conclusions drawn. But
iperhaps such a course would be unnecessary, inasmuch as, be the
nature of the conclusions what it may, it would in no way affect
■either my quotation from Mr. G. J. Holyoake or my statement
as to moral conduct. Mr. Holyoake says that “ every system
meets the wants of those who believe in it.” It should be re
membered, however, that the adherent of the system in question
is supposed to decide for himself what his wants are. Such
wants may differ from those deemed necessary by the believer#
in other systems. Undoubtedly Buddhism is thought by the
Buddhist to be sufficient to meet his wants, just as Secularism is
regarded as being the truth by the Secularists. It is not correct
to assert that “ with equal authority and no less presumption [as
fthat of the Secularist] might a South African native contend
that Hottentot inodes of life and Hottentot morality are suffi
cient to satisfy the needs of this nineteenth century civilisation.”
No sane person within the pale of civilisation would contend
that the mode of living and the morality of the Hottentot are
sufficient for the requirements of the civilisation of the present time.
While certain human needs are universal, some “ wants,” being
the result of habit, are limited. That which may supply the
“wants ” of one race or class of persons would probably be found
inadequate in other cases. In my second article six needs were
cited which pertain to human nature in general, and to these
my opponent says that he is “ not disposed to take special excep
tion.” It was further shown in the same article wherein
Secularism was deemed sufficient to meet these needs. Instead
of meeting what was advanced upon this point, my opponent
substitutes for general needs particular “ wants ” acquired
through special training and introduces his poor Hottentot as an
illustration. Clever evasion, but most fallacious reasoning !
It is pleasing to know that the Editor of the Mail regards our
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
47
constructive efforts ” as being “ commendable,” and in my
opinion it would be well if no other mode of advocacy were ne
cessary. Unfortunately, however, theological exclusiveness and
bigotry compel us sometimes to do destructive work, in seeking
to remove from our midst all fancies, creeds and dogmas that
obstruct the carrying out of our constructive work. While shams
are regarded as realities, and falsehood is worshipped as truth, this
phase of our advocacy will be necessary. Old systems that have
lost all vitality, except for evil, need to be broken up ; and theo
logies, which have hitherto usurped judgment and reason, require
to be refuted. The theologians claim to have “ the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” and unless we walk in
their paths, unless we accept their authority, unless we believe
implicitly in all their teachings, we are at once condemned as a
rebel against their God, as an outcast from society, and as an
enemy of our fellow-men. While this cruel injustice exists, de
structive work will be necessary.
My opponent says that my statement that Secular teachings
numbered four, five, six, eight and ten are not only new to
Christianity, but that they are the very opposite to what is
taught by orthodox Christians, “ is worthy of a denial as em
phatic as can courteously be conveyed in the language of
debate.” Let us test the value of this bold denial. The fourth
teaching enjoins self-reliance, which is the very opposite to what
is taught by Christianity. (See 2 Cor. 3:5; John 6: 44.) It
makes belief in Christ an absolute necessity and threatens
damnation for non-belief. (See Acts 4:12; 16:31; Mark 16 : 16.)
The fifth teaching proclaims the right and honesty of disbelief.
Christianity denies this (1 Tim. 6 : 3-5; 2 Cor. 6 : 14, 15 ; 2
Thess. 1 : 8), and my opponent endorses the denial, as far as the
existence of God is concerned. The sixth teaching condemns all
persecution in consequence of the rejection of any theological
doctrines; Christianity, on the contrary, enforces such persecu
tion. (See Matt. 10 : 14, 15 ; John 15 : 6; 2 John 1 : 10 ; Gal.
1 : 9.) The tenth teaching alleges that between husband and
wife equality should exist in the domestic circle. This could
�48
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
not be if the injunctions found in Eph. 5: 24 ; 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35;
1 Tim. 2 : 11, 14 ; Col. 3 : 18, were obeyed. Herein the husband
is made the master and the wife is required to obey and submit
“ in everything, ” which is not equality but abject serfdom.
It is to be regretted that my opponent condemns the “ un
natural fellowship ” of the co-operation of Secularists, Atheists
and Theists, and he actually justifies “the restraints which soci
ety in self-preservation is compelled to place upon the active
propagandists of Atheism.” Here is the old spirit of theological
persecution, which the Editor of the Mail defends by quoting
scripture, and yet he denies that Christianity teaches persecu
tion. Oh ! consistency, where is thy blush ? As to the relative
danger of Atheism and Theism, if that were the subject for
debate, I would shew that under the influence of Theism, not
Atheism, the worst crimes have been committed, the bitterest
hatred engendered, the greatest injustice perpetrated, and utter
ruin produced; and, further, that such wrongs, cruelties and
crimes were done and committed upon the authority of the
Bible.
Yes, I do say that cultivated reason aided by experience is the
standard by which we test right from wrong. If there be a
higher one, why has it not been produced ? To talk of “ divine
reason ” is to speak of that of which we have no knowledge.
Besides, if such reason did exist, how would it be judged if not
by human reason ? In case two guides for human conduct are
presented, what but human reason decides which is the better ?
It is not true that as a Christian my opponent has all the
truth and advantages of Secularism. Our system teaches that
man is not by nature necessarily depraved; that his salvation
does not depend upon Christ, that man is not bound to believe
in one particular person under penalty of eternal perdition, and
that he should have no fellowship with the unbeliever. Ac
cording to Secularism, reliance upon science is of more import
ance than having faith in the alleged supernatural; that supreme
attention should be given to the duties of this life, rather than to
the speculations in reference to any other existence, and that
�DEPATE OX SECULARISM,
49
morality is of mor consequence than belief in any of the theo
*
logical systems of the world. These are truths that no orthodox
Christian can, to be consist--nt, accept.
I am not surprised that the Editor of the Evening Mail refuses
to a -cept my invitati n co discuss Christianity and Agnosticism.
Possibly in this deba e he has learned a lesson that will induce
him in future to be more cautious both in his offensive and defen
sive policy. When, however, he intimates that he would require
“ more reasonable arguments” to deal with he reflects upon his
own lack of ability. If my arguments in this debate have been
inferior, and remaining as they do unanswered, what chance
would my opponent have with better arguments ?
In conclusion, I wish to say that as Secularists we do not treat
the existence of God and immoitality “with indifference.” We
endeavour to get all possible light upon the subject, and in the
meantime we try so to live that if God exist our conduct shall
meet with his approval, and if there be a future life, we do our
best to deserve what advantages it may possess. While many
Secularists believe both in God and immortality, others are
unable to do so, and with them moral conduct is deemed of
paramount importance, because the welfare of society demands
it, and experience proves that mankind is the better for adopting
it. If they have no “ God to fear,” they have man to love, and
rega’d for his welfare is sufficient to inspire them to seek to
perform useful deeds. Christianity—which mainly urges each
one to look after the Salvation of his own soul, since it will not
profit him if he gains the whole world and loses this—is far
inferior to Secularism in this respect; the more so as it often
engenders hatred and cruelty for difference of belief, while
Secularism has no stark creeds into which it would make all
alike compress themselves. It simply says in a purely practical
tone, Come and let us work together for the good and happiness
of us ail, whatever our speculations may be. Seculaiism does
not require the motive Christianity thinks necessary. It finds
what to its adherents appears a stronger and better motive in
the love of our fellow creatures, whom we know, than in the
�50
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
fear of God, whom we do not know. This is the essentia]
question, Shall I work in love of myself and my fellows fortheir
good and my own, or shall I work in fear of a Supernatural
Biing unknown to me ? I answer, I love those whom I see and
know, and will work with and for them ; I cannot love one whom
I neither see nor know and if he is, as my opponent believes,
almighty, he can want neither me nor any one else to work with
or for him ; and his purposes, moreover, must be quite beyond
our guessing. We might work dead against him, thinking we
were working for him, as Christian persecutors have done when
they thought, in punishing and putting to death heretics, that
they were doing God service.
�
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
Secularism: is it founded in reason, and is it sufficient to meet the needs of mankind? : debate between the editor of the Evening Mail (Halifax, N.S.) and Charles Watts, editor of Secular Thought : with prefatory letters by Geo. Jacob Holyoake and Colonel R.G. Ingersoll, and an introduction by Helen H. Gardener
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: x, 50 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: The editor of the Evening Mail is not named; name from Amicus record is J.J. Stewart.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Holyoake, George Jacob, 1817-1906
Ingersoll, Robert G.
Gardener, Helen H. (Helen Hamilton), 1853-1925
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 (<span class="highlight">Secularism</span>: <span class="highlight">is</span> <span class="highlight">it</span> <span class="highlight">founded</span> in <span class="highlight">reason</span>, and <span class="highlight">is</span> <span class="highlight">it</span> sufficient to meet the needs of mankind? : debate between the editor of the Evening Mail (Halifax, N.S.) and Charles Watts, editor of Secular Thought : with prefatory letters by Geo. Jacob Holyoake and Colonel R.G. Ingersoll, and an introduction by Helen H. Gardener), 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
RA1857
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/8aff5888c1496de4d45ecf34be57a357.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TrNjJGsD%7EGrkn3ouYwozSx8pVDbXRHx1bEzStvCWFMjccHS1ND4BYJwoIaxKqb0-xWp385crXvDlG2aJGSIbr2uju55rP9VUl4Y5x2eO2K4jqbpEfvZHuZsuhSQvTa4nV1mpnR2DYeXgiJZqK5ThMpxyHdrWW9ITaMOgPj%7E01CIrmP%7EVCDpOaUwzMYSVF-TAf%7EZDO9LU58Ihd5ksF-LkfGsFAf3SqOQ-NnVSBZVowHEkOdjOaS23xt4h65%7EUZTD5na3ZZEFFiG703lPaZAO5FEFurtp49gFjC-y-AEMVnQhFZogqv4k2ot4sEYZh5IX-mCvZ3lnNiS-gge0EC6zsnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7a3b815f360fbc5bb5ab0a8f322cfde5
PDF Text
Text
RAJS 506
Orthodox Criticism Tested I
A REPLY
— TO----
FATHER LAMBERT’S
“Tactics of Infidels,”
---- BY-----
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of Secular Thought,
Author of “ History of Freethought," “ Teachings of Secularism Compared -with
Orthodox Christianity“ Evolution and Special Creation," " Secularism;
Constructive a d Destructive," “ Glory of Unbelief' * Saints and
Sinners; Which?" “Bible Morality" Etc., Etc.
TORONTO
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, 31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST*
TWENTY CENTS.
\
��The Critic
of
“TACTICS OF INFIDELS”
CRITICIZED.
For some few years past a certain Father Lambert has devoted
■much of his time to a defense of the Christian religion, mainly by
attacking Col. Ingersoll. Mr. Lambert seems to labour under the
impression that if the Colonel can only be extinguished Chris- »
tianity will necessarily be demonstrated to be true. But the
falsity of a system no more depends upon the assertions of one
man than its truth upon the declarations of another. Christianity
will not stand or fall by the quibbles and sophisms of Mr. Lambert;
so neither will the opposite by the great eloquence of Colonel
Ingersoll. In the following criticism of a book called “ Tactics of
Infidels ”—which appears to have had a very large circulation—
it is not intended to defend either Colonel Ingersoll or Mr. Lacy—
since they are quite able to defend themselves—both of whom are
■made to figure largely in its pages, but simply to show wherein
Mr. Lambert’s reasoning is at fault. We do not care to discuss
men, but only to examine the principles they represent, and the
arguments employed by them to defend their views. It is chari
table to assume that every man is honest in the advocacy of the
opinions he puts forward, unless the contrary be very clearly
proved. It may seem strange to a man brought up under religi
ous influences, and with a strong emotional nature, who has never
read a Freethought work, or listened to a criticism of the evidences
of his faith, that any one should doubt what he holds to be infall
ibly true, but it is no less astounding to one who has freed himself
from the trammels of the orthodox religion that any one can for a
moment believe in the monstrous pretensions of the so-called
Catholic Church. Still so it is, and the sincerity of many such is
■beyond question. In what follows the dialogue form has been
adopted, because Father Lambert seems to prefer that to any
•other ; and to think that it has many advantages, for his side at
�4
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
least. His idea is that our teachings are easily disposed of by this;
method, so we will humour him by submitting his own to the same
kind of test.
It is not intended in this criticism to give a thorough and exhaus
tive reply to Father Lambert, but only to glance at some of the
more conspicuous of his fallacies, and to show that, although he
prides himself so greatly on his logic, he occasionally falls into the
most illogical kind of reasoning.
Ingersoll. The universe, according to my idea, is, always was,,
and forever will be * * * It is the one eternal being—the only
thing that ever did, does or can exist.
Lambert. When you say “ according to my idea ” you leave theinference that this theory of an eternal universe never occurred to
the mind of man until your brain acquired its full development..
Of course you do not intend to mislead or deceive ; you simply
meant that your “ idea ” of the universe is, like most of our modern;
plays, adapted from the French or elsewhere. * * * The old
originals, from whom you copy, thought it incumbent on them to
give a reason, or at least a show of reason, for their “ idea.” In.
this enlightened age you do not deem it necessary. It is suffi
cient for you to formulate your “ idea.” To attempt to prove it
would be beneath you. Have you got so far as to believe that
your “ idea ” has the force of an argument, or that the science;
of philosophy must be re-adjusted because you happen to have an
“ idea ?”
Lacy. The words “ according to my idea ” are said to imply
primitive conception; because I say “ I have an idea,” I leave the
inference that no one ever conceived the same idea before !
Lambert. There is a difference between an idea and my idea.
To say you have an idea might cause surprise, but to say it is yours
is to claim orginality for it. If Ingersoll were to claim some of
Edison’s ideas as his, he would be liable to prosecution for infringe
ment of the patent laws. The pantheistic theory of the universe
is too old to be claimed by Ingersoll as his idea. In claiming ithe
carries out his usual method of appropriating the thoughts and
speculations of others without giving credit, for which he deservesthe title of the Philosopher of the Purloined. Of course, one may
get at his meaning, but this verbal hypercritic of Moses should try
to say what he means.
pJZaMs. Is it not something like splitting hairs to thus quibble
about the expression “ according to my idea ?” Surely a man
means nothing more by that phrase than that the thing thus pre
sents itself to his mind. There is no necessary claim in it toorginality. Father Lambert would doubtless say, “ according to
my idea Christ is God,” but surely no man in his senses would.
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
5
suppose that to mean that no one before had had the same idea.
The pretended difference between an idea and my idea is not worth
■discussing, for the former is an abstraction. There is no such
thing as an idea that is not, in reference to some person, his idea,
•and it consequently becomes to him my idea. Originality in ideaa
is rare, and surely a Roman Catholic should be the last person to
make complaint on that score. No doubt the Pantheistic theory
■of the universe is old, but that to a Roman Catholic ought to prove
•a recommendation. And as to Ingersoll, it is admitted that his mean
ing may be got at. Well, then, what more is wanted ? Is it not
somewhat unfair to first accuse the Colonel of purloining ideas and
passing them off as his own, and then to admit that the Colonel’s
Slanguage does not mean that. This is hypercriticism with a ven
geance. And shallow enough, too, it is at that.
Lambert. Ideas are the elements or timbers of a judgment, as the
ibricks are the component parts of a house. As the house is greater
than one of its bricks, so is a judgment, an assent or a faith greater
than any one of the ideas composing it. A judgment is, then,
more than an idea, on the principle that the whole is greater than
any of its parts. Your mistake arises from ignorance of the differ
ence between a judgment and an idea. It is another mistake to
•advance this ignorance as an evidence of modesty.
Watts. The difference between one’s judgment and his idea is
another quibble which savours more of nonsense than of metaphysi
cal reasoning. A distinction of course there is in strictly philosophic
language, but this largely disappears in ordinary conversation.
An idea is a representation of a real thing, and a man’s judgment
regarding that is in truth his idea of it. I read that a certain man
was sentenced to death for a particular crime. I judge that the
sentence was just, that is it was just according to my judgment, that
is that my idea of justice corresponded with the sentence. And when
I say my idea I do not mean that the idea originated with me, but
•that it accords with my conception of the things involved in it.
•<i Faith is an assent to truth on the authority of another,” says
Lambert. But that is not a good definition of faith, in fact it is a
very clumsy one. There may be no authority of another in the
case. Faith is, where it is reasonable, largely based upon experi
ence—not authority, and it is just that authority against which we
protest. I have faith that if I sow seed in the spring, I shall reap
a harvest in the fall; that if I sleep when I am fatigued I shall rise
�6
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
refreshed, but to no authority am I indebted for this, but to experi
ence. The experience may not be all mine, but a generalization of
other men’s, but there is no authority. We reject the Father’s
definitions in common with his theology, for the one is the out.
come of the other. A judgment is no doubt largely based upon
an idea, but one may surely be allowed to state the idea in connec
tion with the judgment, without being liable to be misunderstood.
Besides, if it be wrong to say my idea, when the same idea is held,
by other persons, it must be equally wrong to say my judgment
unless in such judgment I stand alone.
Lambert. “ That which is eternal is infinite. It must be infinite,,
because if eternal, it can have nothing to limit it. But that which
is infinite must be infinite in every way. If limited in any way it
would not be infinite. Now, matter is limited. It is composed of
parts, and composition is limitation. Change supposes succession,,
and there can be no succession without a beginning, and therefore
limitation. Thus far we are borne out by reason, experience and
common sense. Then—Matter is limited and therefore finite, and
if finite in anything finite in everything ; and if finite in everything,,
therefore finite in time, and therefore not eternal. The idea of an
eternal, self-existent being is incompatible in every point of view
with our idea of matter. The former is essentially simple, un
changeable, impassible, and one. The latter is composite, change
able, passible and multiple. To assert that matter is eternal is to
assert that all these antagonistic attributes are identical—a privi
lege granted to lunatics only.”
Watts. Infinity we cannot conceive of, it is a mere negation, for
it means the not finite. Now, being a negation, how can it possessthe attributes here ascribed to it, or, in fact, any attributes at all ?'
Sir William Hamilton, one of the greatest metaphysicians of this
age, and an orthodox Christian, has completely pulverized the logic
of Lambert. He shows that what men absurdly call the infinite
is simply the indefinite, and that to talk of the infinite is to use a
word without meaning. Matter is composed of parts, and there
fore limited. What parts ? Can we conceive of a part of matter
which cannot be further divided ? Is it not infinitely divisible ?•
And if so, here is infinity, that is, the infinitely small, ascribed to
d. If it be not infinitely divisible, then we must reach a portion
■sf matter the half of which is equal to the whole, which is an.
absurdity. But the infinite “ is essentially simple, unchangeable^
impassible and one.” This means that it cannot be divided. Sir
William Hamilton has shown the absurdity of this in regard to
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
7
duration. Eternity and infinity are one, for eternity is infinity of
duration. Now, there is an eternity of the past and an eternity of
the future, that is, an Infinite Duration in the past, and an InfiniteDuration in the future, and these are divided by the present; that
is, your supposed Infinity is cut into two parts. And here is the
reductio ad absurdam. Either these two parts are infinite or they
* are finite. If infinite, then there are two infinites succeeding each
other; if finite, then two finites can make an infinite. This is not
my idea, but that of the greatest Scotch metaphysician ; and
Father Lambert can choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases.
The same argument will apply to space. Take another illustra
tion, also from Hamilton. A foot is infinitely divisible, that is, it
is divisible into an infinite number of parts ; a mile is infinitely
divisible. But, as one infinite must be equal to another, therefore
a foot is the same as a mile. All this goes to show that we have
no conception of the infinite and cannot discuss it. When we
speak of it we simply mean the indefinite.
The human soul, says Lambert, is not eternal because it started
at a certain point, but will live forever. Well, that starting point
was a point in duration, and hence duration itself from that period
is not eternal. The human soul, then, is finite ; but, if so, how
can it last forever ? for that is just what the Father argues that
finite things cannot do.
Lambert. The future life of man is not actual and real, but
potential, and will ever remain potential.
Watts. What in the name of reason does this mean ? If man’s
future life be not real, why trouble about it ? What possible
concern can we have with the unreal ? This is really to
teach non-existence, which is assuredly not in harmony with the
theology of the Vatican.
Lambert. To imagine, or rather to conceive an infinite line is to
conceive a line*to whose lineal value nothing can be added, for as
long as an addition to it can be conceived if is not yet infinite. Is
such a line conceived as a reality ? No. Let us see why.
Imagine your infinite line extending through space in opposite
directions—say north and south. Now this so-called infinite line
is not infinite so long as we can conceive it increased by additional
length. Let us now imagine another so-called infinite line of
equal length with the first, and running parallel to it. If we add
the second to the first do we not increase its lineal value ? Most
certainly. Then the first line was not infinite because it admitted
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
of addition. Nor are the two together infinite, because we may
imagine another parallel line and another addition and a conse
quent increase of lineal value. We may continue this process for
ever and never exhaust the possibilities—never come to a lineal
value that excludes possible addition. From this you will see that
you cannot conceive, much less imagine, an infinite ltne so
“ readily ” as yo< thought.
Watts. Why, certainly. But what does all this prove but that
Sir William Hamilton is right, and that man can form no idea of
the Infinite, and that every attempt to describe it must end in
hopeless confusion and contradiction. The Father has in this
paragraph completely refuted himself.
Lacy. Space is infinite expansion but nothing more.
Lambert. Expansion of what ? Expansion without something
expanded is a mere fiction of the mind, having no real existence
outside the mind. Expansion is a mode of matter, and without
matter it is a non-entity. As matter is finite its expansion is finite.
Herbert Spencer defines space as “the abstract of all co-exist ences,” and by “the abstract” he tells us he means “ that which
is left behind when the realities are absent.” Now, take away all
reality and what have you left ? No reality, nothing. Then, ac
cording to Spencer’s definition space is no reality. But reality,
real being, is the first essential condition of the infinite, therefore
space, having no reality, no real existence aside from matter, can
not be infinite.
Watts. Space is unquestionably infinite expansion, if you sub
stitute indefinite for infinite. Expansion of what ? Well, we don’t
know. It may be an abstraction, as Spencer supposes, but there
are a hundred different opinions on that subject entertained by the
ablest philosophers. But it is certainly as real as eternity, which
word the Father uses glibly enough. At all events, the conception
of space is as clear as the conception of matter, and clearer than
the conception of God. If space be not infinite, as Lambert says
it is not, then it is limited, and we should be glad to be informed
what limits it, and whether the something that limits it exists
outside of space, which, of course, means nowhere. Is there some
place where there is no space ? If not, space is everywhere, in
other words, infinite. If space be the possibility of extended
things, still there can be no limit to that possibility. But Space
and Time are realities, despite the talk of such small and gabbling
metaphysicians as Father Lambert.
All the talk about the infinite line is just an illustration of Sir
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
$
Wm. Hamilton’s doctrine that no clear conception can be formed
of the infinite, but that any discussion of the subject must be in
volved in paradox and contradiction. The Father should read
Dean Mansell’s Bampton Lectures, a book written from a religious
standpoint, and in defence of Christianity. The Dean makes short
work of the nonsensical talk about the infinite. The argument
about Numbers and Duration go to show the absurdity in which
the whole thing is involved, and to illustrate Hamilton’s position.
What the Father is trying to prove it is difficult to make out. No
addition of finite numbers will make an infinite. Of course not.
Whoever supposed that it would ? But, as no number of finites
-can make an infinite, and as we can only conceive of finites, what
becomes of the talk about the infinite ?
Lambert. The incapacity to conceive how a thing can be done is
no proof that it cannot be done.................... The fact that the how
of an act or process is inconceivable is no proof that it has not a
.how, or that it is impossible.................... It is one thing not to con
ceive a thing and quite another to'conceive a thing to be impos
sible.................... I cannot conceive how God created the world,
but I can conceive no impossibility in the creative act. I cannot
■conceive the nature of matter, but I can conceive no impossibility
in it.
Watts. We do not attempt to explain the how of anything, and
■questions with regard to it are childish. And we are not alone
here. Let the Catholic give us the how of the facts of nature, or
•of his own being. But, he says, there is a difference between not
being able to conceive of a thing and the conceiving of it as im
possible. Why of course! It is only Christians who confound
these. “ I cannot conceive,” says the Father, “how God created
the world, but I can conceive no impossibility in the creative
act.” Well, to me such an act seems impossible. Will Mr.
Lambert explain how to him it does not seem so ? Did God create
the world out of nothing or out of pre-existing materials ? If the
latter, these must have been eternal, or there must have been a
prior creation, to which the same argument would apply. If the
former, was not that an impossibility ? How could an infinite make
a finite, i. e., could an infinite cause produce a finite result ? Is
not this an impossibility ? Or, in truth, how could there be space
or time for the finite when the infinite occupied the whole of both ?
Besides, we have been told that there is no change or succession
�IO
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’
CRITICISED.
in the infinite. But, if at some point of duration or eternity he
performed an act which commenced or ceased, then he changed in
time, became related to time and consequently to succession.
Why was not creative power displayed before the creation ? In a
word, it must have been eternal, as God is eternal and unchange
able. If the infinite does not change, then from all eternity it must
have been creating worlds, and in that case these worlds would,
themselves be eternal. We would like an explanation of this. I
am not asking for the how, but for an explanation as to the possi
bility of conceiving of such a process. “ Everything,” says L.,
“ is possible that does not involve contradictory attributes.” Very
well. Then here are the contradictory attributes. God is eternal
and unchangeable, yet he put forth a new exertion a few millions
or so of years ago and created worlds, thereby changing his course
of action. “ Change supposes succession and therefore limitation.”
God changed his action, therefore became subject to succession,
ergo limited, that is, not infinite.
True, a thing may exist of which we are unable to form any
conception, but at least it can have no concern for us. What can
we have to do with that of which we can form no conception ?
It is a waste of time even to talk of it. But we know quite as
well as Father Lambert the difference between the failing to con
ceive a thing and the conception of its impossibility. And it is
just this latter that we urge against his theology. But, says the
Father, “ You must have some conception of the creative act, or
you could not assert that it is inconceivable.” Of course, we have
a conception of what Theologians say in reference to the act, and
we declare their statements to be self-contradictory and absurd.
But this is a very different thing to forming a conception of the
act itself. For we declare such an act to be both inconceivable
and contradictory.
Now, the concession that we must think of God with limitations,
as Lambert maintains, shows how impossible it is for us to con
ceive of the infinite at all. It is clear that our conception of God,
according to Lambert, is not correct. But how can he reach, in
thought, a being that transcends all human conception ? Besides,
if we can only conceive of God as limited, and yet he may be
unlimited, what becomes of the argument that matter cannot be
infinite, because we conceive of it as finite. If God, although
only thought of as finite,, and described as such in the Bible, be
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
II
really infinite, the same argument will apply to matter. This
mode of reasoning is suicidal, and cuts its own throat.
Lambert. As to space, we have seen that it is not a real being,
but only a relation between material beings ; that abstracted from
material beings it is nothing ; that it bears somewhat the same
relation to extended or expanded things that form does to matter
or weight to ponderable things. Annihilate extended or expanded
things and form and space and weight will “ fade away like the
shadows which flit before us and are seen no more.”
Watts. Space, then, is nothing at all; in a word, there is no
space. Things therefore exist nowhere, But that which exists
nowhere does not exist at all: ergo, there is nothing in existence.
The Father confounds the filling of space with its annihilation.
Space is not destroyed by being occupied. It is still there, but no
longer empty. To say that where a body is the space is not, is to
say that a thing exists where it is not,—for it surely exists in spaGe,
—which is egregious nonsense. According to this philosophy
things do not exist in space but outside of it, and where that is we
should like to be informed.
Lambert. Christian philosophers tell us that space, in as far as
it is real, is the distances between extended or spaced things, and
can exist only when extended things, exist, just as form can have
no real existence without things formed. Space in this sense is
limited to extended things and therefore cannot be infinite.
Watts.—Then Christian philosophers have taught nonsense, as the
Father himself has in these pages. But who are the philosophers
that have taught this ? Space is just the one thing whose non
existence or even limitation cannot be even conceived. Let the
Father try if he can accomplish this impossible feat. What about
the Ether ? Scientists tell us that this fills all space, so then there
is no space left and space is not. According to Mr. Lambert, to
fill an empty thing is to destroy the thing itself when it is filled,
which is assuredly something new in reasoning.
Ingersoll. To put God back of the universe compels us to admit
that there was a time when nothing existed but God.
Lambert. It compels us to admit nothing of the kind. The
eternal God can place an eternal act. His creative act could
therefore be co-eternal with his being. The end of the act—that
is, creation—could be co-existent with the eternal act, and there
fore eternal. To deny that is to affirm that there could be a mo
ment when the eternal and omnipotent God could not act, which
is contrary to Christian teaching.
�12
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.-
Watts. Here we are told that God ean place a. creative act.
What that means no one can tell. Place it where ? Where it is,
that is, where it took place, or somewhere else. Really, this is
■child’s talk, and not reasoning. God can place anything, but he
must place it somewhere. The Father’s argument, if worth any
thing, is that he can place it no-where, and where that is I presume
even a priest cannot tell. “ His creative act could be co-eternal
with his being.” Well, in that case creation wasjrom all eternity,
hence the created thing was from all eternity, hence matter
was from all eternity, which is just what the Father elsewhere
denies. But to look at this in another light. The Creator
is the cause, the creation was the effect. Is it not a necessity
of thought that the cause must precede the effect ? If not how can
we discover causation at all ? Sequence and antecedence would be
meaningless terms. God created, that is, called into being, the
universe. Then before that occurred there was no universe, which
means nothing existed but God. No, says Lambert, creation is
■eternal. Then the thing made was contemporaneous in existence
with its maker, which is, in fact, to say that it was not made at
•all. To state that a thing is as old as the maker of the thing is
not argument, but downright nonsense, and may serve to bewilder
■children and ignorant Catholics, but assuredly can only be a source
of amusement for educated men.
Lambert. That creation could be co-eternal must be admitted if
we admit that God is eternal and omnipotent, and this we must
admit if we admit his existence. Hence it does not follow that
putting God back of the universe proves that he antedates it.
Lacy. If this be not so, what becomes of the dogma that God
■created matter “ out of nothing ?”
Lambert. If he can create from eternity he "can create “ out of
nothing ” from eternity. The dogma is in no danger.
Lacy. Can you conceive of such a creative act, without a time
■or point in infinite duration when it was performed ? Try it.
Lambert. I cannot conceive when it was performed, for the sim
ple reason that if it be an eternal act it could not, because eternal,
•ever have had a “ when.” Any act of which when can be asserted
is not an eternal act.
Watts. But it is not a question of conceiving of the when but of
the fact so called. And that involves a contradiction in terms.
That which was created was clearly an effect. Now an eternal
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS*’ CRITICISED.
I J:
effect is a meaningless expression. You might as well talk of a
square circle. Every effect must have a cause, and the cause must
in the nature of things precede the effect, or it could be no cause
at all. Moreover, I should like the Father to tell us how we can
know of a cause except through its effect. In Nature we see
cause and effect co-related everywhere. But we know nothing and
can know nothing of a supernatural cause.
That transcends
knowledge. Besides, how can a finite effect be produced by an
infinite cause ? This question has been asked before but it comes
in here too. Does the infinite in its effect become finite ? Effect
is probably nothing but transferred force. And an infinite force
cannot in its transference become finite. Hence an Infinite Cause
cannot exist. Let Father Lambert meet this argument.
Lacy. We are told in the Notes that before creation was, time
was not. This as poetry may pass, but as fact it is inconceivable.
Lambert. If it be conceivable, even as poetry, it is conceivable.
Hence your argument from inconceivability falls to the ground, for
that which is conceivable even as poetry is possible, and that which
is possible is conceivable as fact. I must here again repeat that
inconceivability is not the criterion of possibility, and that therefore
our inability to conceive a thing is no evidence that the thing is
impossible. If sceptics could once get this truth injected into their
skulls, they would perhaps use their unmetaphysical catchword less..
Watts. It is not conceivable either as poetry or anything else,,
save perhaps absurdity and nonsense. The so-called truth which
sceptics cannot get “ injected ” (an injection of truth is surely a
new method of administering that article) “ into their skulls ” is no
truth at all but a whimsey wild as any legend in the holy(?) Catho
lic record of marvellous exploits. Inconceivability may not be the
criterion of absolute possibility, but it certainly is of truth as pre
sented to man. And Christians more than any other class of men
use it as such. It is, in fact, their stock argument against what
they are pleased to call infidel notions. How can any one assert
the truth of that which is inconceivable ? Think of a time when
there was no time, a period when yesterday was to-day, and to
morrow the week before last. It is of no use to say that this,
although inconceivable, might possibly be, for that is to use words
without meaning, which is just what this priest does. Words
should represent ideas, but to use words which have no ideas tocorrespond to them is to play fast and loose with language, and to-
�14
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF IXFIDELS
CRITICISED.
befool men by engaging in a game of battledore and shuttlecock
with phrases.
“ Oh, sense, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.’
Lacy. But if it be true (that before creation was, time was not)
how do we know that it is true ?
Lambert. We know it in this way. Time is the measure of
movement and change in moving and changing things ; it is an
appurtenance of changeable things, and it is evident that an ap
purtenance of a thing cannot exist without the existence of that to
which it appertains. Therefore, without created things, time could
not be. It does not require much profound thinking to see this.
Watts. It certainly does not require much “profound thinking”
to see the absurdity of this. See how adroitly the word “ created ”
is dragged into the conclusion, when it did not appear in the pre
mises. Why may not eternal things be moveable and changeable ?
In fact, are not such conditions essential to all things ? If the
eternal existence—whatever it may be—could not move or change,
then it is clear it could not act. For all action is movement, and
a fortiori change. There can be no action without a movement on
the part of that which acts, and if God does not move, it is as clear
as that two and two make four, that action on his part is impossi
ble. Jesus represents God as working and the Old Testament re
cord of creation is one of activity on the part of Deity. Now work
means change and movement. Nor does the absurd fiction of an
eternal creation remove this difficulty, for the creation of this world
was certainly not from eternity, since we know that in its present
form it had a beginning. The creation of the earth and of the
organic beings upon it involved action, and consequently move
ment, on the part of its creator. As, therefore, there must have
been movement and change to produce that which was not pre
viously existing, or even to alter the form of that which was, there
was movement and change in Deity when such creation took place.
And as God has thus moved and changed, he, too, must be subject
to Time, and consequently Time was eternal. Time and space,
the two great facts in the universe, are not to be shuffled out ofi
existence by the wily—I had almost written silly—sophisms of
this popish priest.
Lacy. We are told that “ God is pure act,’’the source and origin
of all activity and life. How there can be “ pure act,’’ or any other
act, without an actor, is another riddle to which we succumb.
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
15
Lambert. Riddles and conundrums seem to buzz about your brain
like blue-bottle flies about a dead horse. You should try to learn
and comprehend that which you do not know and understand, and
not imbecilely yield to gross ignorance and display it as an evidence
of profundity.
An act is the reduction of a potentiality or possibility to a reality.
Pure act is an act of being which excludes all potentiality. A Being
which is necessarily real, which excludes from its essence everything
that implies imperfection or defect of reality, is pure act. Poten
tiality of any kind always and necessarily implies defect or lack of
reality, because it has always something not yet actuated or real
ized in act. Being, therefore, which is necessarily real, with su
preme and infinite reality, excludes all potentiality. Now God is
necessarily and essentially real. He excludes from his essence
everything that implies imperfection or defect of reality. He is
therefore Pure Act.
Watts. Lord Byron once wrote respecting a contemporary of
his, that he went about “explaining metaphysics to the nation,” and
then added, “ I wish he would explain his explanation.” These
ines are most applicable to Mr. Lambejt. He really does make
“ riddles and conundrums ” buzz about onr ears. It is difficult to
imagine him serious in this jumble o'f words, which he calls logical
argument. An act without an actor. You might as well talk of a
walk without a walker, a stroke without a striker, a kick without a
kicker, a thought without a thinker. A being who acts, performs
an act, but without an actor there can be no act. “ Pure act ” is
pure nonsense, without any adulteration, and such as few men but
a Roman Catholic priest would try to throw dust in men’s eyes by
talking about. Moreover, an act requires not only the actor who
performs it, but also an agent upon which it is performed. What
was the agent in this case ? “ God is pure act.” Then the word
God is a name for an act performed by some other being, who is
higher than God, and somewhere there must be an agent upon
which the act is performed. But such unmitigated absurdity is
hardly worth discussing. And we are to be accused of “gross ig
norance ” and “ imbecility” if we fail to understand this meaning
less jargon. Be it so. Truly that proverb about “ blind leaders
of the blind ” has received a verification in the case of Father
Lambert.
Lambert. The difference between murder and killing is determined
by the intention. If a hunter, intending to kill a deer, kill a man
whom he mistook for a deer, he is not guilty of murder because he
�i6
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
had not the intention. It will be observed, then, that the moral
nature of an act depends on the nature of the actor, and the good
ness or wickedness of the moral act depends on the intention of
the free moral agent. It is a mistake to suppose that a good act
is a moral one and a bad one is not. Every act of man, good or
bad, done with an intention, is a moral act. We attribute morals,
good and bad, to man alone, because he alone of all the inhabit
ants of the earth is capable of forming an intention and acting from
a motive.
Watts. Man performs thousands of acts with an intention which
are not moral acts. They are neither moral nor immoral, but
simply unmoral. He eats, drinks and sleeps with an intention, but
such acts do not fall within the range of any ethical code in this
world. The regulation of these is, no doubt, subject to moral law,
but the acts themselves per se are neither moral nor the reverse.
A man takes a walk along a country road to relish the scenery, or
sails in a boat on a lake for enjoyment, listens to music, gazes at a
great painting, or reads a poem, all with the intention of amusing
himself, but these are not moral acts. The Father’s notions of
ethics are about as hazy as his philosophical disquisitions.
Lambert. A standard of right, or a measure by which to distin
guish what is right from what is wrong is necessary for man,—
without it all difference between right and wrong, is destroyed.
Men may and do err in the application of this standard, but this
fact does not lessen its value, for the error is not in the standard but
in the application.
Lacy. You say, yes, “ the will of God,” but how do we deter
mine that will ?
Lambert. When a man is called on to act he is obliged as a
moral agent to consider, there and then, whether the act he is
about to do is good or bad. He must determine it by the light of
his knowledge of the will of God. If he does this honestly and to
the best of his ability his act, so far as he is concerned, is good.
He must always follow his conscience and act on his own honest
interpretation of the standard. His knowledge and conception of
it may change but the standard is unchangeable ; because founded
in the will and nature of God. It is man’s duty to act according
to the will of God as far as he knows it or honestly believes he
knows it at the time. His knowledqe of the will of God is the
measure of his merit or demerit.
Watts. The statement that the will of God is the standard of
right and wrong is a gratuitous assumption, a begging of the whole
question. No scintillation of evidence is produced in support of
the assertion. And many very eminent Christians have disagreed
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
17
with it in toto. Dr. Samuel Clarke, a far greater man than Father
Lambert—and, withal, a dignitary of the church—maintained that
the moral law was to be found in the fitness of things. Adam
Smith discovered it in sympathy, and Paley in a sort of utilitari
anism ; whilst, if I mistake not, Cardinal Bellarmine placed it in
the decisions of the Pope of Rome, and held that should the head
of the church decree that acts now considered moral should hence
forth be immoral, and vice versa, the moral law would be changed.
We deny that the will of God has aught to do with the standard of
right and wrong among men, and demand the proof. Let that
be forthcoming.
But, in the next place, where is this will of God recorded ? Surely
if it were to be discovered anywhere it should be in Nature. And
yet no one can gather from natural phenomena, what is right and
what is wrong. For, as Mill has shown, Nature does every day
that which men are imprisoned and hanged for doing. She is, and
can be, no guide in morals. Mr. Lambert will no doubt reply that
the will of God is to be found in the mandates of his churchand
the Protestant will tell you it is in the Bible. But here again we
want the proof, which is not forthcoming.
Moreover, the teachings of both the church and the Bible are so
contradictory that no formulated moral code can be obtained from
either one or the other, or both combined. The church has en
joined repeatedly the performance of acts atrocious in their cha
racter and pernicious in their results, and anathematized and
excommunicated those who had too high a moral nature to perform
them,—whilst the moral code of the Bible is such a heterogeneous
mass of contradictions that there is not wanting a text to justify
any act, however outrageously immoral.
Lambert. Protestants, like Catholics, hold that the will of God
is the standard, and they value the Bible only because they believe
it to be a revelation of that will.
Watts. Exactly, but that only shows how blind they all are.
The will of God, according to one, is in the Bible, and according
to the other, in the church ; and these two are in flagrant oppo
sition to each other. What is the use, therefore, of talking about:
an abstract will of God, which no one can discover, and about which
those who believe in it are at sixes and sevens ? If there be such,
a will it is perfectly useless to man as a guide in life, because na
one knows where it is to be found. And the moral code which
�18
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
society recognizes is found neither in the Bible nor in the church,
but based upon the general experience of mankind, as. to what is
best for the happiness of the race. Surely Father Lambert must
be aware of this.
Lacy. The standard of right and wrong, whatever rule may be
professed, is in the mind and heart of man and has varied from age
to age, as he advanced from the barbarism of the past to the com
parative enlightenment of the present.
Lambert. The standard is certainly in the mind of man, for all
peoples in all times have recognized a supreme will as the standard.
Catholics, Protestants and Jews call it the will of God; Pagans
call it the will of the gods—but all recognize a supreme, super
natural will as the standard of right and wrong. You say truly,
then, that it is in the mind of man. But it is not always in his heart,
for men often do what they know to be wrong. This standard has
never varied, though men’s know edge of it may have increased or
diminished, or their application of it may have differed.
Watts. It is assuredly a most astounding statement to make to
say that the standard of right and wrong has never varied. Why
it has never remained the same for a century at a time, and hardly
any two nations think alike about it. Moreover, where is the stan
dard ? What is the use of saying that different people call it the
will of God ? No two of them agree as to what that supposed will
enjoins. Unless the said will of God can be found written some
where in a plain and unmistakeable form, it amounts to nothing
more than “ a will-o-th-wisp.” The Roman Catholics say it is in
the Church, the Protestants in the Bible, the Parsee in the ZendAvesta, the Mohammedan in the Koran, the Hindoo in the Shaster
and Vedas, and the Pagan in none of them. And all these records
of the will of God teach different systems of morality. No doubt
men often do what they know to be wrong, but they also often dd
wrong believing it to be right. When Christians persecuted and
burned each other they did it most conscientiously, believing firmly
that they were obeying the moral law, acting in accordance with
the will of God, and therefore doing right. What has taught us
now that these acts were wrong ? Not the will of God, but the ad
vancement of human knowledge. The Roman Catholic would
think he was doing wrong in eating meat on a Friday, whilst the
Protestant laughs at this as a silly superstition. Where is the will
<of God, then, which both profess to take for their guide ?
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS- OF INFIDELS*' CRITICISED.
19
Lacy. Our knowledge of the rules of morality has come to us by
<slow degrees, and is not perfect yet.
Lambert. If so, we cannot say that murder, theft and adultery are
wrong. We must wait for developments ! Some new discovery
may yet prove that vice is virtue and virtue vice, that honesty is a
superstition, decency a prejudice and duty an illusion.
Watts. That is a non sequiter. Because we have not yet attained
to a perfect system of ethics, it does not follow that some questions
in connection with it are not settled. “ Murder, theft,” etc., are
known to be wrong, not because they conflict with some imaginary
■divine will, but because they are prejudicial to the well-being of
society. It would be very difficult, in fact, to prove that “ murder,
theft and adultery ” were contrary to the will of God, for all are
sanctioned in the Bible, and have been defended by the Holy
Catholic Church. That Church has committed murder on a very
large scale, has practised robbery in the confiscation of the pro
perty of heretics, and even Popes have been the fathers of illegiti
mate children, and, in some cases, the very personification of im
purity, lust and uncleanness. Yet these Popes were infallible, and
•the vehicles of the divine will. Is not this the height of absurdity?
Lacy. Christian theology also affirms that there are three Gods,
•co-equal and infinite in every divine attribute, although declaring
that the three are in some inexplicable sense, one.
Lambert. This is the kind of stuff infidel writers feed their credu
lous dupes on. It is difficult to understand how one brought up in
a Christian community, and pretending to know anything about
even the simplest elements of Christianity, could honestly make
■the above statement. ... A Sunday school boy of ten years
■who, after studying the first three chapters of his catechism, should
make such a statement as Mr. Lacy makes, would richly deserve
to be spanked for inattention or pitied for his stupidity....................
“ Christian theology affirms that there are three Gods ! ” The
man who makes such a statement sacrifices all claim to considera
tion as a scholar, or to having the most ordinary knowledge of the
subject he elects to talk about. Yet this is the kind of people who
are most flippant and noisy"ab'but theology, the Bible, and Moses.
They are always as ready, as a self-cocking pistol, to give their.
“ honest ” and ignorant contents. Here is the author of a book,
who undertakes to treat of philosophy, revelation and Christian
theology, and who attributes to Christians a doctrine they not only
do not hold, but which they have m all times conrfmned / And this
ignorant upstart states it as if it were a matter about which there
is no doubt whatever. Can any language be too severe for such an
�20
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’’ CRITICISED.
offence ? If he be ignorant of the Christian doctrine on this sub
ject he is too ignorant to discuss Christian theology in a cross road
grocery; and if he be not ignorant of the Christian doctrine of the
unity of God, and yet made in cold type the above statement what
are we to think of him ? Does not his statement justify me ’in dis
missing him as too ignorant or too dishonest to deal with in discus
sing the great question at issue ?
Watts. Here is a storm in a teacup. The Father’s holy ire is
like that of an incensed Jove. But he should remember that not
only is abuse not argument, but that, as a rule, it proves the lack,
of argument. To call an opponent ill names, apply to him such
complimentary epithets as “ ignorant upstart,” and rave about
his unfitness for the task he has undertaken, is, no doubt, quite in
keeping with the priestly intolerance of the popish hierarchy, but.
it is not likely to carry conviction to the calm and impartial reader..
The Father should remember the story of the dispute about the
body of Moses, recorded in “ sacred scripture,” between the devil
and an archangel. Verily that archangel would have been silent
had he encountered Father Lambert, and it is even questionablewhether the other disputant would have had much chance with
him. And, after all, what is the matter ? What is all this commo
tion about ?
Lambert. Christian theology affirms that there are not three
Gods, but one God, one divine nature, and that in this one divine
nature there are three persons. The unity is asserted of the divine
nature, tri-unity of the divine persons, and it does not require more
than average brains to understand that nature and personality are
not one and the same thing.
Watts. But personality surely implies a distinct and separate
consciousness. One Bishop, in fact—Sherlock I think—said that
the three persons in the Godhead were “ as distinct as Peter, James
and John.” That either means three Gods, or three persons of
whom each is one-third of a God. Which is it, Father Lambert ?
Don’t try to escape by calling out “ mystery.” There is no mystery
at all, but simply a use of words without meaning, which is thesynonym of nonsense. In fact, the mass of absurdity that has
been written on this question is astounding. Three Gods yet onlyone God.
Lambert. It is inexplicable how one can be one and three at thesame time and in the same sense, but that is precisely what Chris
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
21
tian theology does not affirm. When it affirms unity and trinity or
God it does not affim them in the same sense. It asserts that the
■divine nature is one; the divine persons, three.
Watts. Is that so, friend Lambert ? I must ask you whether
you are not familiar with a mass of nonsense called “ The Creed of
St. Athanasius.” Have you not subscribed to that creed ? Now
what does it say ? “ The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy
Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.”
Now, tell me, does not this predicate that they are three and one in
the same sense 1 If not, then words have no meaning. Nothing can be
more clear and plain. And the absurdity is repeated a dozen
times or more in different ways—and always to show that these
existences are three and one in exactly the same sense. Who is
the “ ignorant upstart” now ? The tables are turned, Father, as
any one can see with half an eye.
Ingersoll. He (God) authorized the murder of millions.
Lambert, He never authorized or ordered the murder of anyone
from Abel to Garfield. God is the author and giver of life, and
those He places on this earth He can remove at His will No man
has a right to live one instant longer than his Creator wills him to
remain, be he born or unborn, innocent or guilty. As creatures of
God we are absolutely His and can have no right whatever as
against Him.
Lacy. The proposition embraced in the Father’s comment
raises two questions : ist, Has God a “ right ” to do whatever He
arbitrarily might will with His creature man, moulded in His
image, whom He made a little lower than the angels, and thought
worthy of a crown of glory and honour ? Has He the right, for
instance, to inflict wanton punishment without any moral aim
whatever ?
Lambert. Yes. He has the right to do whatever He wills with
His creature man, first, because being infinitely perfect He wills
rightly and justly, and secondly, because man is His creature. To
suppose God to will unjustly or punish wantonly is to suppose Him
to be imperfect, but you cannot suppose this since you have ad
mitted Him to be perfect. God being infinitely perfect and just
His will is infinitely perfect and just; and an infinitely perfect and
just will has a right to will what .it wills to will. This does not
need demonstration, it follows from the admitted existence of a
perfect Being.
Watts. This bit of Jesuitical sophistry is worthy of a priest. It,
in fact, begs the question in dispute. How are the perfections ot
�22
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
any being to be learned but by the acts of such a being ? God is.
assumed to be a perfect being and then all kinds of what, under
other circumstances, would be deemed not only imperfect but very
vile and atrocious acts, ascribed to Him, are said to be perfect
because He performed them. This is logic with a vengeance. The
acts of God prove His perfection, and His perfection makes the
acts perfect. There is, then, no absolute distinction between per
fection and imperfection. A man declares that he has a command
from God to commit murder, and he slays most brutally many of
his fellow men. This is not a crime, because of the assumption
that a perfect being ordained it to be done. But no, the man may
have been a deceiver, or himself deceived, and thus his act not of
God at all. Exactly. And to-day no one would believe his story
about his having received such a command from God. Why, then,
should not the same common sense be used when discussing thepretensions of men who lived in earlier times ? Assume, if you
please, that God is perfect and just. Then it follows, as clear as
that two and two make four, that He could never have commanded
any human being to perform acts which are unjust. But the Bibleascribes such commands to Him. Therefore the Bible is, so far
at all events, false. The atrocious murders and vile licentious acts,,
which are said to have been commanded by God in the Old Tes
tament, were either ordered by Him or they were not. If they
were, then He is unjust; if they were not, the story is untrue. Let
Father Lambert choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases. If
there be a God He has given to man the faculties by which justice
can be distinguished from injustice, benevolence from malignity,,
virtue from vice, and by those faculties the acts ascribed to God
himself must be judged. To believe otherwise is to make thejustice and goodness of God terms without meaning.
Lacy Has He (God) the right to inflict wanton suffering with
out any moral aim whatever ?
Lambert. This is an absurd question. It is as if you should ask,.
Has the perfect Being the right to do wrong ? Has the perfect
Being the right to be imperfect ? A question that supposes im
perfection in the perfect Being involves a contradiction and requires
no answer. God, being perfect, has a right to do as He wills.
Watts. But can He will to do wrong ? If not, then we err when
we ascribe wrong to Him. And that is iust what the Bible does.
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
23
To say that an act which would be wrong in man is right in God,
is to deny that there is any absolute distinction between right and
wrong. Or, if the will of God makes an act right and just, then
there is no meaning in saying that God acts rightly, or justly, and,
moreover, such acts as murder, theft, etc., having been decided to
be right because God commanded them, then it is only right that
men should so regard them. And on this principle the Holy (?)
Catholic Church has acted again and again in the history of the
past, when she resorted to the fire and faggot argument to con
vince heretics. Such sophistical quibbling as this priest indulges
in is pitiable.
Lambert. The difficulty is not in conceiving divine justice, but
in understanding its application. Our ignorance of all the condiditions, circumstances and divine purposes disables us from judg
ing the acts of God in any given case. But, knowing that he is
the perfect Being, we must conclude a priori that his every act is
just, without reference to how it may appear to us whose minds
are rendered impotent by ignorance. To know what justice is and
to discern the justice of a particular act are different things. Man
is capable of the former but not of the latter in all cases, for the
latter depends on conditions of which he is ignorant.
Watts. But what is this but saying that we know nothing at all
about God ? What nonsense to talk of God’s perfections, when
we are unable to judge of what perfection in him would con
sist. We can only judge of any act, whether of a man or a God,
by such faculties as we possess, and if these are useless for the
purpose in the case of God, how absurd it must be to talk of the
justice of God at all. 'If justice in God means something totally
different from justice in man, it is only misleading to say that God
is just. I am told that God is love, but that may, upon this prin
ciple of reasoning, mean something totally different from what I
understand by the term, from its use amongst men; it may in
fact mean the very opposite,—hate. But all this goes to show how
idle it is to talk at all about that which no one can understand.
All the adjectives which Mr. Lambert uses to describe God, may
mean something entirely different to the ideas they convey when
applied to men, and therefore only serve to make “ confusion more
confounded.”
Lacy. If God be God, he is no Nero, no Herod, no Gessler,
but a Father lifting up his children to himself.
�24
the CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
Lambert. This is true, and therefore you and Ingersoll slander
him when you make him out a tyrant.
Watts. 'Why, it is you who make him a tyrant, by declaring
that tyranny is not tyranny when practised by him. Your entire
argument is, in fact, a defence of his tyranny by an endeavour to
show that his most tyrannical acts are right.
Lambert. If it (the Bible) is inspired by God, its pre*cepts and
commands must be just and right, however they may appear to
us. It will not do to say the Book commanded unjust things to
be done, and therefore it is not inspired. This is to beg the ques
tion, for if it be inspired those things which you imagine to be
unjust are not and cannot be unjust.
Watts. Well, but does not the fact that this book commands
unjust acts, or what we should call unjust acts under any other
circumstances, prove that it is not inspired by a just God ? And
if it be inspired, then we ought to take our ideas of justice from its
pages, and completely revolutionize our present ethical code.
But even Father Lambert dares not do this. Acts are com
manded, or said to be commanded, by God in the Old Testament,
which Mr. Lambert, with the fear of the law before his eyes,
dares not to perform in America. He might plead that they
were right because they had been approved of by God. But a
judge—even a Christian judge—would make short work of all such
nonsense, and the Father would soon find himself where he could
write no more books on the “ Tactics of Infidels.”
Lambert. He who has the absolute right to take life cannot be
guilty of murder in taking it ; for murder is. an unjust killing, and
there is no unjust killing in the taking of life by him who has the
absolute right to take it. There is no escape from this reasoning
except by denying the absolute right, and you cannot deny this
but by denying God’s existence ; for on the hypothesis that he
exists, he is creator, and being creator, the absolute right of dominion
over his creatures necessarily follows, * * * to deny this
right is to deny God’s existence.
Lacy. If by absolute dominion he meant to govern without
regard to the principles of justice, written by God’s own finger on
the human heart, we fail to see it.
Lambert. Inasmuch as absolute dominion does not . mean to
govern without regard to the principles of justice, your if is of no
consequence. No one thinks of asserting that the perfect Being
can govern without reference to his own essential attributes, of
which justice is one. When I assert the absolute dominion of God,
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
25
I simply assert that he is accountable to no one but himself, and
that whatever he does, merely because he does it, is beyond human
criticism.
Watts. This begs the whole question. We maintain, as Mr.
.Lambert must know, that the book is not true which ascribes
unjust acts to God. He assumes that God did act as here repre
sented, and then declares the acts recorded to be good, because
they were done by God.
But if our sense of justice is to be considered a guide for
our own conduct, we have the right to criticise, by means of
the same faculty, the actions of others. And when we are
told with one breath that God is good and with the next that
lie is the author of acts at which humanity shudders with
horror, we simply say that no one but a born fool can believe
both statements.
Either God is not good, or else it is fake
to say that he performed, or ordered to be performed, the acts
which are ascribed to Him in the Bible. The only other alterna
tive is to assert that we are incapable of judging of what is just
and right. But that is a more fatal position still to the Christian,
for it involves the fact that we have no guide for our own conduct.
Hence, we ourselves may kill and torture, inflict pain in the most
brutal form, and declare it wise and good to do so. In truth this
is what the Church has done in all ages, and no wonder, with such
pious examples before them ascribed to their God. If we are at
all capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, between
justice and injustice, then we say boldly that such cruel acts as are
ascribed to God in the Bible are most terribly unjust. Nor is it
any answer to say that God did them, for that is to say he has no
sense of justice himself and is not good. We have rights even
against God himself, for, if he exists, it was he who gave us the
faculties by which his own acts are condemned. Our position,
However, is this, that the book which ascribes acts of horror, deeds
of blood and fierce cruelty to God is not true. Father Lambert,
with all the audacious effrontery of his class, assumes the truth of
the record and then proceeds to raise a superstructure of argument
upon the assumption. And this miserable quibbling he calls logical
reasoning.
Lambert. The Hebrew military laws did not abandon captive
women to the insolence and brutality of captors. On the contrary
�16
THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
they made special provision forbidding the first familiarities of thesoldier with his captives. If you study the 21st chapter of Deuter
onomy, verses 10 to 14, you will learn that the soldier was obliged,
to make the captive his wife.
Watts . But to compel a woman to marry a man whom she
loathed and detested, a foreign invader of her country, the
slaughterer of her kindred and friends, does not mend the matter
much. What was such a marriage but another form of foul
licentiousness ? This explanation leaves the case nearly as bad as
it was before. Compulsory marriage of people who detest each
other, solely for the purpose of gratifying the lust of the man, is
brutal, unjust, and loathsome.
Lambert. As further proof you quote from Numbers: “But all
the women children who have not known man by lying with him,.
keep for yourselves,'1' and add :—
Lacy. Female innocence to be offered on the altar of lust!’
Noble trophies of victory !
Lambert. A Comanche Indian would probably interpret the
verse that way. But what is there in the words to justify the
inference that the captives were devoted to the lusts of the captors ?
The captives were to be adopted into the nation and subsequently
to intermarry with the Jews in accordance with the law of
Deuteronomy quoted above. It is only a libidinous imagination
that can give the words any other interpretation. The United
States government “ keeps for itself ” the children of those Indianswhom it destroys. Are we to infer that those children are to be
offered on the altar of lust ?
Watts. But to charge your opponent with having “ a libidinous,
imagination,” although a very Christian argument, does not get rid
of the difficulty. The text, interpreted by common sense, and not
by theological hocus pocus, clearly means that these young women
were kept alive for purposes of debauchery. Otherwise, why thequalifications stated ? The case of the children of the Indians is
not analogous, for there both sexes are preserved and treated in
, the same way. Here it was the females only, and they of a par
ticular age, and in their virginity. The sophistry of this wily priest
may be able to do much in the form of hood-winking his credulous
dupes, but it is inadequate to the task of explaining away the plain
meaning of this charming and delicious text.
Lacy. In this age does the Father require a writer to prove that
slavery is an evil and polygamy a sin ?
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS*’ CRITICISED.
2/
Lambert. He does most emphatically require those who reject
revelation to prove the wrong or sinfulness of slavery and poly
gamy. Those who believe in revelation believe they are wrong be
cause they are forbidden. But on what principle do you, who re
ject revelation, believe they are wrong ? Oh, they are slimy and
filthy. There, there, we have had enough of that kind of talk ; it
proves nothing.
Watts. Can anything be conceived of equal to this in reckless
and impudent audacity ? Revelation forbids slavery and polygamy ?
Where ? Let us have chapter and verse. Both are pretty gener
ally referred to in the Bible, and always without a single word of
condemnation. Had any unbeliever made an assertion of this
character, Mr. Lambert, with his excessive politeness, would have
called him a “ liar.” The entire statement is simply truth reversed.
Those who attach no importance to so-called supernatural revela,tion are the men who have always been first and foremost in con
demning polygamy and denouncing slavery, whilst the Christian
Church defended at least one of these monstrous evils up to quite
recent times. Why are they wrong ? Because they sap the founda
tion of all society, and are out of harmony with the best interests
of mankind. That is why, Mr. Lambert, and not because they are
condemned or forbidden by your so-called revelation, which they
most assuredly are not. Such an attempt to hoodwink the ig
norant dupes of a miserable superstition has rarely been witnessed
as is presented in the pages of this cunning priest’s book.
Lambert. The apostles claimed a divine communication and mis
sion. They worked miracles.
La,cy. Here again is a begging of the question by one who was
to grant nothing and take nothing for granted. Here it is assumed
that miracles were wrought, the very statement denied in the con
troversy.
Lambert. There is the same evidence to prove the miracles of
Christ and the apostles that there is to prove the existence and .
acts of Alexander and Csesar, namely, history and tradition. If
we rej( ct the former we must on the same principle reject the latter,
and if we adopt this principle we cut ourselves off comparatively
from all the events and personages of the past. The miracles of
Christ and His apostles are historic facts or events subject to the
same rules of historic criticism that other facts are.
Watts. But it should be borne in mind that this is just what we
deny, and for which we demand and wait for proof. Is there the same
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
historic evidence of the Christian miracles that there is for the ex
istence and actions of Alexander and Caesar ? If so, it is marvel
lously strange that it is never forthcoming. Why does not this
priest produce it ? We are tolerably familiar with the sort of evi
dence that his Church deals in. It is manufactured for the pur
pose, and is no doubt very conclusive to the poor dupes who are
bamboozled by an objectionable class of ecclesiastical dictators
who preserve their authority and their pay by lording it over their
victims. But rational men, who are not in bondage to the most
iniquitous hierarchy that has ever disgraced the earth, are not to
he fooled in this way. We assert boldly that no such evidence can
be produced, nor such evidence as would satisfy a legal mind and
convince an intelligent jury in a court of justice, even were the
issue the conviction of a prisoner for stealing a brass-headed nail.
But does not Mr. Lambert see that the cases are not at all analo
gous ? In the first place, it is of no great importance whether
Csesar lived or not, or whether Alexander performed the acts
ascribed to him. The question is not a very momentous one.- The
world would not be much affected whatever decision was arrived at
regarding it. But on the belief in the miracles of Jesus our eternal
salvation, it is said, depends, and evidence should therefore be ob
tainable about which no mistake could be made, and which no rea
soning could overturn. And secondly, everyone knows that the
strength of evidence tendered in support of any event should be in
proportion to the commonness or uncommonness of the event it
self. That which would suffice to prove an ordinary event would
be perfectly inadequate to show that an extraordinary one had
taken place. If I am told that such a man as Csesar lived, I have
no reason to doubt it, because there is nothing improbable in the
alleged fact. But if I were informed that he worked miracles, and
* came to life again after he was dead, the highly improbable char
acter of the circumstance would render much strong evidence ne
cessary before I should be convinced. There are stories told in
fact, which no amount of evidence could establish as true. The
testimony of a million men could not prove that which, by the very
nature of things, is impossible. And although I am not saying that
the miracles recorded in the New Testament are impossible, I do
say that they outrage all the laws of probability, and can only,
therefore, be believed on the production of an amount of evidence
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
2q
ten thousand times greater than that which would suffice to show
that Csesar had lived and written the commentaries ascribed to
him, or that Alexander had been a great warrior.
Lucy. The sceptic says, along with miracles we read of witch
craft and demoniacal possessions.
Lambert. And the merchant says, along with gold coin he meets
with counterfeits, but he is not so asinine as to reject all money
on that account. He takes care, however, to test each piece or
note, and rejects the false and accepts the true.
Watts. ' So, so, Father. There is the same difference between
miracles and such cases as those of witchcraft and demoniacal
possession, as between good coin and counterfeit money. Be
it so. But both the Bible and the huge ecclesiastical estab
lishment which you call the church, treat all three with the same
authority. Then, miracles are true, and demoniacal possession
and witchcraft spurious. It is quite refreshing to find a Romish
priest writing like this. It seems after all that there is a good deal
of counterfeit in the Bible and in the Church, which is just what
we have always maintained. Surely this was a slip of the pen on the
part of the priest. Witchcraft spurious ! Yet the Church has
put to death many thousands of persons for practising it. Demo
niacal possession a sham ! Yet the Bible teaches it, and the Church
maintains its truth. Be careful, Lambert, or you will be indicted
for heresy by your own church, and may be compelled, like poor
Gallileo, before any ignorant tribunal of the same hierarchy, to
eat your own words and recant.
Lacy. A crazy man was supposed to be possessed by the devil.
Lambert. Supposed by whom ? Where did you acquire this
piece of information which you impart so gratuitously ? We find
in the Scripture that certain persons were said to be possessed, but
we do not find that crazy men were supposed to be possessed. This
is an inference of your own which is not justified by the premises.
As a matter of fact the Scriptures themselves make a distinction
between demoniac possession and insanity, and recognize the exis
tence of both.
. Watts. The Scriptures “ recognize the existence of both.” Quite
so. Then please, Father Lambert, tell us how you reconcile this
with your former statement, that demoniacal possessions were
spurious and stood in the same relation to miracles that counter
�30
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
feit does to genuine coin. We know perfectly well that in the Bible
a distinction is made between insanity and the being possessed by
devils, but we contend that this shows the ignorance of those who
wrote the Bible. No scientific man to day believes in demoniacal
possession, and Christians of education use their utmost endeavours
and the most ingenious and sophistical arguments to explain away
the meaning of those passages in the New Testament, where it is
mentioned. But to be serious, is such childish nonsense worth dis
cussing ? The fact is, Christianity in its orthodox form is obsolete,
and the wretched old wbrn out despotism, called the Church of
Rome, out of place in the midst of modern civilization. It could
only flourish in an age of ignorance, darkness and superstition and
must disappear before the light of science as clouds before the
noonday sun. That any man of intelligence can be found in this
age to defend its audacious pretensions, its absurd dogmas, its
puerile mummeries, its despotic proceedings, its persecuting spirit,
its illiterate and ignorant priesthood, its ridiculous claims, its
false and mischievous teaching, is perfectly astounding. But
so it is. Delusions die hard, and the greater the delusion, some
times the harder the death. Demoniacal possession ! What would
be thought of any man who should talk about that absurdity in a
meeting of men of science ? He would simply be laughed at, and
no one would deem it worth noticing, nor his opinions worthy of
discussion.
Lacy. We hear the Bible called “ God’s Book,” as if it had been
written as a unit.
Lambert. If you heard that you must be in the habit of keeping
•strange company. If you had asked an intelligent Christian for
information on the subject, he would have told you that it was
written by many authors and at long intervals of time; that its
present arrangement, chaptering and versification are a matter of
convenience.
Watts. It is a quibble, and a very poor one at that, to say that
the Bible is acknowledged by Christians to be composed of many
different books which were written by various men at different
time£, therefore, it is not spoken of as “ a unit,” or one. Mr. Lam
bert knows perfectly well that according to Christian belief these
were simply instruments in the hands of God, in fact, vehicles
through whom the divine teaching flowed down to mankind, and
that their own private views are not found at all in what they wrote.
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
31
The book had one author and that author was God, the men em
ployed being simply amanuenses, writing down what they were
inspired to put on record. Everywhere, therefore, amongst Chris
tians this volume is spoken of as a unit, under the name of the
Word of God. The teaching in its various parts—in whatever
age written—is believed to be of equal divine authority, and pass
ages from every book are frequently preached from in the pulpit,
and quoted in every-day life as applicable to the affairs of human
existence as we find it at the present time. The Romanist, of course,
puts the authority of his church above the Bible, but no Protestant
will for a moment allow this to be done. With both the Bible is
the word of God, and the latter takes as his motto, “ The Bible,
the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.” The “ strange com
pany,” therefore, was Christian company. Strange enough, no
-doubt, but Christian still.
Lacy. The Pope is in his own sacred person also infallible.
Lambert. Here as usual in presenting Catholic doctrines you mis
represent. Had you consulted any of the many books which treat
of the decrees of the council of the Vatican you would have learned
that they do not teach that the Pope personally, or as a private
individual, is infallible, but that he is infallible only in his official
■capacity, as supreme head and judge of the church. As a lawyer
you should understand this distinction. You know the decision of
one of our judges given as a private individual, and unofficial, has
no weight in law ; while the same decision given formally in his
public and official capacity, is decisive.
Watts. If anywhere in the world a prize should be given for
quibbling this priest would certainly take it against all comers.
He is surely the champion hair splitter. How adroitly he intro
duces an analogy, which is no analogy at all, and thus throws dust
into the eyes of his readers, and then winds up with a flourish of
trumpets as though he had achieved a great victory over his
antagonist. The Pope is infallible only in his official capacity,
whatever that may mean. He is infallible as head of the church.
.But is he not always head of the church? If yes, then he is
always infallible, if no, who is head of the church when he is not ?
Or is the church sometimes without a head ? There is no analogy
-in the case of the judge dragged in neck and crop. The opinion
of a judge will be just as sound and just as accurate in private as
an public, only if given in the one case it has authority, whilst in
�32
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’
CRITICISED.
the other it has not. But infallibility cannot be laid aside then,,
for it is an individual and not an official quality. An infallible
being must be always infallible, no matter where and to what his
infallible power is applied, and if the Pope be really infallible, heis quite as much so when giving orders about his dinner, choosing
his servants, selecting his stockings, or scolding his menials, or
when delivering his decrees ex cathedra in the conclave of Bishops.
To maintain the contrary is to ascribe the infallibility to the chair
in which he sits or to some of his official surroundings, which
would be too absurd even for a Roman Catholic to maintain, which
is saying a great deal.
This infallibility doctine has been the curse of mankind in all
ages where it has been taught. It has deluged the world with
blood, and stopped the onward march of progress by fire and
sword. Superstition is its twin brother, persecution is its offspring,
and cruelty of the most damnable kind the weapon it has ever em
ployed. The Protestant ascribes infallibility to his Bible, and the
Romanist to a common-place old man in the Vatican. We say “ a
plague on both your houses 1 ” Infallibility is not within the reach
of human beings, and they who pretend to have it cannot avoid
arrogating to themselves superiority over their fellows, and treating
better men than themselves as inferiors. The arrogant and often,
impertinent and insolent tone of the author of “ Tactics of Infidels ”
bespeaks the true papist in every line. He is a priest of an infal
lible church, which church is unparalleled for the mischief it has
done in the world by any organization in ancient and modern times,.
It has everywhere championed despotism, ignorance and priestly
intolerance, and has seldom, if ever, been found on the side of free
dom, benevolence, and justice. But its end is near. It is out of har
mony with the institutions of this country, and with the aspirations
of modern thought. When it is gone, the people will breathe more
freely, and feel that a horrible night-mare has been removed.
�
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
A reply to Father Lambert's "Tactics of Infidels,"
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK. At head of title: 'Orthodox criticism tested!'
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
[189-]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (A reply to Father Lambert's "Tactics of Infidels,"), 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
RA1856
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
Free Thought
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dfc43acee4ade5d27d79dda0cbbb340f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CvAaHpIJL4er2SlqzlFYqGu1ZYFBy5ZV72hnZdJwODn8lOb9MRRaww3cI-9iQ7Qt7DTdEBzUKYAz-wlHOyWhpn%7EHjeD7xiSLBNthjtkQpnjDL4Qq63lVf1WD-ZT-da2HwzTAo%7EWQ8kR3u5NknS9wXdLdJgPA3LnUNJKduWxah3VUConaveWPuna%7EwXWMJMBb4CIS6CQz%7E4CzA2Qy-JxVJuFJYdro8XQX3NJWa5iyG6vcyn4%7E33rPPYAHv-htB6aJ%7ElpDAFuJkPcEpexRNiOGIMbR1sp6Z5wvkdoysjyWIejcus%7EmIecBYEplrxn09PuQDjr207jVICB02NKzseb8Cw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0c3b5acb35cc01dd2f9e1157ae94bcb7
PDF Text
Text
Its Origin, Nature, and Influence.
By CHARLES WATTS
CONTENTS:
Christianity of Human Origin—Not Original—Indefinite. Impracti.
cable and Contradictory in its Nature—Its Influence Tested by
History and the Admissions of Christian Writers.
Price Fifteen Cents.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE,
Toronto, Ont.
��CHRISTIANITY:
ITS ORIGIN, NATURE, AND INFLUENCE.
“ To believe without evidence and demonstration is an act of ignorance and
folly.”—Fohiet/.
INTRODUCTION.
The object of this pamphlet is to ascertain as far as possible what
evidence and demonstration, if any, can be reasonably adduced in
favour of the general orthodox claims relative to the Origin, Nature,
and Influence of the Christian religion. In these days of avowed
mental freedom and intellectual research, no apology should be needed
for entering upon such an investigation. Systems or principles
unable to withstand the test of fair examination are destitute of what
should be one of their highest recommendations. Belief without
critical examination has too often perpetuated error and fostered
credulity. If Christianity be fallacious, why should not its fallacy
be made known ? If, however, it be true, its truth will be the more
apparent as its claims are investigated and examined. Dr. Collyer
observes, in his lectures on miracles, that “ he who forbids you to reason
on religious subjects, or to apply your understanding to the investiga
tion of revealed truth, is insulting the character of God, as though his
acts shrunk from scrutiny—is degrading his own powers, which are
best employed when they are in pursuit of such sublime and interesting
subjects.
There are three principal modes of criticising the modern Orthodox
pretensions set forth on behalf of popular Christianity. First, it
is alleged that such pretensions are entirely destitute of truth, and
that they have been of no service whatever to mankind. This view
I cannot thoroughly endorse. Many of the superstitions of the world
have been allied with some fact, and have in their exercise upon the
minds of a portion of their devotees served, for a time no doubt, a useful
purpose. In the second place, certain opponents of Christianity regard
it as being deserving of immediate extinction. This, in my opinion, is.
�CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
unjust to its adherents, who have as much right to possess what they
hold to be true as we have to entertain views which we believe to be
correct. Theological faiths should be supplanted by intellectual growth,
not crushed by dogmatic force. The third and, to my mind, the most
sensible and fair mode of dealing with Christianity is to regard it as not
being the only system of truth ; as not being of any special origin; as
being not suited to all minds ; as having fulfilled its original purpose,
and as having no claim of absolute domination. This appears to me to
be the true position of Secularism towards popular orthodoxy. Such
a position is based upon the voice of history, the law of mental science,
and the philosophy of true liberty of thought. We should in all our
endeavours seek to gain as far as possible that which is useful unaccom
panied with that which has become useless.
To the impartial student of history and to the keen observer of the
development of the human mind, it is apparent that systems are
frequently deprived of much of their real value through the injudicious
conduct of their expounders and defenders. Such persons are not con
tented to allow their theories to stand upon their own legitimate merits,
but they deem it necessary to add thereto claims which are most extrav
agant, and which have no necessary connection with the systems advo
cated. The result of such a policy is that fictitious surroundings frequently
•obscure the real nature and scope of the principles advocated. This is
particularly the case with subjects of a theological character. The
religious enthusiast, whose emotion too frequently gets the better of his
reason, is apt to indulge in certain delusions until, in time, they appear
to him realities. The Rev. James Cranbrook no doubt recognised this
when, referring to Jesus in the preface of his work, “ The Founders of
Christianity,” (page v.) he observed : “ Our idealizations have invested
him [Christ] with a halo of spiritual glory that, by the intensity of its
brightness, conceals from us the real figure presented in the Gospels.
We see him, not as he is described, but as the ideally perfect man our
.fancies have conceived.”
As with Christ so with Orthodox Christianity. The most wild,
absurd and fallacious pretensions are put forth on its behalf. Instead
af regarding the Christian faith as an outgrowth of the human mind, a
combination of truth and error, born amidst limited knowledge and
unlimited superstition, the majority of Orthodox Christians allege
that their system emanated direct from what is termed a divine
source; that it is unique in its nature, unequalled in its influence for
�CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE. AND INFLUENCE.
3
good and that it really ushered into the world the greatest civi
lization ever known to the human race. These theological extremists
not only ignore all in society that is evil and defective as belonging to
their system, but they credit Christianity with all improvements which
have taken place in modern times. It matters not whether it be a
steam engine, an electric telegraph, a printing press, the telephone, the
extension of political rights, the existence of benevolent and health
restoring institutions, the marked improvement of the physical con
dition of the people, the increased facilities for the education of the
young, the elevating and improved status of women, the promotion of
sobriety and even the lessening of persecution for the rejection of
creeds and dogmas; all these indications of modern progress are
credited to the Christian faith. Moreover, it is said with a grave
absence of modesty and an utter disregard of accuracy, that high-toned
morality, a correct sense of duty, a clear perception of truth and the
cultivation of the loftiest aspirations, are all the result of the advent
of Jesus of Nazareth.
In vain do we remind these reckless claimants that the principal
factors that operated in the establishment of the reforms that now
surround us, were science, education, an extended freedom of the
press, international and commercial intercourse, and the exerciseof mecha
nical genius, allied with mental liberty. These agencies of individual
and national progress did not exist in the palmy days of Church
supremacy, and they have been secured in spite of the unprincipled
and persistent opposition of the ecclesiastical party. Why is it, if
orthodoxy is so potent for good in these directions, that during cen
turies of its absolute reign it failed to give the world those measures
of reform, which have since been won through secular effort? Is it
not a fact that, after a long and fair trial, with everything in its
favour, the Church has proved incapable of securing the correct remedy
for such evils as drunkenness, social injustice and the withholding
from woman her proper position in the body politic ? Organizations
of a secular character have now to be formed to accomplish that which
theology, with all its power, proved itself impotent to achieve. The
Christian is also reminded that truth, benevolence, justice, a noble
sense of right and all the higher virtues that adorn mankind, have
been found, at least, as highly developed among those who are termed,
the men of the world as among those who profess the Christian faith.
�4
CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
That this is so is plainly admitted even by high dignitaries of the
■Church.
Archbishop Whateley, in his “ Lectures on Political
Economy,” remarks : “ I have said that the object of the Scriptures
is to reveal to us religious and moral truths; but even this, as far as
regards the latter, must be admitted with considerable modification.
God has not revealed to us a system of morality such as would have
been needed for beings who had no other means of distinguishing right
and wrong. On the contrary, the inculcation of virtue, and reproba
tion of vice in Scripture, are in such a tone as seems to pre-suppose a
■natural power or a capacity for acquiring the power to distinguish
them.” And Dr. Chalmers, in concluding his sermon on Morality,
states : “We are put upon a cool exercise of the understanding, and
we cannot close it against the fact that all these feelings [those of
charity and virtue] may exist apart from the love of God, and apart
from the religious principle—that the idea of a God may be expunged
from the heart of man, and yet that heart be still the seat of the
same constitutional impulse as ever—that in reference to the realities
of the unseen, the mind may be a blank, and at the same time there
may be room for the play of kindly emotions.”
It is conceded frankly by the present writer, that what is sup
posed to be understood by the very latitudiriarian term Christianity is not
entirely destitute of truth, and that many of its professors are honest
and sincere workers for the common good. All systems being the
outcome of human aspirations, contain features good and commen
dable, for human nature is not totally depraved. The good and useful
work, however, performed by professing Christians is not the result of
their faith, but rather the necessary consequence of their well-trained
and well-developed organizations. Some natures are too pure to be
influenced in their general conduct by any theology. As it was with
the Romans so it is with the Christians of to-day, their Christianity
rests but slightly upon them.
z
In all our investigations, the desire to arrive at truth should be
paramount. No apprehension should be entertained that the result of
our enquiries may be unfavourable to the claims of any particular
faith, but the one desire and determination should be to accept the
verdict of facts. Feeling ought to yield to argument, and traditional
belief to the force of historical and general accuracy. Suppose, in the
examination of the origin, nature, and influence of Christianity, it
�CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
5
should be demonstrated that it is not divine, unique and pre-eminently
useful to man, would that deprive it of its intrinsic worth 1 Certainly
not. Truth is valuable regardless of its source. That which is based
upon verities and adapted to meet the requirements of human nature
should be recognized, whether it emanate from Pagan or Christian,
Jew or Gentile, the devout Believer or the honest Sceptic.
ITS ORIGIN.
Professing Christians not only allege that their faith is of divine
'Origin, but they contend that those who question the correctness of
such an allegation are logically compelled to show how it could have
been produced by human means. It will not be difficult to demon
strate that the allegation is utterly groundless, and that the contention
:is evidently unreasonable.
From experience we learn that systems emanate from the human
mind, but the same monitordoes not teach us that systems arise from what
is termed a “divine ” source. Besides, what does this word “divine” really
mean ? Has it ever been adequately defined ? Is it not simply an
■ expression used to represent a notion acquired through orthodox train
ing ? What knowledge do we possess to enable us to distinguish the
“ divine,” supposing it to exist, from the human ? Being ignorant of
anything beyond the natural, is it not presumptuous to ascribe a sys
tem or a principle to that of which we know nothing ? Christians
agree in regarding other religions than their own as being of human
origin ; why. then, should their faith be an exception ? Has Christi
anity anything to recommend it that the many other religious theories
• do not claim ? Miraculous power, sublime teachings, supernatural doc
trines, progressive aspirations, are claimed on behalf of systems dis
tant from Christianity.
Supposing, however, that the human origin of the Christian faith
-could not be satisfactorily established, would it necessarily follow that
its origin was supernatural ? Certainly not. If we question its
“ divine ” claims, we are not, therefore, bound to account for its exis■ tence. To doubt the validity of one theory does not make it a logical
necessity that we should assume the responsibility of inventing
mother. This is particularly so in reference to Christianity. So un
certain is the period when it first appeared in the world, so doubtful
are the records said to obtain in its early history, so corrupted have been
the channels through which that history has been traced, and so
^imperfect and contradictory are its credentials that we now have, that
�6
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFUENCE.
it is impossible to judge with sufficient accuracy the precise mode of its
introduction. Hence the presumption of those who profess to have
that knowledge. When Christians ascribe their faith to one cause, and
that cause supernatural, upon them devolves the duty of proving their position. Secularists regard Christianity as being the outgrowth of
the human mind, and consider there is nothing more marvellous in its
origin and progress than pertains to other reliigions. The divine origin
of Buddhism and Mohammedanism is denied by Christians : are they
prepared to give a satisfactory account of the introduction and growth,
of those religions ? Why should Christians demand in regard to their
faith what they are unable to perform in connection with theological
systems to which they are opposed ? The claim of the followers of
Christ on behalf of the origin of their religion is opposed to analogy,
reason and experience. “ It is surely therefore,” observes the Rev.
James Cranbrook, “ an absurdity to say that until we can account for
the origin of Christianity by some other means, seeing it is estab
lished, we are bound to accept it as true, and its advocates are not
bound to adduce any positive evidence in its support. I venture to
lay it down as a canon of both logic and rhetoric, in opposition to the
authority of Archbishop Whately, that every one who makes a posi
tive affirmation is bound to furnish the reasons for such an affirmation
before he demands the belief of others.”
It is a fallacy to suppose that Christianity was an entirely new
system, introduced into the world at one particular date. Great
changes—either of a theological, social, or political character—are not
the sudden product of any one period, but rather the gradual growth
of time. The religious phases that came to the front during the time
Christ is supposed to have lived, were but a further development of a
law that had been manifesting itself in previous ages, and that has
continued to still further unfold itself down to the present time. Prior
to the advent of the Jewish Reformer, a mighty struggle had been going
on between philosophy and superstition, and between polytheism and
monotheism. The polytheistic form of supernaturalism was losing its
hold upon the human mind. Its decay, however, was not in conse
quence of the adoption of Christianity, inasmuch as its decline had
commenced before the new faith had dawned. Lewes, in his “ His
tory of Philosophy,” says that “ the progress of Polytheism to Mono
theism was a continuous development ” This is true. And that-
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS OSIGIN. NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
7
■development was exceedingly rapid during the struggles of the Greek
philosophy. It was, intimates the above writer, “ Greek philosophy
that opened men’s eyes to human duty.” We have no right, therefore,
to infer that, if Christ had not appeared, Paganism would have
remained the prevailing theology. Instead of Christianity causing its
downfall, as frequently asserted, the Galilean religion really retained
many of the Pagan follies, some of which are to this day practised in
the Christian Church. “ It may with reason be doubted, if the fact is
as often remembered as it should be, that Christianity arose amid the
corruption and decay of the greatest civilization which the human race
had seen amid the death-throes of the ancient world..................... It is
often assumed that this proud heathenism and pagan glory were over
thrown by the meek and unlearned disciples of the Galilean prophet
of God. Nothing can be less true than this assumption . . . The
fall of the Empire, including the loss and ruin of the old phi
losophy and knowledge, was an indispensable condition of the spread
of Christianity. . . . The birth of Christianity being on this
wise, viz.: having taken place in an era of decay and death of art
and philosophy, of knowledge, of wealth, of population, of progress, in
every form ; and the absence of these things having been one of the
•chief negative conditions of its growth and prosperity, we must look
for the sources of its nourishment in another direction than these j not
in knowledge or the eager questioning spirit which leads to knowledge,
■but in the humble spirit which believes and accepts on trust the word .
•of authority; not in regulated industry, which aims at constant increase
and accumulation of wealth; but in the resigned poverty, which,
scorning this world, lays up riches in heaven ; not in political freedom
and popular government which aims at the progressive well-being of
all, but in the stern rigour of arbitrary power, which coerces the
vicious and refractory into a little order during their brief sojourn on
earth. In the decline and fall of Rome, or as it would be better to
say, in the final ruin of ancient civilization, the conditions favourable
to this order of beliefs or doctrines, spontaneously emerged.” (Morris
son’s “Service of Man,” pp. 174-5, 178-9). The fact is “Christianity
was only a slight modification of systems already existing—a modifi
cation determined by the combined action and concentration of all the
divergent lines of thought and feeling. Only ignorance can look upon
it as a something so original, so unique, so different from all that was,
�8
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
or ever had been, that nothing but the supposition of supernatural
interference could explain it. Christianity is accounted for by the ten?
dencies of thought in the age in which it was born.”
No one who has carefully and impartially read the histories of the
ancient religions and ethical systems, will contend that the principal
doctrines and moral teachings of the New Testament were known for
the first time in their connection with Christianity. The able Ameri
can writer, Charles B. Waite, M.A., in his “History of the Christian
Religion Religion,” says, “ Many of the more prominent doctrines of
the Christian Religion prevailed among nations of antiquity, hundreds
and in some instances, thousands of years before Christ.” Judge
Strange, in his great work, “ The Sources and Development of Chris
tianity,” shows that nearly all the Christian doctrines—the Atonement,
Trinity, Incarnation, Judgment of the Dead, Immortality, Sacrifice—
were of Egyptian origin, and, therefore, existed long before the time
of Christ. The same able writer, on page 100 of the work mentioned, says : •
“ Christianity, it is thus apparent, was not the result of a special
revelation from above, but the growth of circumstances, and developed
out of the materials, working in a natural manner in the human mind,,
in the place and at the time that the movement occurred.”
In reference to the moral teachings of the New Testament, those
of them capable of being practically carried out were borrowed from
men who lived long anterior to the Christian Era, and who wrote with. out the aid of Christian inspiration. “ To the truths already uttered
in the Athenian prison,” says Mackay, “ Christianity added little or
nothing, except a few symbols which, though well calculated for popu
lar acceptance, are more likely to perplex than to instruct, and oiler
the best opportunity for priestly mystification.” Sir William Jones, in
his tenth discourse before the Asiatic. Society, says “ Christianity has
no need of such aids as many are willing to give it, by asserting that
the wisest men of the world were ignorant of the great maxim, that
we should act in respect to others as we would wish them to act in
respect of ourselves, as the rule is implied in a speech of Lysias,
expressed in distinct phrases by Thales and Pittacus, and I have seen
it word for word in the original of Confucius.” And the Rev. Dr.
George Matheson, in his lecbure on “The Religions of China,” page 84,
observes : “ The glory of Christian morality is that it is not original.”
Thus it is that Christianity is composed of materials born of the human
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
9
mind at different periods, and in various countries in the ancient and
modern world.
While it may be difficult to name the exact when and how
Christianity was ushered into the world, it is not difficult to indicate
• circumstances of a human character that in all probability favoured
its introduction.
Orthodox Christianity essentially appeals to the “ poor in spirit; ’’for
the self-reliant it has but little charm. At the time when Christ is
supposed to have lived, the people were longing for the appearance of
some one, either to console them in their misfortunes, or to deliver
them from their state of submission; at a time when one of the most
splendid, though imperfect civilizations the world had ever beheld had
reached its climax. The majority of the subject races under the
Roman Empire were slaves. Many of them who had been brave in
their freedom had become, as the result of their captivity, enervated
and degenerate. The Jews, to whom Christ is said first to have
appeared, had their national spirit nearly crushed out. They had been
for a century under the Roman yoke, and previous to that subjection,
the unfortunate subjects of equally as cruel conquerors. In Christ’s
time the descendants of Abraham had lost all prospect of earthly
success. Embittered by disappointment and wearied by persecution,
they were prepared to accept any change which they thought would
remove them from their unfortunate condition. The Jews were a people
who had been robbed of their independence; whose manhood was
gone, reduced to a state of physical dependency and mental poverty,
they were taught by Christ that this world is not the place of God’s
final government.
While on earth God’s people are persecuted
by way of trial and purification. But consolation is given in the hope
that the “ light affliction which is but for a moment, worketh for us
a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” This was virtually
the language of Christ to a ruined nation and a forlorn people. The
alleged founder of Christianity also urged upon his credulous hearers
that the end of the world was at hand ; that their existence on earth
was nearly over, and, if they accepted his faith, they should not only
have houses and lands during their brief stay here, but happiness and
immortality hereafter. So impressed were the early Christians with
the idea of the speedy destruction of the world, that they disregarded
the duties of this life. “They were dead,” says Gibbon, “to the busi
mess and pleasures of the world.” It must be remembered, moreover,
�10
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE’
that the primitive Christians were composed of the ignorant, super
stitious and servile classes of society; persons whom the above teach
ings were just calculated to captivate. Mosheim writes that “ among
the first professors of Christianity there were but few men of learning,
few who had capacity enough to insinuate into the minds of a grossmd ignorant multitude the knowledge of divine things.” It appears
that the early teachers of Christianity were as uneducated as the
“ignorant multitude” to whom they preached.
“We may here
remark,” says the historian just mentioned, “ in general that these
Apostolic Fathers and the other writers, who in the infancy of the
Church employed their pens in the cause of Christianity, were neither
remarkable for their learning nor for their eloquence. On the contrary,
they express the most pious and admirable sentiments in the plainest
and most illiterate style.” The .author of “ The Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire ” records that “ the new sect of Christians was
almost entirely composed of the dregs of the populace, of peasants and
mechanics, of boys and women, of beggars and slaves.” Again, notic
ing the reproach that “the Christians allured into their party the
most atrocious criminals,” Gibbon quaintly observes, “ the friends of
Christianity may acknowledge without a blush, that many of the
most eminent saints had been before their baptism the most abandoned
sinners.”
Thus it will be seen that the natural conditions of society two1
thousand years ago were such as . to render possible the reception of
Christianity without the intervention of any alleged supernatural
power. This will appear the more apparent when it is remembered
that at that period Rome was remarkably tolerant to all new religions.
Chambers, in his “History of Rome,” states, “ One good quality they
(the Romans) pre-eminently exhibited; namely, the toleration of other
forms and rituals than their .own, no matter whether exhibited at
home or in the countries they, conquered.” “ Each nation,” says
Mosheim, “ suffered its neighbours to follow their own method of wor^ship, to adore their own Gods, to enjoy their own rites and ceremonies,
■ 'and discovered no sort of displeasure at their diversity of sentiments,
in religious matters. . . . The Romans exercised this toleration in
the amplest manner.” Gibbon also states, “The various modes of wor
ship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by thepeople as equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the
magistrate as equally useful.” That the Christians were persecuted by
�CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
11
the Romans cannot be denied, but the cause of that persecution was
not the mere profession of their faith so much as the fact of their
meeting in secret, and, as it was thought, conspiring against the State.
Renan, in his “ Hilbert Lectures.” says, “ Before Constantine, we
search in vain in Roman law for any enactment against Freethought.”
Remembering these general existing conditions, the means employed
-to introduce Christianity must not be overlooked in considering its
origin, Among such means were those of the promises of earthly
rewards, heavenly joys, and the practising of fraud and deceit. To a
poor and dependent people Jesus said : “There is no man that hath
left house, or bretheTn, or sisters, or father^ or mother, or wife, or
-children, or lands, for my sake and the gospel’s, but he shall receive
an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and
mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world
to come eternal life.” (Mark x. 29, 30.) In fact, “Peter said unto
him [Christ], Behold we have forsaken all, and followed thee ; what
shall we have therefore ? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto
you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the
Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon
twelve thrones, fudging the twelve tribes of Israel”. (Matt. xix. 27,
28.) The first Christian emperor, according to Gibbon, offered bribes
of garments and gold to those who would embrace the Christian faith.
(“ Decline and Fall,” vol. 11, pp. 472, 473.) With such inducements
as these, it would not be difficult, even in “this enlightened age,” to
secure converts to the most absurd faith. To these allurements must
be added the powerful factors, in a period of credulity and unsurpassed
ignorance and fear, of fraud and deceit. Mosheim says it was “ held
as a maxim that it was not only lawful, but praiseworthy to deceive
and even to use the expedient of a lie, in order to advance the cause of
truth and piety ... it cannot be affirmed that even true Chris
tians were entirely innocent and irreproachable in this matter .
they who were desirous of surpassing all others in piety, looked upon
it as lawful, and even laudable, to advance the cause of piety by arti
fice and fraud.” (“Ecclesiastical History,” vol. 1, pp. 55-77). In the
fourth century, Lactantius exclaimed, “ Among those who seek power
and gain there will never be wanting an inclination to forge a lie for
it.” (Middleton’s “Letters from Rome.”) Gregory says, “A little
Jargon is all that is necessary to impose upon the people. The less they
-comprehend, the more they admire.”
�12
CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
Another circumstance attending the introduction of Christianity is
that its early adherents retained many of the principal features of the
Buddhists and the Essenes.
Max Muller remarks, “Between the
language of Buddha and his disciples, and the language of Christ and
his apostles there are strange coincidences. Even some of the Buddhist
legends and parables sound as if taken from the New Testament,
though we know that many of them existed before the beginning of
the Christian era.” (“Science of Religion,” p. 113.) Professor Beal
observes, “ The points of agreement between the two are remarkable.
All the evidence we have goes to prove that the teachings of Buddha
were known in the East centuries before Christ.” (“ History of
Buddhism.”) It is worthy of note that the claims now set up on behalf of
Christ are very similar to those which were urged in the interest of
Buddha. Self-assertion, “ I am the light of the world ; ” self-assump
tion, “unequalled in perfection,” being “without sin the possession of
purity and great personal influence are features ascribed to Buddha as
well as to Christ. Thus, as an eminent writer observes, “the history of
Jesus of Nazareth as related in the books of the New Testament, is
simply a copy of that of Buddha, with a mixture of mythology borrowed
from other nations.”
If possible, a more striking resemblance exists between the teachings,
of the Essenes and those of the four gospels. In fact, Dr. Ginsburg
considers there is no doubt that Christ belonged to the sect of theEssenes. The reader is referred to Bunsen’s “Angel Messiah,” and
to Judge Strange’s “ Sources and Development of Christianity ” for
detailed proof in favour of Dr. Ginsburg’s position. We give the
following from Mrs. Besant, as showing how the teachings of Christi
anity correspond with those of the Essenes : “It is to Josephus thatwe must turn for an account of the Essenes; a brief sketch of them
is given in ‘Antiquities of the Jews,’ bk. xviii., chap. 1. He says:
‘ The doctrine of the Essenes is this : That all things are bestascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls, and esteem that
the rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for; and when
they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not
offer sacrifices, because they have more pure lustrations of their own
on which account they are excluded from the common court of the
temple, but offer their sacrifices themselves; yet is their course of life
better than that of other men; and they entirely addict themselves to
�CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
13
husbandry.’ They had all things in common, did not marry and kept
no servants, thus none called any master (Matt, xxiii. 8, 10). In the
‘Wars of the Jews,’ bk. ii., chap, viii., Josephus gives us a fuller
account. ‘ There are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The
followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the
Sadduces; and the third sect, who pretend to a severer discipline, are
called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a
greater affection for one another than the other sects [John xiii. 35].
The Essenes reject pleasure as an evil [Matt. xvi. 24], but esteem con
tinence and the conquest over our passions to be virtue. They neglect
wedlock. . . . They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage
[Matt. xix. 12, last clause of verse. 1 Cor. vii. 27, 28, 32-35, 37, 38,
40], . . . These men are despisers of riches [Matt. xix. 21,- 53,
24] . . . it is a law among them, that those who come to them
must let what they have be common to the whole order [Acts iv. 3237, v. 1-11]. . . . They also have stewards appointed to take care
of their common affairs [Acts vi. 1-6], ... If any of their sect
come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it
were their own [Matt. x. 11]. . . . For which reason they carry
nothing with them when they travel into remote parts [Matt. x. 9,
10], . .
As for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary;
for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but
put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers,
as if they made a supplication for its rising [the Essenes were then sun
worshippers]. ... A priest says grace before meat; and it is
unlawful for anyone to taste of the food before grace be said. The
same priest, when he hath dined, says grace again after meat; and
when they begin, and when they end, they praise God, as he that
bestows their food upon them [Eph. v. 18-20, 1 Cor. x. 3*0, 31, 1 Tim.
iv. 4, 5].
They dispense their anger after a just manner, and
restrain their passion [Eph. iv. 26]. . . . Whatsoever they say
also is firmer than an oath ; but swearing is avoided by them, and
the^ esteem it worse than perjury; for they say, that he who cannot be
believed without swearing by God. is already condemned [Matt. v. 3437].’ ” (“ Freethinker’s Text Book,” part 2, pp. 387-8).
It is a common error existing among orthodox professors, that what
is termed Christianity originated with Christ, eighteen hundred years
ago, in Palestine. The fact is, no date or country can be definitely
�14
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
fixed as being the time and place of the birth of what is now called
the Christian faith. The elements of which the doctrines and general
teachings of the orthodox Church are composed can be found in works
written long anterior to the Christian era. Even Eusebius, the
“father of ecclesiastical history,” admits that the Christian religion
was not new. He says : “Its principles have not been recently
invented, but were established, we may say, by the Deity, from the
very origin of our race. ... It is evident that the religion
delivered to us is not a new or strange doctrine; but, if the truth
must be spoken, it is the first and only true religion.” Themost, therefore,
that can be said with any degree of accuracy is, that a man, named Jesus,
and his followers perpetuated portions of pre-existing systems under
another name. But even this allegation is, according to some writers,
open to grave doubts. Still, as there is nothing remarkable in the
event, if true, it may be taken, in the present writer’s opinion, as
granted, because it in no way makes the assumption of the “ divine ”
origin of Christianity a necessity.
If the above circumstances fail to satisfy the orthodox believer as to
the human origin of his faith, let him ask himself the question, what
are the difficulties attending his assumption of its “ divine ” origin ?
If this divinity involves all-wisdom, all-power and all-goodness, then
the objections to the assumption that Christianity came from such a
source are strong indeed. (1) Why was its advent so long delayed ?
If it were superior to anything previously existing, and God knowing
this, and yet withholding it from the world until about two thousand
years ago, while having the power to give it at any moment, must
not this delay militate against his all-goodness ?
AVhen Christi
anity did appear, how did its slow progress at first harmonise with
the theory of the infinite power of its reputed author ? And further,
why, when it did advance, was it dependent upon acknowledged human
conditions for its success or otherwise? (3) Why, if its author
were so good, pure, and spotless, was its advent -associated with
fraud, deception, and falsehood? (4) Why, if the Christian system
were supremely true, were heretical writings of the early centuries
destroyed by the special mandate of the Church? (5) Why, when
Christ introduced his system, was it silent upon the three great
evils of his time, namely, poverty, slavery, and mental submission ?
Moreover, how is it that, instead of correcting the errors of his day
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
15
—such as belief in the possession of devils, and in the then immediate
end of the world—Christ made the mistake of sharing that belief
himself 1 (6) Finally, is it not remarkable, upon the supposition that
Christianity had for its origin an Infinite Being, that after nearly two
thousand years, it has only been heard of by one third of the human
race ? If God is all-wise, he must know of this limited knowledge;
if he be all-powerful, he could make the knowledge universal • if he
were all-good, it is only reasonable to suppose that he would have done
so. But he has not; we, therefore, arrive at the conclusion that
Christianity, like other religions, was simply the outcome of the human
mind, at a period when ignorance was the rule and knowledge the
exception. Our duty, therefore, should be to value it for whatever
intrinsic value it has, and not to accept it merely on account of an
imaginary supernatural origin.
ITS NATURE.
Orthodox Christianity is thoroughly indefinite, impracticable and
contradictory in its nature. No system was ever less rigid and more
plastic. It has certainly come up to the intimation of St. Paul, “ to
be all things to all men.” Persons of the most contrary dispositions
and the most opposite natures have been its great illustrators, expoun
ders, and living representatives. It has found room for all tempera
ments and for the most diversified classes of believers : the ascetic and
the luxurious enjoyer of life; the man of action and the man of con
templation ; the monk and the king; the philanthropist and the de
stroyer of his race; the iconoclastic hater of all ceremonies, and the
superstitious devotee ; Cromwell and Cowper ; Lyell and Wesley; Luther
and Dr. Pusey; John Miltonand C. H. Spurgeon; Talmageand Beecher ;
Catholics and Protestants ; Quakers and Salvationists; Trinitarians
and Unitarians ; believers in Free Grace and devotees of Predestina
tion. All these and many other similar opposites have found refuge
within the pale of Christianity. But it should be distinctly under
stood that this heterogeneous family is by no means the result of any
all-embracing comprehensiveness in the system of Christ, but rather
the effects of a Theology characterised alike by its indefinite, imprac
ticable, incomplete, and undecisive principles.
It is these peculiar features in Christianity that have deprived it of
a consistent and uniform history, and that have made its influence on
�16
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
the human mind so conflicting and so destitute of the power of produc
ing uniformity of action or belief. Hence, the varied and contra
dictory phases through which Christianity has passed since its incep
tion. Those who are acquainted with its early history will know that
the faith of Jesus as he preached it, and the faith of the Christians
to-day, are two entirely different things. Even if we accept the alleged
dates of Christian chronology to be historically correct, Christianity
was altered and modified immediately after the death of Christ. The
Christianity of Paul-was widely different from that of his Master. The
character of Christ was submissive and servile ; Paul’s was defiant and
pugnacious. We could no more conceive Christ fighting with wild
beasts at Ephesus, than we could suppose Paul submitting, without
protest or resistance, to those insults and indignities which are alleged
to have been heaped upon Christ. Neither could we for one moment
imagine Paul advising his disciples when anyone smote them on one
cheek, to offer them the other. Paul introduced, by his personal
character, a certain amount of boldness and energy into the Christian
propaganda, and, by the character of his mind, he largely modified the
Christian system. In fact, each successive age has left its mark and
impress upon Christianity. We have had the age of asceticism and
the ceremonial age, when the nightmare of theology cursed the world
with its indifference, its neglect, its mental darkness, and its immoral
corruptions. This unfortunate period was followed by Protestantism
and subsequently by Rationalism, which ushered in the age of reason
and mental activity. This new birth, or rather resuscitation of a
force that had been rendered for a time dormant by the Church, de
prived the faith of its original character, leaving but a little more than
the name to represent the Cross. “ Real Christianity has not ruled
the nations. It is disregarded in law, in equity, in the social adjust
ments, in commercial systems, in regulations concerning land, in the
rules of peace and brotherhood, and, alas, in much of the life of the
churches. . . . English hypocrisy is a tremendous reality; but
English Christianity is very largely a myth, if judged by the standard
of the New Testament.” (“Christian Commonwealth,” May 1, 1884.)
A similar diversity of character and influence is apparent in what
are termed Christian nations. There is no country existing that can
truly be called Christian, that is, where the teachings of the New
Testament are practically and consistently carried out. In all alleged
�CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE ANU INFLUENCE.
17
Christian nations ” the faith differs in its manifestations, presenting
not the emblems of the religion ascribed to Christ, but the impress of
the national customs and characteristics of the people who profess it.
Thus, in Rome, Christianity assumes the form of priestly dominion, in
Spain a blind and stationary faith, in Russia a political engine of
heartless oppression and revolting despotism, in Scotland a gloomy
nightmare, in England an emotional pastime, in America a commercial
commodity, and in Canada a hypocritical, puritanical pretension. In
most of these countries the Christian religion is only a profession of a
shallow garb of respectability, which is composed of custom and a de
sire to gain popular favour. The shadow is there, but the substance
is nowhere to be found. True, these professors attend church on Sun
days, and, to outward appearances, assume an air of solemnity, seek
ing to convey the impression that they are devout worshippers of the
“ Heavenly Father,” and that they have absolute confidence in his
“ Son, as the Saviour of the world.” But what is f^ie conduct of such
■devotees in their daily lives, and in their commercial pursuits' Do
they even attempt to embody in their conduct during the week the
requirements which they endorse as belonging to their faith ? Certainly
not. In their business transactions, practically, money is their God,
and the Almighty dollar is their Redeemer.
The utter impracticability of orthodox Christianity is not only proved
by the indefinite nature of its teachings and the inconsistent conduct
of its professors, but it is clearly demonstrated by the character of its
leading injunctions. Among the more prominent principles taught in
the New Testament are : Asceticism, Disregard of the world, Nonresistance, Reliance on alleged Supernaturalism, Belief in the efficacy
of prayer, and Glorification of poverty. Moreover, many of the more
emphatically expressed injunctions of this book are the very incarna
tion and inculcation of humiliating forbearance and abject suffering.
They teach submission to physical evil, tyranny and oppression. They
inculcate an unprogressive and a retarding spirit; they draw the ener
gies and desires of men from the duties of this life, fixing them on an
uncertain, and, to us, an unknown future. The primary object of
Christ evidently was to teach his followers how to die, rather than to
instruct them how to live. He regarded man as an alien in this world.
Anything like a triumph of moral good over evil by human means ;
■anything like an escape from the pangs of poverty; anything like a
�1<5
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE,
successful insurrection of right which should produce the dethronement
of might, as being possible on earth, appears not to have crossed the
horizon of the mental vision of Christ. He contemplated suffering,
oppression, and submission in this life, as pre-ordained and inevitable;
and taught those who were persecuted and reviled, that great would be
their reward in heaven. The philosophy of Jesus was contentment
with whatsoever state of life you may be in j for “ "What shall it profit
a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul 1 ” (Mark
viii. 36.) “ My kingdom,” said Christ, “ is not of this world.” (John,
xviii. 36.) In vain, therefore, do we look to his teachings for any prac
tical guidance and support in the stern battle of life. His advice to
those struggling for mere human existence, was “ Seek ye first the
kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things [food,,
clothes, etc.] shall be added unto you.” (Matt. vi. 33.) What things
soever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye
shall have them.” (Mark xi. 24.) “If two'of you shall agree on
earth as touching^ anything that they shall ask, it shall be done.”
Matt, xviii. 19.) This faith in another life was with him the “one
thing needful, and to it every plan of secular reform, however neces
sary> judicious, and effectual, had to give way. It is clear from the
very nature of these New Testament precepts that all the improve
ments, social and political, scientific and artistic, commercial and.
mechanical, which have been made in the world since the birth of.
Christianity, must have been obtained in spite of it, not because of it;;
they have been wrought by the spirit of Secularism ever struggling,
and in recent times with ever-growing success, against the spirit of
dogmatic religion.
M ith Christ, this life and this world were comparatively of little
importance ; their enjoyments and treasures were, to him, baits and
snares of the Devil. Therefore we read, “ He that loveth his life shall
lose it; and he that hateth his life in this .world shall keep it unto life
.ternal.” (John xii. 25.) And again, “I pray not for the world j but
for them which thou hast given me; for they are mine. . . . They
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John xvii. 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 morrow; for the
morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.” (Matt. 6 : 25, 34.)
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
19 ‘
In vain do we look among any of the professed Christians for any
serious attempt to reduce these teachings into practice. They regulate
neither their public nor their private lives by the injunctions here
set forth. The sayings ascribed to Christ are modified and divested of
their legitimate meaning, in order that they may be made to harmonise
with human feelings. Who could obey that unnatural command given
by Jesus in reply to one who solicited permission to bury his father?—
“ Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.” . Were a person to
adopt this advice to day, he would justly be condemned as being desti
tute of all true natural feeling, and as lacking a due regard for the
tenderest and most sublime affection of human nature. Supposing we
were to adopt the counsel given by Christ, and take no thought for the
morrow, what would become of the advantages of all modern scientific
discoveries ? Clearly it was not by Christian principles that the re
formers of the world were prompted to introduce those useful move
ments, which to-day are so extensively appreciated. Had they loved
not the world, and had they been careful of nothing pertaining there
to, as advised in Scripture, civilization would have received but little
assistance from them. “ Take no thought for your life ! ” If we obeyed
this command, medical science and physiological discoveries would be
utterly useless. In counselling this indifference, Christ showed that
he had much to learn as to the real nature, wants, and duties of man.
Can a consistent Christian rebel against even the most atrocious
tyranny, or fight in even the most righteous cause ? If he be true to
his principles, he must obey the commands, “ Resist not evil,” and
“ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God. Whoso
ever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God •
and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” Were it
possible to induce men to carry out what is here advised, a weapon
would thereby be placed in the hands of the tyrant, which doubtless
he would use to a terrible extent upon his victims. It is only neces
sary to send forth the priests to teach the commands of Christ to the
unfortunate dupes and slaves of any despot, and if the teachings are
accepted as true and acted upon, they will prove a potent agency
in prolonging despotism, serfdom, and physical coercion. None are
more ready than tyrants to perceive that faith is a stronger prison
than a fortress, and that the Bible is a more effectual assistance than an
�20
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
army, in subjugating and enslaving the minds and bodies of their people.
But even if it were practicable to obey these precepts of non-resistance,,
the obedience would, in many cases, be most unmanly and immoral.
Resistance is not revenge; to allow, therefore, all evil to exist with
impunity, is to offer a premium for the greatest wrongs that ever
afflicted mankind. Had George Washington, Hampden, Mazzini, Kos
suth, Garibaldi and other brave reformers been content as the Bibleteaches, to obey the powers that be, and to “ resist not evil,” they would,
never have rebelled against oppression, and fought, as they did, for
social rights and political emancipation. Had they been consistent
orthodox Christians, they would not have produced those glorious revo
lutions, which have dethroned corrupt kings, and secured individual
and national liberty.
Progressive nations have always, in fact if not in theory, based their
political and social policy on principles the very antitheses to those of
the New Testament. Post office savings’ banks, divorce courts, armies,
of defence, are opposed to “ Lay not up for yourselves treasures on
earth.” “ What therefore God has joined together let no man put.
asunder,” and, “ Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn,
to him the other also.” “ Give to him that asketh thee, and from him
that would borrow of thee turn not thou away,” does not harmonisewith our present law, which authorises the policeman to take underhis special care those who are affording an opportunity for this precept
to be put into practice. Besides, such conduct is only fostering that
reckless and mendicant spirit so often recommended by the churches,
but which should be judiciously discountenanced by all noble-minded,
men and women.
Among the general teachings of Christianity which cannot be relied’
upon, are those which encourage and crown with special sanctity
suffering and sorrow. Not only are those who mourn blessed, but we
are told that “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain,”
that “those light afflictions, which are but for a moment, work for
us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” Christians pro
fess to believe that “ the sufferings of the present time are not worthy
to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in the future.”
Hence the exclamation, “ For we know that if our earthly house of
this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not
made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan ear
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
21
nestly, desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from
heaven.” Who can rely upon this gloomy estimate of the world and
human life ? To do so would be to blaspheme humanity, and to rejectthe happiness and joy which nature bestows upon her honest and duti
ful children. “ Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven ” is a sad sentiment. If there be a heaven, it should be the
appropriate possession of the rich in spirit. Abundance, enthusiasm,
and heroism of spirit are the highest conditions of man. Poverty of
spirit is not by any means celestial or to be admired. A man in such
a state is either contemptible or pitiable, and in either case, relief from
it is a consummation devoutly to be wished. To assure people that atthe last day they will have to give an account of every idle word
spoken through life, is not to enhance their pleasure. Need we won
der that some Christians confess to be “ miserable sinners,” if they
honestly believe that their final doom may depend upon words spoken
in the jubilant moments of life.
Until orthodox Christians can prove to us that their principles arecapable of producing uniformity of character; until it is satisfactorily
explained that the precepts, as propounded by Christ, contain the ele
ments of that greatness which has invariably characterised the lives
of eminent statesmen, philosophers, and poets of all ages ; until it can
be shown that the principles as taught in the New Testament are com
patible with progress and human advancement; until the course pur
sued by Christ, when he was on earth, is adopted by his professed
followers of to-day ; until poverty is preferred to riches by the mem
bers of the various churches; until humility has taken the place of
pride ; and self-sacrifice to that of personal gain ; until sincerity and
consistency supplant that hypocrisy and cant, which are now soprominent in the domain of theology ; until peace, love, and harmony
shall reign in “ Christian nations ” instead of war, hatred, and discord;,
until prayer, as a means of help, is in reality preferred to reliance on
secular effort; until the poor are treated as being genuine brothers of
the “ one fold; ” until, in commercial activity and domestic arrange
ments, the affairs of this world are considered as being of sec
ondary importance to the preparation for some other state of existence;
until all these tilings are realities and not mere pretences, orthodox
Christianity must be deemed thoroughly impracticable in its nature,
and incapable of furnishing a code of morals by which all succeeding
�22
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
generations should be governed, and to which the great intellects of
the world should succumb.
The contradictory nature of orthodox teaching is another of its strik
ing features. The New Testament does not present one definite system,
but fragmentary records of conflicting theological views, which were
numerous during the early Christian era. Not to notice the self-con
tradictory teachings of the first three Evangelists, the gospel ascribed
to St. John is quite antagonistic in its doctrines and precepts to the
synoptic gospels. Hence it is that among different people in different
ages various Christian sects opposed to each other have arisen with
systems of their own, for which they each claim Christian authority.
The belief that Christ was a real existence, was born of a virgin, was
crucified, that he rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven,
is at the present day considered by the orthodox church as being neces
sary to the Christian profession ; but during the first and second cen
turies each of these teachings was rejected by sections of the church.
Many of the fundamental doctrines of the Christianity of the present
age, such as the Trinity, fall of man, original sin, atonement, media
tion and intercession of Christ, are alleged by some theological writers
not to be Christian doctrines at all, having no sanction in the New
Testament; while the orthodox party allege that to believe them is
essential to secure happiness hereafter. So conflicting are the leading
principles of the Christian faith, that they are rendered almost valueless
as rules to regulate general conduct. For instance, it is of no avail to
urge that Christianity is a religion of love, while Christ affirms that
no man can become a disciple unless he hates his own flesh and blood.
Even admitting, as it is sometimes contended, that the word “ hate ”
here means “ love less,” the statement is still objectionable. Can we
really love one of whom we know nothing (whatever we may believe)
more than we love our nearest relatives and dearest friends ? Man’s
highest and purest love should be for his wife and children; he is not
justified in neglecting them for the gratification of any religious en
thusiasm, be it what it may. A religion that exacts the best of our
affections, wars with the noblest aspirations of our nature. In fact, so
difficult is it to comply with Christ’s request upon this point, that good
Christian husbands frequently forego the commands of their master to
gratify the wishes of their wives. Paul judged that this would be the
case; hence he advised Christians to remain single, because “ he that
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
23
is married careth for the things of this world, how he may please his
wife.” And it is quite right that he should do so. Christ’s love, like
that of most of his followers, was confined to those who agreed with
his theology. His injunction to his disciples was to despise those who
would not receive them. “Those,” he said,“mineenemies,which would
not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before
me.” Even the woman of Canaan, who asked him for help, was at first
denied, and told, “ it was not meet to take the children’s bread and cast
it to dogs.” And it was not till the woman indirectly acknowledged
her faith that Christ granted her request. Belief, not humanity, called
forth his love. His forgiveness, too, was only for the faithful. “ He
that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of
God.’, Luke 12:9. “ If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as
a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into
the fire and they are burned.” Are these the sentiments of true love
and forgiveness ? Paul emulated his master in this particular ; and
accordingly we read : “ Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom
I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.”
“ If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have re
ceived, let him be accursed.” “ Be ye not unequally yoked together
with unbelievers. . . . What part hath he that believeth with an
infidel ? ” Here we have an incentive to that intolerance which has so
frequently prevented men holding different opinions on theological sub-„
jects from associating together.
The doctrines of “pardon for sin,” of the Trinity, and of “ falling
from grace,” are couched in language obscure and contradictory. No
man can believe all, and few men can understand, any portion of what is
taught upon these subjects in the New Testament. A professed holder
of one of the above tenets usually receives a particular impression as to its
meaning, according to the school in which he is trained. Such impres
sions made on the youthful mind are so deep and enduring, that it is
extremely difficult, and in many instances impossible, to erase them in
maturity. Hence, it is nearly useless to point out to one who has been
taught that all sin shall be forgiven, that Christ says that blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven. Luke 12 :10. The Trinita
rian is unable to see the objection to his views in such passages as, “ My
Father is greater than I,” and that there is “ One God and Father of all,,
who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” The Calvinist who.,
�24
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
relying on St. John 10 : 28 and Romans 8 : 38, 39, believes that when
man is onoe “converted,” he can never relapse, fails to see that his
opinion is proved to be fallacious by the following : “For if, after they
have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and
overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For
it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteous
ness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the holy command
ment delivered unto them.” 2 Peter 2 : 20, 21.
If it were necessary that any one part of Christian teachings should
be clear, it is that, we presume, which professes to refer to the salva
tion of the human race, but here we find the greatest perplexity. We
read : “There is no other name but that of Christ’s whereby men can
be saved,” Acts 4:12; “ Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou
shaltbe saved,” Acts 16:31; “He that believethnot shall be damned,”
Mark 16:16. Here the necessity of belief in Christ is positively en
joined, and in 1 Tim. 2 : 4 it is stated as Christ’s wish that “all men”
should be saved. In the same book, however, we also read : “ For
there are certain men crept in unawares who were before of old or
dained to this condemnation,” Jude 4 ; “And for this cause God
shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that
they all might be damned who believed not the truth,” 2 Thess. 2 : 11,12.
But the new Testament admits that belief does not depend upon our
selves, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of
his good pleasure,” Phil. 2 : 13 ; “For by grace are ye saved through
faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God,” Ephes. 2:8;
“ Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing, as of our
selves ; but our sufficiency is of God,” 2 Cor. 3:5. In John 14 : 6 it
is said : “No man cometh unto the Father but by me,” and in chapter
6, verse 44 of the same book Christ exclaims : “ No man can come to
me except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him.” It is manifest,
moreover, if the Scriptures be correct, that while God predestinated
some persons to be saved, he adopted means whereby others should be
lost. In replying to certain inquirers, Christ is reported to have said :
“ Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God;
but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables :
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may
hear, and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted,
and their sins should be forgiven them.” Mark 4 : 11, 12.
�CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
25
Equally uncertain are the means prescribed by this faith whereby
salvation is to be obtained. In one place, the New Testament says that
works are necessary (James 2 : 20-25), while it is also recorded : “For
by grace are ye saved, through faith : . . . . not of works, lest any man
should boast,” Ephes. 2 : 8, 9 ; “A man is not justified by the works
of the law, but by the faith,” Gal, 2 : 16 ; “ Therefore by the deeds of the (
law there shall no flesh be justified,” Rom. 3:20 ; “ Where is boasting,
then ? It is excluded. By what law ? Of works ? Nay; but by the
law of faith. Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith
without the deeds of the law,” Romans 3 : 27, 28 ; “ Not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved
us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,”
Titus 3:5.
Even what is to be understood by the term “ believe in Christ ” is
not by any means clear. Are we to acknowledge Christ as a man or as
a God? Are we to suppose that the object of his mission was accom
plished in his life, or through his death ? Must we regard his teachings
or his blood as the medium of salvation ? To these questions neither
the New Testament nor Christians have given a definite and uniform
answer. For, while Unitarians allege that the command in the above
passages is sufficiently obeyed by believing in the manhood, life, and
teachings of Christ, the orthodox Christians state that, to avoid damn
ation, mankind must have faith in the divinity, the vicarious death,
and the atoning efficacy of the blood of Christ. The character of
Christ, as given in the New Testament, is thoroughly contradictory.
He could teach men to be merciful, and he could command that those
who would not accept him as the Christ, should be slain before him. He
could advise husbands to love and cleave to their wives, and he could
offer an inducement to break up the ties of domestic affection, lie
could advise children to honour their father and mother,while to others
he could say that, unless they hate their parents, they could not become
his disciples. At one time his advice is to “ resist not evil,” while at
another he authorizes shaking off the dust from the feet as a testimony
against unbelievers. He announces that “ they that take the sword
shall perish with the sword,” and he as emphatically says, “He that
hath no sword, let him sell his garments and buy one.” No sooner
does he state that “blessed are the peacemakers,” than he as earnestly
asserts that he came not to send peace, that his mission was to set a
�26
CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
man against his father, and a daughter against her mother. Here are
characters thoroughly antagonistic—which are we to regard as a reliable
representation of the “person of Christ?” Was not the Rev. Dr.
Giles correct in saying, “ The history of Christ is contained in records
which exhibit contradictions that cannot be reconciled, imperfections
that would greatly detract from even admitted human compositions,
and erroneous principles of morality that would hardly have found a
place in the most incomplete systems of the philosophers of Greece and
Rome?”—(“ Christian Records,” preface 7.)
ITS INFLUENCE.
The influence of Christianity upon the world should be estimated
from its special effects upon individual character, as well as from its
general results upon national conduct. Of course, it is not always
right to condemn principles in consequence of the shortcomings of
those who profess to endorse them. The justice of such condemnation
will very much depend upon the nature of the principles themselves
and the claims set up on their behalf. The peculiar feature in connec
tion with Christianity is, that its professed believers have persistently
urged that its influence for good is so unmistakeable, that wherever its
power has been felt beneficial results have necessarily followed. Now;
this claim is not borne out either by the New Testament or by the facts
of history and of personal experience. Of course, it may be frankly
admitted that in the ranks of Christianity there are good men and
women ; it does not, however, follow that their goodness is the result of
their faith. Some persons are so well organized, and their moral training
is so complete, that it is next to impossible to induce them to depart
from the paths of rectitude; while, on the other hand, there are indi
viduals whose organizations are so imperfect, and whose ethical disci
pline has been so neglected, that no amount of theology will make
them good and useful members of society. Doubtless instances can be
cited where characters have been improved through acting in obedience
to the secular portions of the New Testament But the same can be
said, with truth, of the adherents to other religions besides that of
Christianity, and also of those who have been consistent believers in
the great ethical systems of the world. This, however, does not justify
the orthodox claim—that where the Christian faith has obtained, a
panacea has always been found for the weaknesses, the vices, the crimes
and the wrongs that have robbed the world of much of its virtue, its
�CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
27
purity and its honour. Instead of controlling the actions and regulat
ing the conduct of its professors, Christianity itself has been moulded
and modified by the individual temperaments, the habits, and the
national aspirations of those who were supposed to endorse it. Hence
as it has already been shown, in various countries, all termed Christian’
we find the profession of various and conflicting phases of the same
faith. The fact is, the reforming agencies that have operated in the
elevation of personal character and general actions belong exclusively
to no religious system ; they are the result of human conditions when
under the control of human reason and intellectual culture.
That Christian teachings have not always had the effect ascribed to
them by orthodox professors is evident, both from the New Testament
and the admissions of Christian historians. From the Gospels and
Epistles we learn that among the earliest recipients of the Faith were
those upon whom its influence was impotent either to enable them to
subjugate their evil passions or to inspire within them the love and
practice of truth. “ Contentions,” “ strife,” “ indignation,” and “ fraud,”
we are informed by the “ inspired word,” characterised their actions
towards each other. [See Acts 15 : 39; Luke 22 : 24; Matt. 20 : 24;
1 Cor. 6 : 8 ; 1 Cor. 5:1.] St. Peter, the “ beloved disciple,” was so
little impressed with the teachings of Christ that, it is said, he denied
his own master (Matt. 26 : 70 & 72), and thereby manifested an utterdisregard for truth and fidelity. St. Paul also, despite his Christian
proclivities, could boast, “Being crafty, I caught you with guile,” (2
Cor. 12 : 16). “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do
you service,” (2 Cor. 11 : 8). Were the Secularists to emulate such
conduct as this to-day, their principles would not be credited with
having a highly beneficial influence upon human conduct.
The records of history agree with the testimony of the New Testa
ment in reference to the non-effect of Christianity in the inspiration
of correct conduct. jMosheim frankly admits that for many centuries
the Christians were guilty of “lying, deceit, artifice, fraud,” and many
other vices. The same Christian writer remarks : “ The interests of
virtue and true religion suffered yet more grievously by two monstrous
errors which were almost universally adopted in this century [cent. 4],
and became a source of innumerable calamities and mischiefs in the
succeeding ages. The first of these maxims was, that it was an act of
virtue to deceive and lie, when by that means the interest of the
Church might be promoted..................... The Church was contaminated
�28
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE,
with shoals of profligate Christians........................ It cannot be affirmed
that even true Christians were entirely innocent and irreproachable in
this matter.” (See Mosheim’s “ Ecclesiastical History,” vol. I., pp. 55,
77, 102, 193.) Salvian, an eminent pious clergyman of the fifth cen~tury, writes : “ With the exception of a very few who flee from vice,
what is almost every Christian congregation but a sink of vices ? For
you will find in the Church scarcely one who is not either a drunkard,
a glutton, or an adulterer ... or a robber, or a man-slayer, and what
is worse than all, almost all these without limit.” (Miall’s “ Memorials
of early Christianity,” p. 366.) Dr. Cave, in his “ Primitive Christi
anity,” (p. 2), observes : “ If a modest and honest heathen were to
•estimate Christianity by the lives of its professors, he would certainly
proscribe it as the vilest religion in the world.” Dr. Dicks, in his
Philosophy of Religion,” (pp. 366-7), also states : “There is nothing
which so strikingly marks the character of the Christian world in
general as the want of candour, [and the existence of] the spirit of
jealousy. . . . Slander, dishonesty, falsehood and cheating are far
from being uncommon among those who profess to be united in the
bonds of a common Christianity.” Wesley once gave a picture of
^Christian society, which indicates the “ high morality” produced where
“gospel truths ” are disseminated. After stating that “ Bible reading
England ” was guilty of every species of vice, even those that nature
itself abhors, this Christian author thus concludes : “ Such a complica
tion of villainies of every kind considered with all their aggravations,
such a scorn of whatever bears the face of virtue ; such injustice, fraud
and falsehood; above all, such perjury and such a method of law, we
may defy the whole world to produce.” (Sermons, Vol. 12, p. 223.)
Surely, such Christian testimony as this should be damaging evidence
against the theory of the Church, that the “ light of the Gospel ” has
invariably been effectual in securing personal purity and individual
honour.
Neither did the Galilean faith remove the blots that dimmed the
glory of the ancient world. Slavery, infanticide, and brutal, inhuman
sports remained for centuries after the erection of the symbol of the
Cross. It is true, Rome, like every other country, had its vices, but
Christianity failed to remove them. As Lecky observes, “ the golden age
-of Roman law was not Christian, but Pagan.” [“History of European
Morals,” Vol. II., 44.] The gladiatorial shows of Rome had a religious
•origin ; and while some of the grandest pagan writers condemned them,
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
29
they were not abolished till four hundred years after the commence
ment of the Christian era. And, be it observed, that the immediate
cause of their ultimately being stopped was, that at one of the exhibi
tions, in A.D. 404, a monk was killed. “ His death,” says Becky,
“ led to the final abolition of the games.” (Ibid. 40.) It is a noteworthy
fact that, while the passion for these games existed in Rome, its love
for religious liberty was equally as strong ; and it was this very liberty
that was first destroyed in the Christian Empire. (Ibid. 38.)
Every nation has had its national drawbacks, and Christian coun
tries are no exception to the general rule. Under the very shadow of
the Cross cruelties of the deepest dye have been practised. Bull-fights,
bear and badger hunting, cock fighting, and pigeon-shooting have all
been favourite amusements in Christian lands. Granted that immo
rality stained the history of ancient Rome and classic Greece, so it did
Christian England at the very time when the Church had absolute
authority. What was the state of morals in England during the age
of Henry VIII., Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, and George IV. ? Was
there ever a period of greater moral depravity and intellectual poverty
than when the Christian Church was paramount and supreme, when
the saints, the bishops, and the priests were guilty of the worst of
crimes, including incest, adultery and concubinage, when 11 sacred in
stitutions,” filled with pious nuns, were converted into brothels and
hotbeds of infanticide? (Ibid. 351.) Greece and Rome, with all their
immorality, will bear comparison with the early ages of Christianity.
If history may be relied upon, Christian England is indebted to Pagan
Rome and classic Greece for the .incentive to much of that morality,
culture, and heroism which give- the prestige to modern society. Upon
this point, Dr. Temple, in his “ Essay on the Education of the World,”
is very clear. “To Rome,” says the Doctor, “we owe the forms of
local government which in England have saved liberty and elsewhere
have mitigated despotism.” ... “ It is in the history of Rome rather
than in the Bible that we find our models of precepts of political duty,
and especially of the duty of patriotism.” ... “To the Greeks we owe
the corrective which conscience needs to borrow from nature.” Take
Rome to»day. That country was once the recognized mistress of the
world, renowned alike for its valour, its learning, and its taste; from
whose forums emanated that eloquence which still shines forth as the
production of a noble and heroic people—Rome, once the depository of
poetry and the cultivator of art, whose grandeur and dignity could
�30
CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
command the admiration of the world—such was Rome, but, alas ! how
has she fallen ! “ Christianity floated into the Roman Empire on the
wave of credulity that brought with it this long train of oriental super
stitions and legends.
(Lecky, Vol. I. 397.) The result was, she be
came a miserable, down-trodden, priest-ridden country. Her former
glory, dignity and valour departed, and were replaced by a mean and
cowardly terrorism, born of a degrading priestcraft and a cruel theo
logyFor one thousand years Christianity had its trial, with everything in
its favour. The Middle Ages were the brightest era of Christianity.
Then she had no rival. Assisted by kingcraft, she ruled the civilized
world through a thousand years, without one ray of light, without any
great addition to the arts and sciences, and then bequeathed to man
kind a heritage of cruelty, bloodshed and persecution. At this period
of her history there was a great impetus given towards science and
philosophy. Some of the most splendid intellects that ever appeared in
the world, and that might, under more favourable conditions, haveadorned humanity, enlightened society, and helped on progress, ap
peared in those days. But their intellects were stifled and rendered
comparatively useless by the influence of Christianity. Those were
the times when theology was paramount, unrestrained, and un
trammelled j when the blood, the genius, and the chivalry of Europe
were all wasted in the mad and useless crusades, when in one expedi
tion alone, instigated by fanatical priests, no less than 560,000 persons
were sacrificed to the superstition of the Cross. Do we require a proof
of the legitimate effects of orthodox Christianity ? Behold the history
of the seven crusades, which will for ever remain as a lasting monument
of a mind-destroying faith. For nearly two hundred years did the fol
lowers of Christ lay desolate one of the finest and most romantic por
tions of the known world, and laid prostrate thousands of human
beings. Do we wish to know the influence of the orthodox religion ?
Read the history of the Emperor Constantine, who with the sword in.
one hand and the Cross in the other, pursued his slaughtering and re
lentless career. Go to the streets of Paris, when in the fifteenth cen
tury they flowed with the blood of defenceless Protestants, and when.
10,000 innocent persons were massacred by the professed believers in
a meek and lowly Jesus. Visit the valleys of Piedmont, which were
the scene of a most inhuman butchery, when women were suffocated,
by hundreds in confined caves by the bearers of the Cross. Study the
�CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
31
history of the Inquisition, to whose power three millions of lives were
sacrificed in one century. Peruse the records of the actions of King
Henry VIII., Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, in whose Christian
reigns hundreds were condemned either to die at the stake or to endure
revolting cruelties in loathsome dungeons, because they differed from
the prevailing faith of those times. These were the effects of Chris
tianity when it had absolute power. Fortunately, in this age of pro
gressive thought, a change has come over the dream of man, and
practical work has taken the place of theoretical faith. In business, in
science, in politics, in philosophy, and partially in education, belief in
theology is not allowed to stand in the way of help for humanity. The
Church has lost the power it once had, and priests no longer command
undisputed sway over the intellect of the human race. Many of the
greatest minds of the nineteenth century have thrown overboard the
orthodox Christian faith, and the enlightened sons of earth will, ere
long, follow the example. The sun has arisen on the tops of the
mountains, heralding the advent of that glorious day when it may be
triumphantly said with Shelley :—
“ Fear not the tyrants will rule for ever,
Or the priests of the evil faith ;
They stand on the brink of that raging river
Whose waves they have tainted with death ;
It is fed from the depth of a thousand dells ;
Around them it foams, and rages, and swells ;
And their swords and their sceptres I floating see,
Like wrecks, on the surge of eternity.”
•
��
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
Christianity : its origin, nature, and influence
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 31 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
[18--]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Free thought
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 (Christianity : its origin, nature, and influence), 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
RA1852
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Free Thought
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2ccd3f3cad0920cd58a4f824ab947f3d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PaKCXLqtPuFM4rkvJULavh4vfGAOfjgz2JgeIBZZOQHH2M6Vh-StI4z9EKq3b-%7ESf6rrxjWD-gLjnUgNme1nXzzA%7EW-lDuVXt0GpefCl9Q9nEB%7EnvwL%7EN1irGzZseFyM50pLKlhAaEcPF%7EjHG2SEqyC9Gv3gGHo4H82iolSIIx5wjKJRq56pp-zurXx4HZ7uk0GTzBXEw47GHi8TE4pqqrnRiBUhzORqNperTvhhR4qkBu4cJRo5vaS5ZFxRs9H9i2nnS00EAaV-NIo0lpcB9E2nw3Al9DEmfSfD8U3Vj8RqVbfCtieu7ZQe%7Eo4KMjuL6UAOH0fx2NuzwxU9p5S6yw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
431c5d4cec527af41bd3f128122de76d
PDF Text
Text
Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged.
SECULARISM:
DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “Secular Thought.”
Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity, ”"
“ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“Bible Morality,” “ Christianity: Its Origin, Nature amd
Influence” “Agnosticism and Christian Theism:
Which is the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to
Father Lambert,” Etc., Etc.
CONTENTS:
What is Secularism? Biblical Idolatry—The Secularist’s Bible.
Natural Depravity. Theological Supremacy. The alleged Fall of Man
and his supposed Redemption through Christ. Reason and experience
the true guide in human actions. Why supreme attention should be
given to the duties of this life. Science more trustworthy than reliance
upon any supposed Supernatural power. Morality is of natural growth,
having no necessary connection with Theology. The consistent carry
ing out of Secular teaching in every-day life the best preparation for
any future existence.
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
TEN CENTS.
��SECULARISM :
DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
It is an unfortunate fact in connection with the development of
human thought that new truths are frequently shunned, and theo
logical opinions are, as a rule, estimated more by their popularity
than by their intrinsic value. This probably may be explained to
some extent by the lamentable circumstance that for centuries
there has been too much mental indolence existing among the
masses, who, in too many instances, have put their thinking out
to be done for them, instead of exercising their own intellectual
faculties. The result has been the perpetuation of old ideas,
creeds, and dogmas, rather than the perception and fostering of the
discoveries of modern thought.
From time immemorial evils, errors, and immorality have
impeded ethical culture and marred the progress of the human
race. And it is urged that about two thousand years ago the
Religion of the Cross was introduced into the world for the express
purpose of correcting these wrongs and establishing purity, love,
and peace among mankind. That this desirable object has not
been achieved must be patent to the most superficial observer.
It has been very truly said that “ two thousand years have passed,
during which entire nations have knelt before a gibbet, adoring in
the sufferer who gave himself up to death—the Saviour of man
kind. And yet what slavery still! What lepers in our moral
world I What unfortunate beings in the visible and feeling
world ! What triumphant iniquity, what tyranny enjoying at its
ease the scandal of its own impunity ! The Saviour has come—
whence comes salvation ? ” The Bible has been read, sermons
have been preached, and prayers have been freely indulged in, but
still moral disease, crime, injustice, wrongs and bitterness of feel
ing abound on every side.. Bigotry still poisons the social life,
�4
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
4
fanaticism fans the fire of persecution, and theological exclusive
ness mars the brotherhood of man.
Recognizing this impotency of the Cross as a factor in promo
ting the Secular welare of society, a new gospel, termed Secular
ism, has been proclaimed, which we believe to be more in harmony
with the requirements and genius of modern life. This gospel is a
philosophy of existence and a science of life, apart from all neces
saryassociations with theology and separate from all forms of ecclesiasticism. According to its teachings nothing should be accepted
as truth merely upon external authority, but all questions should
be submitted to the test of reason aided by experience. A Secu
larist is one who prefers a knowledge of the natural to a forced
faith in the alleged supernatural—who relies upon “ those princi
pleshaving reference to finite determined time, as opposed to the un
determined infinite” believed by Christians. Secularism, in its ety
mological sense, means the age, limited, finite, belonging to the
world. To give it a more amplified definition, Secularism may be
considered as the application of the sciences to life, as in a smaller
degree astronomy is the application of science to the planetary
bodies, and botany the application of science to plants. Secular
ism, according to its founder, is distinguished from Atheism by its
independent course of action in reference to the question of the
existence of a Gode An Atheist, believing that the evils of
theology are to be traced to the assumptions of Theism, boldly
goes to what he considers the “ root of the evil,” and examines
the reasons for such assumptions. Secularism does not profess to
grapple with this alleged fundamental error of the religions of the
world, but contents itself with a more matter-of-fact field of action.
The question of the existence of a God being one of conjecture,
Secularism leaves it for persons to decide, if possible, for them
selves. Being unable to inform, it refuses to dogmatise upon a
subject of which it can impart no information. The Secular plat
form is sufficiently broad to admit the fellowship of Atheists,Theists,
Deists, or Pantheists. Secularism fetters man with no creeds, it
only requires moral conduct, allied with the desire to pursue a
progressive career independent of all speculative theology. Man’s
duty from a Secular standpoint is to learn the facts of existence ;
to acquire the power of doing right; to progress in virtue and intelli
gence ; to seek to promote the happiness of others ; in a word to
�SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
5
endeavour to remove from society the present inequalities, and to
secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The phil
osophy of Secularism exhibits the science of life and indicates the
path of duty, and how we are to pursue it. It adopts the eclectic
method of selecting from systems, both past and present, whatever
is good and true, and amalgamating such selections with the dis
coveries of more recent thought, and the advantages revealed
through scientific and philosophic researches.
Secularism is two-fold in its nature, constructive and destruc
tive. As a constructive system, it prescribes definite rules to regu
late human conduct, and supplies the means to sufficiently satisfy all
the real needs of humanity. For this purpose it proclaims the
necessity of truth, temperance, industry, justice, fortitude, magnanimicy, benevolence, honour, wisdom, and love. Furthermore,
to meet the requirements of our nature, Secularism teaches that it
is imperative to possess a knowledge of the laws upon which
health depends, and to apply that knowledge in order that we
may have sound bodies, upon which a healthy mind so largely
depends; that the intellectual faculties should be properly devel
oped, as mental training induces lofty and ennobling conceptions
of the duties of existence ; that, as differences of opinion are sure
to obtain, and more particularly upon speculative questions, there
fore social harmony and friendship should never be disturbed and
severed in consequence of such non-agreement; that our emotions
and passions should be controlled by reason and regulated by
judgment ■, and, finally, that as morality is a more important factor
in life’s concerns than theology, it should be studied and accepted
unfettered with the figments of the various churches. This is the
constructive aspect of our philosophy.
In its destructive character Secularism seeks to remove as far as
possible from our midst all fancies, creeds, and dogmas that obstruct
thecarrying out of our constructivework. While shams are regarded
as realities, and falsehood worshipped as truth, this phase of our
advocacy will be necessary. Old systems that have lost all vitality,
except for evil, need to be broken up; and theologies, which have
hitherto usurped judgment and reason, require to be refuted. The
theologians claim to have “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth,” and unless we walk in their paths, unless we accept
their authority, unless we believe implicitly in all their teachings,
�6
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
we are at once condemned as rebels against their God, as outcasts
from society, and as enemies of our fellow-men. While this cruel
injustice exists, destructive work will be necessary. So long as a
mind-degrading theology seeks to rob man of his freedom of thought
and individuality of mind, so long as it threatens him with the
curse of God for striving to realize the nobility of man, so long will
at be our duty to labour earnestly to remove those obstacles which
for ages have stifled human thought, stultified the intellect of man,
and impeded the progress of the world. Thus it will be seen that,
while Secularism enunciates positive principles and duties, it is
compelled, at times, through a domineering theology, to engage
an a determined warfare; not indeed in one of steel and lead, and
fire and blood, but demanding from its soldiers the moral courage
and endurance which are so much nobler and rarer than the mere
physical; demanding the zealous loyalty to an Idea, which is so
much more easy to render to a Man; demanding a constant de
votion to Justice, while it is so much more natural to yield to selfish
Injustice; demanding the sacred fire of Love, which it is so much
harder to kindle, so much easier to quench, than the unholy fire of
Hate.
In our destructive work we make no attack upon the truth either
an Christianity or the Bible, neither do we condemn the useful in
religion. We seek only to destroy the errors, and impediments, and
<he false conceptions which have become associated with Christian
theology. For instance, we object to:—
Biblical Idolatry.—All books, to be really valuable, should be
regarded as our servants, and not as our masters. To prostrate
human reason at the shrine of alleged Biblical infallibility is to
sacrifice modern truth to ancient error, and to yield the discrimin■.atmg power of man’s intellect to the arbitrary decrees of ecclesivastical .counsels. We should use the Bible as we do any other
’book, estimating its worth by its merits, and not by its supposed
““inspired” authority. Surely it will not be contended that the
whole of the Bible can be reasonably endorsed as a record of facts.
Taken after the old orthodox fashion—namely, that all its state
ments are to be accepted as literally correct—the Bible contains
the greatest of conceivable absurdities. What could be more
absurd than the idea that Cain went into a country that did not
exist, and selected a wife who was not then born (Gen. 4: 16, 17);
�SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
7
that beasts were killed three times, and yet remained as
lively as ever (Ex. 9 : 6-25 ; 12 : 29 ; 13 : 15); that a talking ass
saw an angel (Num. 22 : 23-28) ; that a thousand men were slain
by one individual with a jaw-bone of an ass (Judges 15 : 15, 16);
that certain persons arose one morning and .found themselves all
dead (2 Kings 19 : 35); that the sun and moon stood still at a
special command (Joshua 10: 12-14); that the sun moved back ten
degrees, as a sign to a sick king (Isaiah 38 : 8); that a child can
be two years older than his father (2 Chron. 21 : 5*20 1 22 • L 2) j
that an iron axe could float on the surface of the water (2 Kings 6) ;
that a whale could swallow Jonah and retain him, on praying ground,
for three days, and then send him by express to dry land
again; that a child could be born without a human father;
that a man could be alone' while his friends were with him
(Luke 9: 18) ? Of course, these errors and follies are too palpable
to be believed as verities ; but, in sober truth, they are not more
ridiculous than many of the Bible allegations in the domain of
science, history, philosophy, and morality. What could be more
foolish and fallacious than the stories of the Creation, the Flood,
the Egyptian plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, the exploits of
Sampson, the asceticisms of Christ, the adventures of St. Paul,
and, finally, the night mare of St. John the Divine ? Secularism
does not deny that the Bible contains some true and valuable
teachings; but the fact cannot be ignored that in its pages there is
also very much that is false, useless, and injurious; and in order
that its better parts shall not be marred by inferior portions, we
think it is necessary that the entire book should be subjected to
the eclectic process, which is the separation of the good from the
bad, the wisdom from the folly, the chaste from the obscene, and
that that only should be retained which harmonizes with truth,
decency, and the requirements of mankind. The Bible that should
have the highest claim on our allegiance to-day should be composed
of the truest philosophy, the noblest thoughts, and the grandest
ethics that can be selected from the works of the greatest men and
women in all ages and in all countries. Is it asked, where is the
Secularist’s Bible ? We answer, that portions of it are to be
found in every book and in all nations where a useful lesson is
enjoined and a noble truth inculcated. Chapters of our Bible
should be composed of records of the ethical glory of Greece and
�8
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the heroism and sense of duty which adorned the character of
ancient Rome in her palmy days. From the study of the vast
universe we would learn a lesson of humility, and with the aid of
geology we would master truths written on nature’s stony pages.
These lessons and truths should be illuminated by modern thought,
enriched by the accumulated wisdom of all ages, and augmented by
experience gathered as time rolls on. Thus we would have a Bible
fettered by no traditions, limited by no counsel, marred by no
theology, and cramped by thetauthority of no church. It should be
as free as mental growth, as wide as human intelligence, and as
pure and lofty as cultivated thought.
(2) Natural Depravity.—This priestly-begotten dogma we regard:
to be as false as it is degrading; it is a libel on human nature,
robbing it of its noblest qualities and its loftiest achievements.
That depravity exists is, alas ! too true, and so long as priestcraft
and kingcraft hold their sway it is to be feared that depravity moreor less will remain in our midst, depriving man of much of that
grandeur and nobility which in all probability would otherwise
adorn his character and ennoble his conduct. Secularism, how
ever, denies that the human-kind are by nature necessarily
depraved; their history, with its records of self-sacrifice, its
benevolence, its disinterested virtue and its sublime purity, denies
the degrading assumption. When we contemplate the fidelity of
the husband, the devotion of the wife, the affection of the mother,
and the love of the child, we cannot think that the fountain from
which these natural virtues flow is corrupt. As we look upon the'
babe in the cradle who could believe that that emblem of innocence
is a new husk of depravity ? Is it not more dignified and true to
regard it as a fresh stock of human goodness, capable of being
developed into a grand flower of truth, which in after years shall
bud forth into blossoms of usefulness and beauty, whose foliage of
noble deeds shall charm, and whose fragrance of purity of thought
shall regale, those by whom it is surrounded? Parents and guar
dians cannot be too particular in protecting the infant mind from
the machinations of theology at the very time when it is too young
to protect itself. For it is in the sunny days of childhood when
the heart knows no care, when sweet innocence beams upon the
cheek and hope sparkles in the eye, when the mind in its purest
, simplicity is unable to detect the snare ; it is then the seeds are
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
9
sown which in after years bear such disastrous fruit. The Church
knows this, hence its solicitude to secure the control of the rising
generation in the very morning of life. The birthplace of the
notion of “inherent depravity” is the Church; its parents are
ignorance and credulity, and its nurses are the priests. Let a
child be born in the domain of Secular freedom ; let it be properly
trained from infancy, receiving lessons of truth, duty, and selfrespect ; let it have an.example placed before it worthy of emu
lation, and then there is but little doubt that a character will be
formed contradicting the false assumptions of the Church that
mankind are naturally depraved. Rather than endorse the mel
ancholy opinion of Jeremiah, that the heart of man is deceitful and
above all things desperately wicked, we would echo the philosophy,
if not the words, of Shakespeare, when he makes the Prince of
Denmark exclaim : “ What a piece of work is man ! how noble in
reason, how infinite in faculty ! in form and moving how express
and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how
like a god—the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals.”
This represents the Secular idea of man’s capability, and in our
opinion is more true to nature than all the grovelling teachings of
theology as to the alleged inherent depravity of the human race.
(3) Theological Supremacy.—It is the duty of every .Secularist to
endeavour to destroy the evil influence of theology, inasmuch as it
retards intellectual development and national progress. It is the
nightmare of the human mind, conjuring up phantoms which de
stroy the healthy vision of man’s mentality. Theology was dom
inant and despotic in the Middle Ages, which are selected out of
all bad times to be branded as most emphatically the Dark Ages
—ages of ignorance, fetishism, oppression, and slavery ; ages
gloomy, brutal, and horrible. In their universal darkness theology
was enthroned supreme and triumphant; every ray of light which
•came to pierce it pierced the heart of the Church like an arrow,
and rent some of her kingdom from her ; and, if we are now in
twilight instead of black darkness, it is because the dawn of Secu
larism is kindling more and more, and the night of theology more
and more receding and vanishing away.
(4) The notion that man is a fallen being, and that he can only be
.redeemed through the merits of Christ.—To believe this teaching to
•be true is to subvert the lesson of all history, and to lack faith ^n
�10
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the power of man’s self-reliance, which is one of the most useful
and ennobling characteristics of his nature. The career of the
human race has been one of progression, not of retrogression, and
so far as man has been redeemed from the errors and imperfections
of the past that redemption has been the result of personal and
societarian effort, and not in consequence of the life and death of
any one man, or of the origination of any supposed and super
natural religion. The popular orthodox theory teaches that nearly
six thousand years ago an all-wise and all-powerful God created
the world, and then set man in the midst of a scene, surrounded
by temptations it was impossible for him to withstand ; God im
planted in man’s breast certain desires which, as God, he must
have known would produce man’s ruin. A tree is then placed by
God near Adam, bearing the very fruit which God must have
been aware would meet those desires which he had just planted
in the minds of his children. God, all good, then makes a serpent
of the worst kind, in order that it might be successful in tempting
Eve to eat. After this, God commands Adam not to eat of the
fruit under the penalty of death, knowing at the same time that
Adam would eat of it and not die. God allows the serpent to suc
ceed in his plan, and then curses the very ground for yielding the
tree which he (God) had caused to grow. Not content with this,
the Almighty dooms both man and woman to a life of pain and
sorrow ; further, he assures them that their posterity shall feel the
terrible effects of their doing what it was impossible for them to
avoid. At length the unchangeable God changes his mind ; he
will no longer commit wholesale injustice. He determines to send
his son, who is as old as himself, and therefore not his son, to die,
but who is invested with immortality, and therefore cannot die, to
atone for wrongs which had never been committed, by people who
had never been born, and who consequently could not very con
veniently have committed any error. As a conclusion to the
whole, this all-merciful Being has prepared a material fire of brim
stone, to burn the immaterial souls of those who fail to see the
necessity and justice of this jumble of cruelty and absurdity.
The folly and cruelty of this scheme are still more apparent
upon closer investigation. Here we have a Being of unlimited
knowledge, of unlimited power, resolving to make man out of a
material of his own selecting ; it is only reasonable, therefore, to-
�secularism: destructive and constructive.
II
suppose that he secured the very best material which could be
had. Having made man, he at once pronounced the work to be
good. A short time after, however, a mistake was discovered, the
work turned out to be very bad, and God was grieved at his heart
that he had made man at all. Most mechanics can improve upon
their work when they discover it to be faulty; but not so with the
Bible God : bis only resource apparently was to introduce the
cold-water cure and wash the human race, one family excepted
from the face of the earth. This was an absurdity with a ven
geance ; but it was also cruel and unjust in the extreme. Does
the Christian ever ask himself the question, What object could
Deity have had in creating men, if he knew that the thoughts
of their hearts would be evil continually, and that he would have
so soon to destroy them ? As God, he knew what would happen,
what must happen. He knew that the serpent would tempt, and
that Adam and Eve would become victims to the temptation, and
that an awful catastrophe must ensue. Can we reconcile it with
our reason and our idea of justice, that a Being of perfect holinessand goodness, with unlimited power, a Being, spoken of as “ our
heavenly Father,” would have created man at all under such cir
cumstances ? Realize, if you can, for one moment, the awful
spectacle the Flood must have presented. Families banded to
gether, witnessing the gradual rising of the waters ; husband and
wife, brother and sister, friends and lovers,-clinging to each other
as the tide of destruction approached. In a short time the husband
is separated from the wife, the child from the mother, and sister
and brother, and friend and lover, and husband and wife—all, allr
are floating to destruction. One by one disappears from the sight
of those who remain, until at last the agony of all is over, the
shrieks of all are hushed, and the only visible remains of creation
are an ark floating towards Mount Ararat. Presently it finds its
resting-place, the waters gradually subside, and when the land
again is seen what a sight to behold ! The earth, before so beauti
ful and lovely, with children playing in their innocence on the
greensward, and flowers blooming with their fragrance, now pre
sents the aspect of one huge slaughter-house; and “our Father
who art in heaven ” is said to have caused and witnessed a scene
that no human being can think of without horror, nor contemplate
without dismay. A Being that would pre-determine such an
�12
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
awful calamity as this cannot be worthy of our veneration and
love.
To destroy the belief in, and allegiance to, the figments of
theology is the object of our destructive policy. But let it be dis
tinctly understood that, in the place of these dogmas, we inculcate,
among others, the following positive principles:—
(i) That the true guide in human actions is reason, assisted by
.experience.—We do not allege that reason is a perfect guide, but
we do allege that it is superior to any other of which at present we
.have any knowledge. By reason is meant the totality of man’s
intellectual powers, the ability to separate truth from error, and to
premise future probabilities from past experience. In order that
the fullest advantages of reason may be realized, it is necessary
that it should be cultivated and developed as much as possible.
The ordinary house lamp is used for the purpose of giving light ;
but to secure an illumination for any length of time it is necessary
to supply the lamp with oil and to carefully trim it. If this be
not done, the light given will first become dim, and then ulti
mately expire. So it is with the great lamp of human reason,
which requires to be supplied with the oil of wisdom, and to be
trimmed with intellectual discipline, and then it will reflect a light
indicating the right path of human duty. It is objected by some
persons that reason is inadequate as a monitor, because it ignores
too much the emotional part of our nature. This, however, is not
so. Secularists do not neglect the emotions; they only endeavour
to control and regulate them. Secularism teaches that the intel
lectual should predominate over the emotional, not the emotional
over the intellectual. Where this rule is not observed religion
frequently degenerates into wild fanaticism, and pleasure into licen
tiousness. The distinction between the two methods, the reasonable
and the emotional, is illustrated by the mode adopted respectively
by the Christian and the Secularist in their efforts to win converts.
The one seeks to reach the head through the heart, the other en
deavours to gain the heart through the head. The Christian aims
to captivate by appealing to feeling, fear, and wonder; the Secu
larist desires to convince by submitting his claims to reason, judg
ment, and experience. The question is often asked, “ What does
Secularism propose to give Christians for the loss of their faith ? ”
Now, it is not our wish that Christians should give up their faith
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
13
while they think that doing so would be a loss to them. These sud
den and partial conversions are the cause of much of the hypocrisy
and nothingarianism that we find in the world. So long as a
Christian considers that his faith is better than Secularism it is his
duty to adhere faithfully to it. But if, in consequence of a calm
and argumentative appeal to his reason, he be convinced that
Secular principles are superior to Christian teachings, then to
give up what he sees to be the inferior for the superior would be
no loss, but a gain.
Further, it is urged that inrelying so much upon reason we deprive
ourselves of the highest advantages derived from emotional grati
fication, and that we limit the scope for the exercise of the power
of veneration. We are also charged with neglecting music, paint
ing and sculpture; with caring nothing for the glories and grandeurs
of the world; with having no part in the treasuresof the imagination.
Those, however, who know Secularists and their principles will
see at once how groundless such charges are. The truth is, we
recognize that in the proper gratification of our emotions some of
the finest chords in human nature are touched, filling us with
rapture and delight. Surely we have ample scope for the exercise
of our admiration and veneration in the temple of reality without
roaming in the barren wilderness of speculation and conjecture.
Have we no truth, no honour, no heroism, no devotion in the
world ? Does not the mighty universe with its countless varieties,
its charming beauties, and its transcendent wonders, present to
our view the loftiest and most fascinating objects for veneration ?
Contemplate the enchanting marvels of the animal and vegetable
kingdoms, the numberless objects of the profoundest interest in the
starry heavens, the expanded earth, and the spacious seas. Gaze
with intensity upon the untold wonders revealed by modern science.
Take botany with its variety of foliage, zoology with its innumer
able number of animal organisms, geology with its fossil wonders,
bringing to view facts hidden through the ages of the past,
astronomy with its worlds upon worlds revolving around their
central suns ; are not these enough to venerate ? If not, take the
great science of man, with its profound intellectuality, its depth
of philosophy, and its richness of poetry, and those who fail to dis
cover amidst these fascinating realities scope for their emotional
gratification may depend upon it that their mentality is in an
�14
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
abnormal condition, and the sooner an improvement takes place
the better.
“ They tell us that we worship not,
Nor sing sweet songs of praise ;
That love divine is not our lot
In these cold modern days ;
That piety’s calm, peaceful state
We banish from the earth ;
They know not what we venerate
Whate’er we see of worth :
We venerate great Nature’s plan,
And worship at her shrine ;
While goodness, truth, and love in man,
We hold to be divine.”
(2) That supreme attention should be given to the facts and duties
of existence, regardless of any considerations of a life beyond the
present.—This life is a fact; but whether or not there be another
existence beyond the grave is a question that personally I refuse
to dogmatise upon. Secularists need not deny a future life, inas
much as it would be unreasonable to deny that of which many of
us admit we have no knowledge. Of the duties of earth we know
much ; of the alleged requirements of heaven we know nothing.
If we are to exist in some future life, and there be called upon to
perform certain duties, we can have no knowledge of their nature
and requirements until we participate in the supposed new exis
tence. It may be urged that the duties said to pertain to another
world are supposed to be of a particular kind, and that, acting
upon such a supposition, a preparation for their performance is
made. But it is, at least, possible that the said supposition may
prove to be erroneous, and in that case what has been done ?
Why, society has been deprived of time and services to which it
was justly entitled. We are all indebted to the general common
wealth for advantages received. No one can live successfully in
a state of isolation; we are dependent on others for numerous
benefits, and in return we are in duty bound to render back to
society what services we can to add to its uselfulness and stability.
If it be true that our bodies contain immortal souls, they ought to
be benefited by being allied with well-trained physical, mental,
and moral organizations. If, on the other hand, man has no soul,
�SECULARISM ! DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
15
then his body will be none the worse for good training and neces
sary discipline. In any way, therefore, the Secularist is safe, and
fully justified in acting up to the dictum, “ One world at a time.”
(3) 'd'hat Science and its application is a more trustworthy pro
vider for man than relying for help from any supernatural power._
That a radical change for the better has taken place in the physical
and general condition of the people within the last few hundred
years no one will deny. When the Church, with.its supernatural
pretensions, was at its noon, the state of society was horrible
beyond modern imagination. The peasantry and labourers were
mere serfs, crushed in hopeless misery beneath feudal exactions
and despotism. As no laws of nature were acknowledged, no sani
tary measures were thought of, though from the general filth and
want dreadful plagues and famines were, frequent. Before the
ravages of epidemics thousands of the noblest and fairest of the
sons and daughters of earth fled from their miserable homes only
to be caught within the jaws of agonizing death. The Church
existed, prayers were despatched to heaven, the aid of God was
invoked ; but no help came, desolation walked the earth. By-andbye science dawned, and with its magic natural powers accom
plished what faith, with its supernatural belief, had proved itself
impotent to achieve. The benefits that accrued to the world
through the advent of science cannot be over-estimated. Science
has been the lever that has transformed societv from the pestilen
tial past to the improvement of the present, from the age of faith
in heaven to the period of human effort on earth. The Coperni
can 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.” While astronomy and
geology dissolved heaven and hell, the progress of all the sciences
has impressed upon us the universality and immutability of law,
the invariable sequences of events, thus slaying miracle, despatch
ing Special Providence, and rendering prayer for celestial help a
childish folly. Roger Bacon, with his discoveries in chemistry
and physics, did more to enable us to cure disease and prolong
human life, than Christ and all his co-workers. And Darwin,
Tyndall, Huxley, and Clifford have given us more practical infor
mation as to man, his nature, position and potency than the whole
of the theologians in the world. Science, therefore, is our provi
�16
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
dence ; on it we rely in the hour of danger ; and, as a matter of
fact, so do the Christians, although, to be consistent, orthodox
believers should do otherwise. When the storm is raging, the
thunder is roaring, the lightning is flashing, upon what do Chris
tians rely ? Have they not more real faith in the lightning-con
ductors upon the top of the steeples of their churches than they
have in all the prayers of Christendom ?
(4) That morality is of natural growth, and has no necessary con
nection with any of the theologies of the world.—Much confusion of
thought exists as to the true nature of ethical philosophy.
Morality is not an existence per se—that is, of itself. It is a term
used to indicate that condition of society wherein truth, justice,
honour, sobriety, industry and other virtues obtain. Where the
opposites of these are found immorality predominates. Our object,
therefore, should be to select a rule of life which encourages virtue
and discourages vice ; and, moreover, which indicates what is to
be done, and also when and how it should be done, in order that
not only the individual, but society at large, may be the better for
the life we lead and the action we perform. The orthodox basis
of human conduct is God’s will; but, inasmuch as it is difficult, to
say the very least, to ascertain what that will is, Secularism can
not accept it as the foundation of moral deeds. Where are we to
look for a concise and legitimate record of such a will? Notin
the Bible, for therein many representations of a most conflicting
character are given of what is supposed to be God’s will. Thus it
can be shown from the Old Testament that its God condemns
murder, adultery, robbery, lying, etc. ; while it can be as readily
demonstrated from the same book that he approves, and, in some
cases, really recommends these vices. A standard so contradic
tory as this cannot surely be accepted as a moral test.
Neither is conscience a trustworthy guide in this matter.
Practically, conscience is mental condition resulting from one’s
organization, training, and general surroundings, varying with
time and differing in individuals. It is not the function of con
science to determine right from wrong. It is reason and judg
ment which do this, and the province of conscience is to urge
fidelity to the decree of this intellectual monitor. Secularism, of
■course, recognizes the necessity of heeding the “ voice of con
science,” knowing full well that, if it were faithfully obeyed, there
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
17
would be less hypocrisy in the world than we have to deplore at.
the present time. Intellectual insincerity is the curse of the world
and the bane of the Church. People are too prone to sacrifice
their honest convictions at the shrine of public prejudice and to
the exactions of a fashionable theology. The consequence is that
an air of artificiality pervades modern life, converting the temple
of mental reality into an abode of mental moral dishonesty.
Secularism seeks to impress upon mankind the duty of saying,
what they mean and meaning what they say.
The basis of morality which commends itself to the Secularist
as being the safest, and most in accordance with the genius of the
age, is the usefulness of an action, those acts being moral which
produce the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number.
This view of morality is justified by a knowledge of the doctrine
of, circumstances, indicating how they affect and are affected by
each other. The scientific definition of any particular object of
our contemplation is that it is the sum of all the causes which pro
duced it. If one of the causes which tended to produce that par
ticular phenomenon had been deducted, or if additional influence
had been added, the result then produced would have differed from
the result 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
affected 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 lily in England is remarkably fine and
delicate ; but within a few miles of Madrid it is a huge tree of from
ten to 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 this country. The same principle is shown in the
various productions of English or American soil. We take a wild
flower from the woods for the purpose of improving its appearance
and value. It has grown up under what are termed natural cir
�18
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
cumstances ; we transplant it to a garden, and endeavour to modify
ts 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 constitution and character. If it has faults and blemishes, we
immediately remove those chemical causes, or protect it from those
climatic influences which produced such faults. If it be its half
developed beauties which we wish to foster into full maturity, we
multiply 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, the dis
couragement 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 designated
as the science of human cultivation. The problem that it sets to
itself with reference to man in his moral relations to society is to
bring him from the condition of the wild flower to that of the
garden flower. For, as with the wild flower, so it is in many re
spects with the wild, undisciplined man. The flower is what it is,
and the wild, uneducated man is what he is, in consequence of the
aggregate of causes which have made them both what they are.
Secularism recognizes these influences of circumstances, not for.
getting, however, that man has a certain amount of self-reforming
power. But this power is frequently rendered comparatively use
less to him through his being surrounded by inferior conditions,
through neglect of correct training, and a want of a proper under
standing of his moral and intellectual nature.
It is not claimed that the principle of utility is perfect, but only
that it is the best ethical foundation known to us. Should a better
basis for morality be presented, we shall be ready to accept it in
lieu of the one we now have, for we are chained to the decrees of
no councils and bound by the dictates of no Church. Having no
devil to frighten us and no hell to appal us, we are ever ready to
accept the revelations of truth, however much they may clash with
preconceived ideas. Herein consists one of the many advantages
of Secular progress over theological stagnation. If it be asked
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
19
why, from the utilitarian standpoint, we should do right, the answer
is, because the welfare of society demands it and the individual is
himself the better through doing right. Utility offers as an incen
tive for well doing the promotion of the happiness of the people in
general. By happiness is here meant the knowledge—so far as
it can be acquired—that our actions do no harm to others and leave
no injurious effects upon ourselves. Those persons who reflect ere
they retire to rest at night, if they can honestly experience such
happiness, can sleep the sleep of peace born of the consciousness
that during the day they have striven to do their duty honestly and
justly.
Fortunately for the exercise of such morality, we are not depen
dent upon the theologies or religions of either the past or the pres
ent. The sources of all ethical culture are found in human nature,
and its sanctions in personal and societarian requirements.
Morality was born of thoughtful experience, fostered by the highest
aspirations of the human mind, and is now being developed by the
exigencies of modern life. It needs no supernatural power to
determine its nature, and no Bible to manifest its force. While
humanity lasts its results will be felt and its service appreciated.
The obligations of truth, the essence of all moral conduct, are of
earth, not of heaven. Truth should be observed, not through fear
of God, but because we know from human experience that telling
falsehoods tends to destroy that confidence between man and man
which is so necessary to the honour and stability of society. As
the Bishop of Hereford remarks in his Bampton lectures : “ The
principles of morality are founded in our nature independently of
any system of religious belief, and are in fact obligatory, even on
the Atheist.”
(5) That the best preparation for a life superior to this is the
wisest and noblest use of the existence we now have.—Knowing only
of the present life, Secularists content themselves with its demands,
feeling assured that the best credentials to secure any possible im
mortality is the wisest and most intellectual use of the life we now
have. The man who has lived well has made the best preparation
to die well, and he will find that the principles which supported
him in health can sustain him in sickness. When the last grand
scene arrives the Secularist, having done his duty, lies down
quietly to rest. What has he to fear ? He knows that death is
�20
SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the consequence of life, that nothing possesses immortality. The
bird that flutters in the summer sun, the bee that flies from flower
to flower, the colossal elephant, the tiny animacule, the intelligent
ape, and the almost unconscious zoophyte, all pass into a state of
unconsciousness when their part is played and their work is done.
Why should man be an exception to the universal law ? His body
is built up on the same principle, and his mental faculties differ in
degree, but not in character, from theirs. He is subject to the
same law as the rest of existence, and to repine at death is as
absurd as to weep because he did not live in some other planet or
at some other time. Nature is imperative in her decrees and must
be obeyed. Death is the common lot of all. The atoms of matter
of which one organism is made up are required for the constructing
of another, so they must be given up for that purpose, and to
repine at it argues an ill-tutored mind. The work is done, and, if
it has been done well, there is nothing to fear when “ life’s fitful
dream is o’er.”
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 we
estimate the various religions of the world which conflict with
each other, more or less, at one hundred—a very moderate calcula
tion—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 ninety-nine, and
the other goes “ one better ” and rejects the whole hundred. 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 questions will be asked,
“Towhat 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 intellec
tually ? ” If the answers are given honestly in the affirmative,
then no one need fear the result. It is degrading to the character
�secularism; destructive and constructive.
21
<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 did not discern it, for
not professing to see clearly when the eyes he saw 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 manfully according to the best
light we can attain, 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 eternal 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
be 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 sight that failed to see.
If he be just who reigns on high,
Why should the Secularist fear to die ? ”
Such is the twofold nature of Secularism, with a few of its lead
ing features. Thus it will be seen that it is negative to error, but
positive to truth ; that it only seeks to destroy whatever interferes
with mental freedom and the honest expression of individual
opinion : that its desire is to assist in making life a noble reality,
instead of merely an artificial existence. As Secularists, we wish
each and all so to live that when we are no more the world shall
have no just cause to reproach our memories. We counsel all so
to act that when life’s mission is accomplished those who were
bound to us by the natural ties of affection shall delight in the
recollection of their association with us. If this be done, then,
even if our present state be “ the be-all and end-all,” we shall not
have lived in vain, but the world shall be the better for the part
we have played therein. This is an immortality not of faith, but
of works. True, this Secularistic idea of practical usefulness may
be slow in its realization, as imperceptible in its realization as is
�22
SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the construction of a coral reef. Still, if we are true and earnest,
it shall be as certain in its development. And, although at present
we have to encounter the obstacles of superstition and the spite of
intolerance, the work of progress still goes on. This inspires us
with hope for the future. We believe the time will arrive when
fancy will give place to reality, and imagination will yield to the
facts of life. Then, instead of the evils of priestcraft, the reign of
bigotry, and the strife of theology, we trust to have manifestations
of sincere love of man to man ; an awe-inspiring happiness in the
majestic presence of universal nature, and “ man, the great master
of all,” shall live a life of enduring service to the cause of individual
and national redemption. Assuming for the moment that we are
in error and partial darkness, and that we should strive to ob
tain new light, we adopt the prayer of one who was recently with
us, and say ;—
“ God of Nature ! give us light !
We are struggling through the night;
Through the cloud of crimes and creeds,
Lofty words and guilty deeds,
Honoured not, nor understood,
Workers for the general good.
Father, by the public scorn,
By the ties in anguish torn,
By the sad and ceaseless strife,
By the cross we bear through life,
Do us justice ! be our view
Truth or falsehood, we are true !
True to manhood’s mission grave,
To the task that Nature gave.
Ours the free and fearless thought,
Ours the honest, earnest doubt;
Not the cringing of the knee,
Not the impious mockery
Of the prayers that rise to Thee
Through a life of blasphemy.
Though our hearts be racked and riven,.
Though the clouds enwrap Thy heaven,
We are battling for the right—
God of Nature ! give us light I”
�SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
2’
3
Secularism : Past and Present.
Secularists, deeming “ the wise use of the present to be the just
profit of the past and the most reasonable preparation for the
future,” would do well to corsider from time to time the pro
gress of their principles and the different requirements of their
movement at the various stages of its development. The mode
of advocacy necessary at one period is frequently not desirable
at another. As time rolls on the natural law of change manifests
itself in all phases of thought and every field of action. The
intellectual scope of fifty years ago is evidently too limited for
to-day, when active thought is awakening new ideas and imparting
to the human mind additional vigour.
Secularism in the past manifested itself principally in its mili
tant aspect, having to contend with strong opposing forces. To
obtain a position in the public mind it had to fight its way against ,
misrepresentation and theological prejudice; and to maintain
that position many severe battles have been fought, calling forth
heroism, sacrifice, and devotion from brave Freethinkers whose
dauntless labours have made positive Secularism possible at the •
present time. Although the victories gained are unmistakable
and most encouraging, it must not be inferred that our final
triumph has yet been reached. Misconceptions of our views still
exist; and obstacles to the consolidation of our principles abound
on every hand. These drawbacks are, no doubt, to some extent
the result of the difficulties encountered in conducting past con
flicts. Having to meet an overwhelming opposition, backed by
power, wealth, and theological fanaticism ; being often compelled
to fight under the weight of a bitter persecution and the depri
vation of liberty of speech and the freedom of the press, it is no
marvel that errors of advocacy were committed and that apparent
conrusion of principles obtained. We have now, however, gained
important vantage ground : our present duty, therefore, should be
to correct past errors by stating plainly our principles and future
policy.
The public cannot be too frequently reminded that Atheism and
Freethought are not always allied with Secularism. Of course,
Freethought is essential to Secular Philosophy ; but it is only
a part of it and, unfortunately, the former very frequently is to
�24
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
be found without the latter. The same with Atheism : many
of its adherents do not subscribe to any constructive Secular
programme whatever. Our opponents have confounded these
three principles, and thereby have been prevented from com
prehending accurately the real nature of Secularism, which
they have erroneously supposed to be but the negation of
prevailing Theistic notions and the discarding of theological
dogmas. So far as methodically regulating daily conduct upon
an ethical basis is concerned, a mere Negationist may simply be
a Nothingarian, who in no way represents Secularism, which is
something more than rejection of orthodox Christianity, being,
the embodiment of positive principles sufficiently potent for the:
right regulation of human conduct.
The time has now arrived when Secularists should do some
thing beyond the old work of destroying theological dogmas.
The ground is sufficiently clear to admit of the erection of an
edifice of thought untrammelled by orthodox restrictions. The
Secular teacher will, if he is observant, find paths of usefulness
open to him free from the bigotry of the past. A characteristic
of the present time is that the public are inclined to hear an ex
position of Secularism if it be put before them in a proper manner.
Sobriety of speech is as desirable as sobriety of appetite. There
is no necessity of indulging in the folly of urging that the Bible
and Christianity are both destitute of goodness and utility \
better far to urge the truth that the value in each is at the
command of the Secularist, who accepts the useful wherever it can
be found. Furthermore, it is important to point out that any
material advantage offered by rel gion we can secure by a faithful,
adherence to the positive principles of Secularism.
Secular propagandism has now become an active vital force in
our midst; hence the greater necessity for judicious care being,
observed by our advocates. Whenever orthodox absurdity and
theological error impede our Secular work the course to pursue
is clear : destroy them if possible; but we should be prepared to
supply their places with sound principles of daily life, possessing
as recommendations reason and utility. What is required now
more than ever is the thorough carrying out of these principles in.
our conduct: union of action and an efficient organization.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Secularism : destructive and constructive
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
[19--]
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 (Secularism : destructive and constructive), 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
RA1851
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
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0b811ed14be6897ec083bb4184103317.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mTWb%7EjuiqC2yH6lrEEyI1nHiwuxOuzQBsE-rWM0c5SCX7tfZpzFRsyt93C6e2%7Ef9zVi-siZNfNYrvZKL%7EuIG71xAtqfYRYus%7Efii3CaBYMTHYIJuenKSJeDl3ozH9LhqzDiVg%7EGM8yltHHv3NYlf8lW51Vqcm%7EJZGvs4VBtH8e8DQGKN1Wpd%7EJj4gfKVFqmscxhNoWvrHuK1rkDdrhrxKX6EyQY6VgA5iB0dM6dLkezv6MY4iUmDNWBqIOXCfvKFDsrWvczB9FCVssfjhdiiyAWyZQHEGh%7EulAhUSYsgxfgQjkU-UR4lns2QgjxtBsbw5UOS7KwYSlSKXfpbMw9GyA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8cd436a4426f240f8c92e90a4d604543
PDF Text
Text
AND
-- •-—BY—
CHARLES WATTS
Author of " Secularism : Constructive and Destructive,”
“ The Superstition of the Christian Sunday.”
1,1 Glory of Unbelief,” Ac., Ac.
"
TORONTO:
Printed at “ Secular Thought ” Office.
Price Ten Cents.
■
��AND
_______________
— BY----
CHARLES WATTS
Author of “ Secularism : Constructive and Destructive,”
“ The Superstition of the Christian Sunday,”
“Glory of Unbelief,” Ac., Ac.
——
TORONTO:
Printed
at
“ Secular Thought ” Office.
Price Ten Cents.
��HAPPINESS IN HELL
---- AND----
MISERY IN HEAVEN.
n/’b'W'b'b'hl'b'bl’b’U/b
“ HAPPINESS IN HELL.”
Under the above title there appears a remarkable article in the
December number of The Nineteenth Century, written by St.
George Mivart, who is one of the ablest exponents of Roman
Catl io icism at the present day. His new theory has produced
quite a sensation in orthodox circles, in consequence of his rever
sing the hitherto supposed nature and conditions of the abode of
his Satanic Majesty. Whatever views we may personally enter
tain in reference to Christianity, we always welcome any effort
made to improve upon its harsh and cruel features. We sincerely
hope, therefore, that this declaration that there is “ happiness in
hell ” will have the effect of rendering future Christian pic
tures of everlasting torments less horrifying than those ghastly
spectacles that in the past too frequently accompanied the pub
lications of such orthodox teachings. It will appear a novel idea
to most minds that hell is a place of agreeable associations and
of pleasurable sensations; but to be assured that “ happiness ” is
to be found there is indeed startling, and will no doubt astonish
and bewilder members of the Christian community who have
always regarded that institution as being the abode of extreme
and unutterable misery. Besides, apart from the followers of
Swedenborg, few persons profess to have any conception of differ
ent degrees of happiness hereafter. Such, evidently, was not
Christ’s idea if it is true, as stated in the New Testament, that at
“ the last judgment ” “ before him shall be gathered all nations :
�4
HAPPINESS IN HELL
and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his
right hand, but the goats on the left.” From this we learn that
mankind are to be divided into two classes only—the blessed and
the cursed.
Mr. Mivart says that he deals with his subject in all serious
ness, and he avows his pity for intellectually good men who are
staggered at the monstrosity of hell. He asks two questions : “ Is
the doctrine (of eternal hell) really one essential to Christianitv ?
and if so, can it be a belief reconcilable with right reason, the
highest morality and the greatest benevolence ? ” For ourselves
we answer the first query in the affirmative, and the second in
the negative, as they appear to us to be two very different ques
tions.
It is rather strange that Mr. Mivart should announce
that he offers his suggestions to believers only. Surely Free
thinkers are as competent as his church, his councils or himself to
judge what is reasonable or moral. We especially press this
point because he professes not to blink any difficulty, and to be
impartial and candid. The belief in Theism is not necessary to
enable a person to decide whether it was just or otherwise to
establish an “ eternal hell ” for those who cannot accept
the Christian God as a reality; neither is the belief in
immortality indispensable to the formation of an opinion that it
is inhuman and unreasonable to “ torture for ever ” those who
reject the Roman Catholic doctrine of a future life. In fact,
persons are in a better position to judge fairly and accurately
the points at issue, whose minds are free from prejudice and
whose reason is unfettered by priestly-enforced dogmas.
It is worthy of note that Mr. Mivart does not deny the exis
tence of hell: neither does he contend that the Scriptures do not
mean what they say upon the subject, or that they have been
wrongly translated. On the contrary, he ascribes to God the
preparation of the institution which, in Mr. Mivart’s opinion,
exists sure enough ; but the material used and the mode adop
ted in carrying out its punishments are changed. Instead of
�AND MISERY IN HE.AVEN,
5
fire and brimstone for all its inhabitants, a section of the “ lost
souls ” are only to suffer through banishment from heaven and
deprivation of the “ beatific vision of God.” While agreeing
with Jesus that hell is to be eternal, Mr. Mivart differs from his
Master by allotting to the tenants different degrees of punish
ment according to their merits and demerits. Banishment from
God is to be the only fate for some, while others are to suffer the
poena sensus, which he says is “ the equivalent of hell fire.” This
is to us a very important point, for we are told that the recipi
ents of “the equivalent of hell fire” are to be the “ Unbelievers”
—those who do not accept the doctrines of the Church. In his
defence of hell-fire torments Mr. Mivart is supported by the
writers of the New Testament (see Matt. 5 : 22, 29, 30; 10 : 28 ;
23: 15-32; 25: 41, 46; Mark 3: 29; 4: 42-47; Luke 10:
15, 16, 23; Rev. 14: 16; and 16: 8), and also by the Cate
chism of the Eastern Catholic Church, which distinctly says
“ they will be given over to everlasting death; that is, to ever
lasting fire, to everlasting torments with the devils.” This is a
doctrine which Mr. Mivart informs us his church never con
demned, and he frankly admits that the reality of a terrible and
scorching hell has been enforced by the eloquence of the pulpit,
the brush of the painter, the skill of the sculptor, and the art of
the engraver. This may be all too true, but it shows the brutal
nature of theology and its inhuman influence upon its believers
nevertheless.
It would indeed be useless to appeal to Freethinkers, and we
trust it would to all men and women whose minds have not been
perverted by a cruel and relentless faith, to believe that the ex
istence of such an institution could be defended by “reason and
the highest morality.” We urge most emphatically that to de
prive anyone of rights and privileges, either in this or in any
other world simply on account of differences of opinion, would
be a violation of the principles of justice, and in opposition to
the teachings of all true ethics. As to the “ benevolence ” of
putting those who honestly reject a particular faith in the worst
position among the alleged new conditions of hell, that requires
�6
HAPPINESS IN HELL
special faculties, which we do not possess, to enable us to appre
ciate it.
But Mr. Mivart observes there is “ another side ” to Catholic
doctrine which teaches that tne “ happiness of hell ” will be the
lot of “ unbaptized infants,” and it may even be extended to
“ adults in heathen nations.” If this be so, baptism becomes an
unfortunate ceremony, for it is by no means certain to be accom
panied or followed by conversion, and if it is not, even according
to his new theory baptism destroys the possibility of happiness
in the next world. Upon the same principle missionaries are
simply agents for introducing damnation among the nations
they visit. If the poor heathens die without having heard the
gospel, happiness, we are told, awaits them hereafter, but if the
{ glad tidings ” are preached to them and they cannot or do not
believe, hell-fire is their portion “for ever and ever.”
Mr. Mivarb considers that a process of evolution is going on in
hell; but he also says the occupants are not allowed to escape
from the “ prison house” however much they may develepe in
goodness. Where, then, is the utility of such development if
emancipation from imperfect surroundings is not to be the re
sult ? It is a kind of progress similar to that made by the horse
at the mill. Mr. Mivart does not interpret the law of evolution
thus when he applies it to animals on earth. His argument
in dealing with man is that the process of evolution raises him
higher and higher both in body and in mind. This is a clear
contradiction to his idea of evolution in hell.
Mr. Mivart considers that Atheism is preferable to the belief
“ that God could punish men however slightly, still less could
damn them for all eternity, for anything which they had not full
power to avoid.” But this is precisely what the Christian’s God
js represented as doing. According to the popular orthodox be
lief, which is based on certain portions of the New Testament,
and is sanctioned by the articles and catechisms of the churches,
it is only the elect that are to be saved, while the vast majority
of the human race are to be punished “ for all eternity.” The
Bible states that the non-elect are powerless to secure their own
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
7
salvation, for it alleges that of ourselves we can do nothing; it
is God that worketh within us, and that some unfortunate vic
tims were ordained to condemnation before they were born (see
Romans 8: 29, 30 9 : 21, 22; 2 Cor. 3:5; Eph. 2:8; Phil.
2 : 13 ; 2 Thess. 2 : 11, 12 ; Jude 8:4).
Mr. Mivart says : “Any unnecessary or useless suffering can
not, of course, exist with a good God.” Just so, then the fact is
that either God does not exist or the orthodox doctrine of hell is
a delusion. If there is any suffering at all in hell we allege that
it is both unnecessary and useless. Such suffering, be it remem
bered, is not regarded as being merely a consequence,it is a penalty
inflicted as a punishment upon those who believe not the “ Gospel
of Christ.” Apart entirely from the monstrous injustice of this
suffering, where is its utility ? The true object of punishment
• should be to reform those who are punished and to deter others
from doing wrong. The threatened punishment of orthodoxy
achieves neither of these results, inasmuch as it affords no oppor
tunity for repentance and offers no facility for improvement, for
when the victim is once in hell there he must remain for ever.
Neither can it be truthfully said that the sufferings in the
“ bottomless pit” would exercise a beneficial influence upon those
on earth. That the belief in hell torrm-nts is not a deterrent
from crime the history of criminality clearly proves. Nearly
all our worst criminals have been taught this doctrine. The
terror of the policeman has evidently been.more efficacious in
the prevention of crime than all the hell-fire that ever was or
ever could be manufactured. Besides, if it were possible for the
“ tortures of the damned ” to be witnessed, would such a sight
inspire the spectators with obedience to a God who caused such
barbarous cruelty ? Here the rejected of heaven are represented
as enduring tortures the extent of •which no humane mind can
fully conceive and no pen can adequately portray. The end of
perhaps a happy life is to be the beginning of everlasting misery.
The joy and sunshine of a mundane existence are to be followed
by clouds of wretchedness and the endurance of perpetual agony.
Amidst the eruption of burning mountains, flashing of light-
�8
H APPINESS IN HELL
ning and the roar of thunder; while the stars are descending,
the sun darkening and the moon being converted into blood, the
majority of mankind are to be exposed to the severest cruelties
it is possible for the most barbarous nature and the most fiendish
disposition to inflict.
Mr. Mivart makes the astounding statement that “nothing, in
fact, has been defined by the church on the subject of hell which
does not accord with right reason, the highest morality, and the
greatest benevolence.” Is this true ? God has been defined by
the church as the creator of all things; he must therefore have
created the devil. God, we are told, is all-wise ; he must, there
fore, have known the nature of the being he was creating, and
the havoc his handiwork would make among the sons and daugh
ters of men. God, it is said, is all-good ; then how could he
have been the cause of so much evil of which it is supposed the •
devil is the principal agent ? God is alleged -to be all-powerful;
why, then, did he not destroy the devil when he was defeated in
heaven instead of turning him upon the earth to play his devil
ish pranks among mankind ? God is defined as a being of love;
how is it, then, that he planned a scheme by which most of the
human race are doomed to an eternity of heart-rending suffering,
“ where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched?”
Does it accord with reason to believe that our “ heavenly Father ”
would do what an earthly parent would recoil from doing ? Is
it moral to inflict infinite punishment for a finite act, even if
that act is intentionally performed ? Is it benevolent to burn
men and women “ forever,” some of whom have been guilty of
no other “crime ” than their inability to recognize the orthodox
notion of ■“ truth as it is in Jesus ? ” This may be the theologi
cal view of what is right and useful, but it is a conception of
justice at which unperverted humanity stands aghast.
Mr. Mivart contends that God has granted a revelation whereby
hell may be avoided. “ But,” says he, “justice certainly does
not demand that this revelation should be made clear to all men.”
This is orthodox reasoning and consistency with a vengeance 1
How can that be a revelation which is not clear ? And, further-
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
9
more, of what service can a revelation possibly be to us if it is
not understood ? How can we act upon that, the meaning of
which is hidden from us ? If a knowledge of this special reve
lation is necessary to enable us to avoid misery and to secure
happiness, then justice does demand that the author of the reve
lation should, if he has the power, make it clear to all his
children. If he does not do so he is partial in the treatment
of his children, and, therefore, not, in this instance, a good
Father.
But the real question is, why did God make a hell for us to
avoid ? We are told that the devil was “ a fallen angel,” that
he was once in heaven, where he fell from his original state. It
would be interesting to learn that, if heaven is sinless, whence
came the evil influence that caused the angel to fall ? Angelic
materials cannot be of the best kind, and if war and sin once
reigned in heaven, what guarantee have we that they may not
again disturb the harmony of the “ celestial city ?”
If there be a hell, how does Mr. Mivart know that there will
be happiness there ? We presume that he has not visited that
habitation. St. Frances says that she was permitted to look into
hell, and she found it had three divisions. In the upper hell the
inhabitants were tolerably miserable, in the middle one intoler
ably so, but in the lower the torments were beyond ail under
standing. When she had looked into this terrible place her
blood was frozen with fright. “ The Confession of Faith tells
us that the inmates of hell suffer “most grievous torments in
body and soul, without intermission, in hell-fire forever ” The
Wesleyan Catechism affirms that “ hell is full of fire and brim
stone where the bodies are tormented for ever and ever , and
finally the New Testament alleges that “ the wicked shall be tor
mented . . . and the smoke of their torments ascendethup
for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night. Jf 0W
here are four authorities quite as trustworthy upon, this
as Mr. Mivart (that, we grant, is not saying much), and i£fc^at
they assert be correct, happiness cannot exist in such a pWe.
If, on the other band, the scriptures and the Christian writers
�10
HAPPINESS IN HELL
are in error, then the whole doctrine of hell is a delusion, which
we decidedly think is the case.
But let us turn from these revolting figments of a barbarous
faith to the inculcation of Secular teachings. In these we have
no threatened hell in another world to appal, no fire to burn or
devil to torture. Our injunction is, endeavor to avoid making a
hell upon earth, which is often done by fostering dogmas as
cruel as they are pernicious in their influence upon the peace of
the human mind. We have faith in the power of love, not in
the dread of fear. Therefore
While here live out a noble life
And ever follow right because ’tis right;
Not because ye shall be crowned with light,
And if in grander worlds ye go to dwell
It shall not there be counted to your scorning
That you your best have done,
But you shall still progress to everlasting morning.
MISERY IN HEAVEN.
Mr. St. George Mivart informs us that that there is an eter
nity of happiness in hell, and that “ the loss of heaven is an in
finite loss.” He does not, however, define what he means by
happiness, although he asserts that it differs in degree, and that
some persons “ no more desire the supernatural state than fishes
can desire to become birds or oysters sigh because they are not
butterflies.” If hell exist, and it is such a place as orthodox
Christians generally describe it, we fail to understand how it is
possible for any degree of happiness to be found there. But
what of heaven ? Let us endeavor to ascertain the nature and
state of affairs “ in another place,” as they say in the House of
Commons. If the information given in the Bible concerning
heaven be reliable, misery, not happiness, is its chief character
istic. Those, therefore, who prepared themselves for “ above,’”
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
11
expecting to find comfort and enjoyment, took the wrong road;
they should have gone “ below,” where they would have a warm
reception, and a brilliant and prolonged entertainment prepared
for them.
Happiness is understood in this world as being associated with
agreeable sensations. It is not a thing, but a state in which our
wants are supplied ; a condition of the mind that is in posses
sion of what it desires. Felicity expresses great happiness, and
bliss is its highest form. Happiness furthermore implies an
absence of conflicting influences. It depends on conditions,
which of course vary with individuals. A clown and a philo
sopher may be both equally satisfied, but they cannot be equally
happy when surrounded by the same conditions. Happiness,
great or small, can be secured only by experiences congenial to
the tastes of individuals, and which meet the requirements of
their varied capacities for enjoyment. An “ eternity ” of happi
ness can only mean a continuous state of joy. The common
conception of eternity, “ swallowing up time,” or “ when time
shall be no more,” is only symbolical. Applying eternity to a
future state is like speaking of a rope with one end cut off.
Eternity is neither future nor past. It cannot begin after the
one or before the other; hence entering on an eternal future is
inconceivable to the human mind.
Now do heaven and its arrangements, as depicted and recorded
in the Bible, comply with the requirements necessary to happi
ness ? In the first place, it seems paradoxical to speak, as some
theologians do, of the happiness of heaven, and at the same time
to assert that the senses through which all sensations enter are
not present. They speak of immaterial souls enjoying bliss,
which is as unphilosophical as it would be to talk of dissolving
moonlight or carving a shadow. Attributing agreeable sensa
tions to a soul without senses is as grotesque as ascribing the
darkness of the Middle Ages to the result of the Pope’s uncork
ing bottles of Egyptian darkness. To experience any sort of
happiness necessitates our possessing senses that enable us to
feel, see, and understand. Immaterial souls can enjoy only im-
�12
HAPPINESS IN HELL
material happiness, and it is quite immaterial to us whether we
experience such enjoyment or not, for it could make no material
difference to such souls as we are now supposed to possess.
Jesus, in speaking of children, said, “ Of such is the kingdom
of heaven.” We cannot, however, imagine a child being happy
without his toys or even with always having the same. Fancy a boy
without his top or a girl without her doll—where would be their
happiness ? Is it not also a fact that children begin to wonder
why they do not continue to admire their old sources of enjoy
ment when they have acquired tastes for new ones ? It is
similar with children of larger growth, whose happiness consists
greatly in the change of scenes and occupation. Literature is
the heaven of some minds ; but the most devout student looks
out for new books. To be compelled to read the same for
ever would not be the happiest occupation. Everything is
mutable, changes are interminable through all nature, absolute
quietude is unknown, and without constant change life itself
would cease to be. These essentials to the happiness of exist
ence are not to be found in heaven, and therefore to intellectual
persons it would be a place of misery.
We are not now dealing with the questions whether there is
a heaven or not, or if there is where it is located. These are no
doubt important points, but our present object is to ascertain
whether the Christian’s heaven, as described in the Bible, is an
abode of happiness or of misery. It may be urged that the
language of the Scriptures upon the question of heaven is figur
ative, which we do not deny ; but what is it figurative of ?
Language should make the subjects to which it refers clear to
the reader, and not obscure their meaning. Christ on several
occasions refers to the kingdom of heaven in parables, but from
these we obtain very little information as to its real nature.
This is not at all surprising when we are told that he spoke
in parables, so that those who heard him should not understand
(Mark 4: 11, 12.) It is true that on another occasion, Jesus
located heaven by saying the kingdom of heaven was “ within
you,” but this is as difficult to understand as the parables are,
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN
13
since he also states : “ In my Father’s house are many mansions
.... I go to prepare a place for you.” For persons to get these
mansions within them would be a greater performance than that
of the whale swallowing Jonah ! There is, however, one parable
about heaven (Luke 16: 19,31) which tells us of “a certain
beggar” and of “a certain rich man;” the one was in heaven
and the other within hell, and 1 oth were in hearing, seeing, and
speaking distance of each other. From heaven the rich man is
seen being tormented in hell. Now to think that anyone could
be happy while contemplating such suffering would be an out
rage against our common humanity. Such a horrible heavenly
spectacle would be worse than a Spanish bull-fight, or than
bishops warming their hands before the fires that consumed the
martyrs of old. Brutal as those scenes were, they lasted only for a
time, whereas this heavenly scene consists of ever-lasting torture
where all help to lessen the cruelty is denied. If any person
with a spark of humanity in his or her nature should get into
such a heaven, it is to be hoped that blinds will be there that
may be drawn, for such sights are only fit for monsters who die
on the gallows, and whose exit from earth was a blessing to
those left behind. The Christian’s heaven, as here described,
must be a place of misery indeed for every loving heart.
One great source of our happiness on earth is the liberty to
select our companions, to refrain from attending exhibitions of
torture, and to be permitted to relieve the victims of injustice and
cruelty. To be shut up, therefore, in heaven with those who
can look on others being tortured in flames of fire and who will
not or cannot relieve them must be a source of indescribable
misery. This parable receives confirmation from St. John, who
states (Rev. 14: 10) that a certain person “ shall drink of the
wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture
into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with
fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the
presence of the Lamb.” And this is the Christian’s idea of ulti
mate happiness. When a wish is expressed to be with Jesus and
the angels, as it frequently is by orthodox believers, they can-
�14
HAPPINESS IN HELL
not understand the sights and experiences that are in store for
them. Let us hope it is true that “ Eye hath not seen nor ear heard
. . . the things which God hath prepared for them that love
him.” Milton says, “ It’s better to reign in hell, than to serve
in heaven;” but in our opinion it would be still better to do
neither. Both institutions deserve to be lost in total oblivion
for the belief in their existence is no factor in the progress and
elevation of mankind. Humanity would have two evils the less
to overcome if hell were to cease from troubling, and if the
preachers about heaven were to be at rest.
We will now glance at what may be termed the Throne Room
of heaven as it is described by St. John, who is alleged to have
been an eye-witness. He certainly had very peculiar ideas both
of artistic beauty and of pictorial theology. He says that God
was like a jasper and a sardine stone; the rainbow about him
was the color of an emerald. This sparkling Deity was sur
rounded by four-and-twenty elders, their heads being adorned
with crowns of gold. Before the throne was a sea of crystal,
near which there were seven lamps, which were the seven spirits
of God. It is said that St. John was “ in the spirit.” This may
be so, or perhaps the spirit was in him; for no man in his nor
mal mental condition, either waking or sleeping, could conceive
such a jumble of nonsensical impossibilities as those recorded in
the book of Revelation. Some profane persons have compared
their alleged author to Tam O’Shanter, who also is said to have
had some strange visions.
St. John, we are told, found the door of heaven open, and
there he stood in front of a great white throne, with a frontage
of a crystal sea, but, “ whether (he was) in the body or out of
the body, I cannot tell.” He does not say that he felt alarmed
at the “ lightnings and thunderings of voices,” which “ proceeded
out of the throne.” People as a rule do not feel supremely happy
in a thunderstorm. But in addition to the war of the elements
there were four most remarkable beasts in the midst of and
round the throne, the like of which, so far as we know, no
naturalist has ever seen in this or any other country. The
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
15
beasts are represented as having resemblance to a lion, a calf, a
man, and an eagle, and they possessed six wings each and “ eyes
before and behind,” besides being “ full of eyes within.” They
must have been wideawake animals indeed, and to have found
the blind side of them would have been exceedingly difficult.
But, stranger still, they were musical beasts, and could all sing,
and evidently did so to some tune, for “ they rest not day
and night, saying Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty.” Then
we have what may be called a chorus, in which the beasts are
joined by the elders and by “ ten thousand times times ten
thousand, and thousands of thousands ” of angels. A pleasant
place this, truly, for a studious man or a nervous woman to be
doomed to “ forever.” Of course it may be a matter of taste,
but, speaking personally, if ever we find ourselves among such a
motley crew, we shall be inclined, if all other means of escape
fail, to test the efficacy of prayer, and to exclaim, from this place
“ Good Lord deliver us.”
According to St. John, the acoustic properties of heaven must
be unique, for he says that he heard every living thing both
there and on the earth, under the earth, and on the sea, say
something to him that sat on the throne, to which the four
beasts (one of them having a voice of thunder) said Amen 1
Such an exhibition of heavenly music would be to us no
pleasure, but a tremendous nuisance. We might, perhaps, under
pressure, be able to sit out the performance for a brief time; but
to have to endure it day and night for ever would be enough to
drive one stark staring mad. A succession of the same sounds
and sights, even when of a pleasant kind, would be one of the
most monotonous experiences on earth ; but to be compelled to
listen perpetually to the uproar of St. John’s heaven, and to
behold its horrible sights without any intermission, would be
the quintessence of misery. Putting aside their hideous thund
ering shouts amidsi lightning and hail, it makes one’s flesh
creep to think of those strange beasts constantly crawling all
over the place. There would be no rest for us even in the
presence of all the saints and the Lamb. St. John incidentally
�16
HAPPINESS IN HELL
remarks that a good deal of bookkeeping goes on in heaven. If
this be so, accuracy, we should think, could not be guaranteed
under such conditions of noise and confusion. In all probability
many names will be omitted or wrongly inserted, unless the re
cording angel is deaf and dumb and receives his instructions
through the medium of “ divine inspiration.” As to him who
was sitting on the throne, he must have been a peculiar indivi
dual, for it is said that from his face “ the earth and heaven fled
away,” but whence we are not informed.
There were other wonders in heaven, one of which was a wo
man clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and twelve
stars on her head. Evidently she must have been the centre of
light, and had no necessity to grope about in the dark. She
was not, however, to be compared with the marvellous angel
giant, who was clothed with a cloud, bad a rainbow on his head?
a face like the sun, a voice like a lion, and his feet like pillars of
fire. The length given of his legs is most remarkable ; he set
his right foot on the sea, and his left on the earth. There is
one thing mentioned which must have given inexpressible joy to
some of the unfortunate inhabitants. “There was silence in
heaven for the space of about one hour.” This must have been
indeed a relief, even though it was only for a brief interval.
Crusty old bachelors have thought that if there were silence in
heaven it was evident that there were not many women there.
Upon this point we give no opinion, except that, if there were
more than one there, they must have been delighted that the
chorus of the beasts was stopped even for an hour, so that a
little cheerful feminine conversation could be indulged in. Most
women are painted as angels, at least before they are married ;
let us hope, therefore, that if there were any in heaven, they had
wings with which, at the re-commencement of the native music,
they could fly away and be at rest. This description of heaven
and its angelic inhabitants is what the Americans would call
“ fine and large but we ask, where does the happiness come
in ? Gaping at monstrosities and wonders like St. John wit
nessed, is not our idea of a blissful state. It is said in the New
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
17
Testament that Jesus was going to prepare a place for us. If,
however, St. John’s account of the “place” is correct, we have
no wish to congratulate Christ upon the success of his under
taking.
One thing, perhaps, we ought to be thankful for, and that
is, that the path to heaven is so narrow that only a few can
find it. If ever it is our misfortune to be located in the orthodox
heaven, we shall be inclined to burst into song and say :
“ Heaven’s a cheat, and all things show it;
We thought so once, but now we know it.”
We are sometimes told that if heaven does not really exist, it
is a pleasing illusion which people ought not to be ruthlessly
deprived of; and that they should not have doubts concerning
its existence infused into their contented minds. Our answer
to this is, when absurd errors are taught as truths, it is necessary
that the fact should be made clear, in order that their injurious
influences may be avoided. Now St.John says his account is
accurate, and that anyone making alterations or additions will
be subject to unspeakable penalties. But we repeat that it is
not the existence of heaven that we here question, neither do we
desire to deprive anyone of the hope of happiness hereafter. We
have simply shown that the Christian’s heaven as depicted in
the Scriptures does not offer grounds for a pleasing illusion, and
that it is not a home of happiness, but an abode of the most
wretched misery that it is possible for the human mind to con
ceive.
A heaven to be desirable should be a place where suffering
is unknown; where the true and the noble of the earth can
dwell in peace and harmony, undisturbed by personal pain, or a
knowledge of the gloom and sadness of others. To us the Chris
tian’s heaven appears destitute of every redeeming feature, and
it would be no pain to us to see it occupied by Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, and ourselves shut out. If there is such a heaven as
that described by St. John, we know of no people to whom it
would be a more appropriate abode than to the inmates of a
lunatic asylum. The fact is, the popular notion of heaven and
�18
HAPPINESS IN HELL AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
hell, which the churches profess to entertain to-day, is based on
superstition of which Pope said:—
She taught the weak to bend, the proud to pray,
To Powers unseen, and mightier far away ;
She, from the rending earth and burning skies,
Saw gods descend and fiends infernal rise ;
Here fixed the dreadful, there the blest abodes ;
Fear made her devils, and weak hope her gods :
Gods partial, changeful, passionate, unjust,
Whose attributes were rage, revenge, or lust,
Such as the souls of cowards might conceive,
And formed like tyrants, tyrants would believe.
Zeal then, not charity, became the guide,
And hell was built on spite, and heaven on pride.
�����
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
Happiness in hell and misery in heaven
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 18 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
[189-]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Hell
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 (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
RA936
RA1855
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
Heaven
Hell
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c87ca08e98c031ef693eaad5be661490.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nkxJB4IDf7I%7EXiGaJSvgThd1xt9CObUn2WY76zW%7EQc%7Eqxyadk7pZKZDP%7Euw7uHXCoQNmG%7EXIAYKYJh5AfJcXfK1NAeSilEbVTff8puQkRnsGcCa1osQqG%7EuYL7-e0f54Qp8FW38fQK-vbvUE-igOrOWB1YES9K-NwFhBvMie87usqjf8yeO7BYMAxexZI2N64XYb9xfHGrN7zBHHB4kcCyWQmGPcAdceCw0jZUPfru9AXLqN8edjLCxPyxx4ke4DmEHfrQNxpmjm%7E2t167FcdBzggkZMsmlPH8GMkurl4rqgiYEoNijQ59ES4OKNIgZagrUCCICUUCvQlQsCsQQBoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fca23ba00f8766e35c1cba12b16a1905
PDF Text
Text
������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christianity: defective and unnecessary
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
[1900]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
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 (Christianity: defective and unnecessary), 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
RA853
RA1854
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3224db3aa937b7de80b81813628c309c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uVMVr2BIRGxvQU1-1js5jkFitlKfUTxS5g0CmXi4BkjLIllyRYUStKFzKy0PCMrnuH743GHVF36Ova7j-LXvFaIJFGvj2twn6rUVLKB%7E5EcWbp44PftfYQzB39lrh4UHC7ljJ-UOE2y30V6T3s6SmbVLU8SIiDLyHcSoZCnFhhrpHH0wHAmenOoulqCDIMtrIioUQs1Cql2el9hHodP3MbJ7NTRzEQWTHmuOwiAWCQ5VdKOzMGQicmO1Tfpp5PcUrMADg6UbgSvOChDFjq0x46dJsDpzngflrYAttix4NTrsquiRBx54XNw9NsQEEBBGgFNNuKH3YPmLNXXnb-lQFw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7d058292252481749b9e91f9ce8eb03e
PDF Text
Text
THEOLOGICAL
PRESUMPTION
AN
LETTER
OPEN
TO
THE REV. DR. R. F. BURNS, OF HALIFAX, N.S.
—BY—
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought.Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,”
“ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“Bible Morality,” ^Christianity: Its Origin, Nature and
Influence,'’ “ Agnosticism and Christian Theism: Which is
the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to Father Lambert,”
“
Superstition of the Christian Sunday : A
Plea for Liberty and Justice, ” ‘ ‘ The Horrors
of the French Revolution,” Ac., Ac.
In this Letter the following subjects are dealt with : 1. Why do the
Clergy Avoid Debate 1 2. The Position of Agnosticism Towar Is
Christianity. 3. Freethought and Men of Science. 4. The Dif
ference between Facts and Opinions. 5. Christ and Heroism.
6. Christianity and Slavery.
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
-
5
CENTS.
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMP1ION.
-AN OPEN LETTER TO THE REV. DR. R. F. BURNS, OF HALTFAX, N.S.
Reverend Sir :—In No. 1 of The Theologue, a magazine issued
apparently under the auspices of the Presbyterian College at
Halifax, N.S., you have published a lengthy article purporting to
be a reply to “ A Canadian Agnostic,” although it is evidently
intended to refer to myself. You commence by saying:—“ For
between two and three years past the Maritime Provinces have
received periodical visits from the chief champion of Agnosticism
in Canada.” Is it not rather surprising that a reverend gentle
man of your position, influence, and ability should have remained
so long silent and allowed this “ Canadian Agnostic ” to have
made his “periodical visits,” and to have given utterance to what
you are pleased to term “ unsupported statements and pitiful
perversions,” without seeking to reply to him face to face, cor
recting the mischief which you suppose that he wrought upon
the minds of his hearers ? Is it not your duty as a Christian
minister to “ defend the faith ” in the presence of those before
whom it is attacked ? Are you not aware that the Bible enjoins,
«tnd that your Master and his chief successor, St. Paul, set you
the example, to “ Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself ” ?
t(Prov. 25:9). Do we not read in the “ Word of God,” “ Come
now and let us reason together ” (Isaiah 1 : 18) ; also, that very
•early in his career Jesus was found in the temple in the midst of
doctors, “ both hearing them and asking them questions,” and
that St. Paul “ disputed in the synagogue with the Jews, and
with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them
that met with him, and spake boldly for the space of three
months ” (Acts 17 : 17 ; 19: 8). Pardon me, Reverend Sir, for
sasking what reason you assign for avoiding the injunction of
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
3
your “ sacred book,” and the “ sublime example ” set you by
Christ and St. Paul ? Are we to regard such neglect upon your
part as an illustration of practical Christianity ? How many
Secular halls have you gone into and “ spake boldly ” with
Agnostics ? Is your absence from these “ temples and syna
gogues ” to be ascribed to the fact that you have discovered that
such “ disputing ” would not be profitable to your cause, or that
for personal reasons you have found that in this, as in many
other instances, it is not always wise for rev. gentlemen to at
tempt in this practical age to emulate their Lord and Master ?
While your discretion in thus “ avoiding the enemy ” may indi
cate your sagacity, it does not show that you have too much con
fidence in the faith you preach. Rest assured, Rev. Sir, that
principles or systems that will not stand the test of honest criti
cism in fair and gentlemanly debate, have but little claim upon
the intelligence of the present day.
Probably you may urge that you have come to the rescue of the
Faith in the article. you have penned in The Theologue. But
purely that mode of warfare can scarcely be looked upon as being
either very safe or very heroic. You virtually admit, in the
article in question, that you base your comments upon mere hear
say of what your opponent is supposed to have said at periods
varying from one to three years ago, and you deal with the
“ reports ” of his statements where he is unable to correct or
answer you. Moreover, the probability is that but few of your
readers ever heard one of his lectures, and therefore they have
only an ex parte account from which to judge. Now, does it not
occur to you that it would have been far more heroic and “ Christlike ” in you, and would have given greater satisfaction to the
public, had you attended the “ Canadian Agnostic’s ” lectures and
availed yourself of the opportunity always afforded on such
occasions to reply there and then ? In that case, “ the bane and
antidote ” would both have been offered to those present, al
lowing them to decide for themselves which was the bane and
which was the antidote. If, however, for some reason this
^arrangement was not convenient to you, why did you omit to
�4
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
accept his invitation, which was published more than once in the
Halifax papers, to a public debate ? Can it be that you fail to
realise the force of Milton’s opinion that truth will never suffer
.in its conflict with error ? The policy adopted by the orthodox
clergy of shunning public controversy may please the older
members of the Churches, who unfortunately have been trained
to accept their views upon trust, but it will never satisfy the
young and intelligent minds seeking to know the reason why
they should endorse the faith submitted to them. Blind belief
and passive submission belong to the theological darkness of the
past, not to the intellectual light of the present.
Your article appears to me to be remarkable for its theological
presumption and groundless allegations. I wish you to particu
larly understand that I do not use the term presumption in any
offensive sense whatever. It is not my custom or desire to know
ingly initiate the very objectionable feature, too prevalent in
some discussions, of unnecessarily wounding the feelings of thosewho differ from me. Such conduct too often inflames the
passions but seldom wins the assent of reason. All controversy
should be governed by intellectual discrimination, not by angry
disputation. Truth should invariably be the goal in such con
flicts, and the best and most dignified me'ans of reaching it is
calm and kind investigation. By applying the word presump
tion to your article I wish it to be understood that in it you
make statements upon mere supposition and that you substitute
opinions for facts. In no one instance throughout the article do
you deign to make an effort to prove what you assert, but you
urge with marvellous confidence your allegations as if they were
beyond question. This, I regret to say, is a common practice
with theologians; they seldom acquaint themselves with the real
nature of the opinions or principles they assail, and thus they
; frequently mislead their hearers or readers with unfair conclu
sions drawn from false premises. You say : “ Very pertinent and
' pointed was the reply of Sir Isaac Newton to the astronomer
Haley when he spouted infidelity in his presence. ‘ Sir,’ said
that Prince of philosophers, ‘ you have never studied these sub-
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION,
5
jects and I have. Do not disgrace yourself as a philosopher by
presuming to judge on questions you have never examined.’ ”
If this anecdote is a fair reflex of Newton’s mind it is clear that
his theology, which, by the way, was exceedingly small from an
orthodox point of view, did not protect him from a fair share of
egotism and conceit. This incident, however, which you have
selected, has a most significant meaning in reference to your
article in The Theologue, for, evidently, “ you have not studied ”
with too great care the subjects upon which you therein write.
For instance, where did you obtain from Agnostic philosophy a
justification for your assertion that Agnosticism was “a system
of accumulated negation,” and that it taught, “ we are sure only
of what is present and visible ? ” This, Sir, is a pure theological
fiction, caused by an utter lack of knowledge upon the part of
the assertor as to the facts about which he was writing.
You seem to entirely misunderstand our position as Secularists
and Agnostics in reference to Christianity. It may, therefore,
be of some service to inform you in a few words what that posi
tion really is. There are three principal modes of criticising the
modern Orthodox pretensions set forth on behalf of popular
Christianity. First, it is alleged such pretensions are entirely
destitute of truth, and that they have been of no service what
ever to mankind. This view we certainly cannot endorse.
Many of the superstitions of the world have been allied with
some fact, and have in their exercise upon the minds of a portion
of their devotees served, for a time no doubt, a useful purpose.
In the second place, certain opponents of Christianity regard it
as being deserving of immediate extinction. This, in our opinion,
is unjust to its adherents, who have as much right to possess
what they hold to be true as we have to entertain views which
we believe to be correct. Theological faiths should be supplanted
by intellectual growth, not crushed by dogmatic force. The
third and, probably, the most sensible and fair mode of dealing
with Christianity is to regard it as not being the only system of
truth; as not having had a special origin ; as not being suited to
all minds; as having fulfilled its original purpose, and as possess-
�6
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
ing no claim of absolute domination. This is the true position of
Secularism and of Agnosticism towards popular orthodoxy.
Such a position is based upon the voice of history, the law
of mental science, and the philosophy of the true liberty of
thought.
Having dealt with these introductory points, the main issuesin your article are reached, and here your “ sins of omission and
of commission ” come glaringly to view.
Your “ sins of omission ” consist mainly in your not even
making the attempt to prove what you so readily assert
n your article, and not in any way verifying your nu
merous allegations. You reproduce old statements that have
been refuted again and again, and leave your innocent readers
to suppose that what is advanced are undisputed facts. Such an
orthodox procedure may be expected from the pulpit, but it is
sadly out of place in a magazine, particularly where you profess
to answer an Agnostic opponent. You apparently penned the
article under the impression that your Christian friends would
be satisfied, without evidence of the correctness of your position,
and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that your desire was to
convince those who are adverse to your theological views. But
surely you are not so oblivious of the intellectual activity of the
times as not to recognise that for you to succeed in this laudable
effort something more than vague assertion is necessary. This,
Sir, is not an age of mere blind belief or of passive submission,—
at least, it is not so outside the church. Facts are required, and
evidence is necessary, when dealing with the Agnostic position,
and it is your neglect in supplying these very essentials that
constitutes, in my estimation, your “ sins of omission.”
You accuse “ A Canadian Agnostic ” of misapplying the term
Freethought to certain “ leaders in the departments of Science
and Statesmanship, of Literature and the Arts,” but you do not
furnish a single verification of your charge. What “ names ” of
“leaders” has the Agnostic claimed as belonging to the Freethought ranks who were not Freethinkers ? You omit to men
tion one in support of your statement. True, you say, “ Some
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
7
of the names noted, e.g., Darwin, Huxley, Martineau (both Har
riet and James), cannot be included in the Infidel class.” If, Sir,
by the term “ Infidel ” you mean a disbeliever in orthodox Chris
tianity, then undoubtedly the four persons whose names you.
mention were “Infidels” in the fullest sense of the word. Is itnot a fact, wThen in 1859 Darwin published his “ Origin of.
Species,” and when in 1877 he issued his “Descent of Man/’ thathe was branded by both the press and the pulpit as an “ Infidel ?”
Even such a high-class journal as the Saturday Review said
of the assault Darwinism made upon religion:—“ It tends to
trench upon the territory of established religious belief,” and.
the Quarterly Review exclaimed that the teachings of Darwin
were “ absolutely incompatible, not only with single expressions
in the word of God on that subject of natural science with
which it is not immediately concerned, but .... with the
whole representation of that moral and spiritual condition of
man which is its proper subject matter.” Dr. Andrew Dickson
White, in his “ Warfare of Science” (p. 149,) quotes Bishop
Cummings, who wrote: “Christians should resist to the last
Darwinism ; for that it is evidently contrary to Scripture.” Tne
Dr. also refers (p. 147,) to the Rev. Dr. Hodge as saying,.
Darwinism “is a denial of every article of the Christian faith/
In 1871 the Rev. W. Mitchell, Vice-President of the Victoria
Institute, wrote : “ Any theory which comes in with an attempt
to ignore design as manifested in God’s creation, is a theory, I
say, which attempts to dethrone God. This the theory of Dar
win does endeavour to do ... So far as I can understand the
arguments of Mr. Darwin, they have simply been an endeavour
to eject out of the idea of evolution the personal work of the
deity.” Another amiable minister of the “ Gospel of love ” in 1882
went so far as'to say that Charles Darwin, who had then recently
died, “ was burning in hell.” Do you not know, Sir, that both
Darwin and Huxley openly and frankly avowed themselvesAgnostics ? Professor Huxley was the originator of the term as it /
is at present understood, and he is now on,e of its ablest exponents.
Freethought is an essential element in Agnosticism, and, there-
�8
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
fore, was it not quite right to name these two scientists as Free
thinkers? You utterly ignore these facts, which either shows
that you were not acquainted with them, or else that you pur
posely omitted to mention them. In either case the omission is
not calculated to enhance your reputation as a trustworthy
student and expositor of history.
You mention Sir Isaac Newton, Locke, Goethe, Carlyle and
others to substantiate your views upon Christianity and the
Bible ; yet it is to be regretted that you make no effort to vindi
cate in what way either of those writers refutes the position taken
upon these subjects by “ A Canadian Agnostic.” Surely you do
not contend that those “ burning and shining lights ” regarded
orthodox Christianity as being perfect or the Bible as an infallible
book. The whole tenor of Locke’s philosophy is based on know
ledge, while theological teachings are founded on faith. Newton
contended that the universe was guided by natural law, and not
as your system alleges, by the alleged supernatural. As for
Carlyle, Professor Tyndall and Moncure Conway have recently
demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that the “ Sage of
Chelsea ” was a thorough sceptic to the orthodox religion.
It is clear from your article that you are under the delusion
that “ A Canadian Agnostic ” sees no good in the Bible, while
the fact is that he recognises much in that book which is true
and useful; but he also finds much therein that is erroneous, and
which would, if acted upon, be injurious both to individual and na
tional progress. Forgive me, Rev. Sir, if I am unable to accept the
■Queen of England, or “the dying words of Sir Walter Scott” as
authorities upon the true value of the Bible. The English throne
•or a death bed are not the best places fiom which to obtain
efficient and impartial evidence to justify claims that are contra
dicted by investigations made at the seats of learning by such
men as Davidson, Jones, Westcott and the author of “Super
natural Religion,” while they were in health and possessing
mental vigour. It is upon the candid researches of scholars like
these that Freethinkers rely for the facts as to the history, na
ture and worth of the Bible. If it be true that Walter Scott
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
9
whispered just -before his death, “ Bring me the Book,” meaning
the Bible, he did no more than probably a devout believer in
the Vedas, the Zendavesta or the Koran would have done under
similar circumstances. But, again, you omit to do the very thing
which it was necessary you should have done in your case,—
namely, to show in what possible manner such a request could
prove that your Bible was superior to all other existing books.
You appear to attach too much importance to the opinions of
eminent men without first ascertaining upon what grounds such
■opinions are formed. This is a grave omission upon the part of
a rev. gentleman in your position. Of course every person has
a right to entertain his or her opinion, but its real value can
only be estimated by discovering its relation to facts. Moreover,
when you cite opinions in support of your contentions it is due
to the cause of truth that your citations should, so far as they
•affect the questions at issue, be given fairly and in full. This
you have not done in your article.
For instance, in reference
to your testimony to the character of Christ, you only produce
partial statements and thereby cause an erroneous conclusion to
be arrived at. Take as an illustration of the truth of my charge
the following passage from your article: “ Men the reverse of
friendly to Christianity, as we understand it, such as Strauss,
Theodore Parker, Renan, and Rousseau, have endorsed Richter’s
judgment on Jesus,‘He is the purest among the mighty, the
mightiest among the pure.’ ” Now, Sir, you ought to know that,
as you have put these words, they are likely to mislead your
readers. Not one of the four men you have quoted “ endorsed”
what you teach from your pulpit as to the character and mission
of Christ. Why did you not state that Rousseau’s “ testimony ”
was put into the mouth of his “ Vicar of Savoy,” who subse
quently adds in reference to the Gospel containing the supposed
sayings and doings of Christ, “ Nevertheless this same gospel is
full of incredible things, things which contradict reason, and
which it is impossible for any sensible man to conceive or admit.”
You might also have added that Renan in his “ Life of Jesus”
says that: Christ had “no knowledge of the general conditions
�10
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
of the world ” (p. 78); he was unacquainted with science, “ be
lieved in the devil, and that diseases were the work of demons ”
(pp. 79-80) ; he was “ harsh ” towards his family, and was “ no
philosopher ” (pp. 81-83); he “ went to excess ’(p.174); he “ aimed
less at logical conviction than at enthusiasm “ sometimes his in
tolerance of all opposition led him to acts inexplicable and ap
parently absurd ” (pp. 274,275); and “Bitterness and reproach
became more and more manifest in his heart ” (p. 278).
I have now sufficiently supplied your omissions to enable a
better opportunity for a just judgment to be formed as to the
worth of the opinions of your witnesses upon the character of'
Christ. I would not have you mistake my objections to
omissions. I grant that at times it may be right, nay necessary,
to omit certain things, but the sin comes in when persons are
misled by the omissions as to the facts of the matter under con
sideration. Such is the great drawback pertaining to a large
portion of your article. It bears the semblance more of special
pleading, than a candid statement of the whole truth. It reads
like the production of the partial theologian, instead of the
work of a just and equitable reasoner.
Your article is so replete with inaccurate statements, bold asser
tions and erroneous conclusions, that it would occupy more space
than I have allowed myself to deal with all of your “ sins of
commission.” A few instances, however, will suffice to show
your lack of historical precision and logical deduction.
You say that George Washington declared, “ It is impossible
to govern the world without God,” and you refer to him as if he
were a Christian, whereas you should know that he was a Deist
and did not in any way accept orthodox Christianity. The God
in whom* Washington believed was certainly not the Bible Deity,
and his religion was far more Secular than it was theological.
You next insinuate that I slander the character of Christ
Now, Sir, to slander is to utter that which is false and maliciouswhich I have never done in reference to Christ. Judging from
his alleged biographies, I admit that he possessed some excellent
traits of character, and I applaud his strong denunciation of
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
11
certain evils of his day. Regarding him as one possessing but
limited education, surrounded by unfavourable influences for in
tellectual acquirements, belonging to a family not very remarkable
for literary culture, retaining many of the failings of his pro
genitors, and having but little care for the world or the things
of the world, there is much to admire in the life and conduct
of Jesus. But when he is raised upon a pinnacle of great
ness, as an exemplar of virtue and wisdom, surpassing the
production of any age or country, being equal to God himself ,
he is then exalted to a position which, in my opinion, he does
not merit, and which deprives him of that credit which other
wise he would be entitled to. True, I cannot endorse your
unsupported assertion that Christ was perfect and that he “ died
the death of a god,” for if your teaching be correct, he came on
earth with a mission to perform, a part of which was to die on
the Cross ; yet, when the time arrived for his destiny to be ful
filled, he sought to avoid his fate, and shrank from that death which
was said to give life to a fallen world. So ovei vhelmed was he
with grief and anxiety of mind, that he “ began to be sorrowful
and very heavy.” “ My soul,” he exclaimed, “ is sorrowful even
unto death.” At last, overcome with grief, he implores his
father to rescue him from the death which was then awaiting
him. If Christ knew in three days he should rise again ; that
his death was to be little more than a sleep of a few hours’
duration; if he were conscious that ultimately he should tri
umph over death, wherefore all this trouble and mental suffering ?
In reference to the statement of “ A Canadian Agnostic ” that
Christianity is not original you exclaim : “ He however took
good care not to attempt showing it.” If you will read my
pamphlet on “Christianity: its Origin, Nature, and Influence,’’
you will find that I did attempt to show it; and if you require
additional proof it is only for you to accept an invitation, which
I now offer you, to discuss the claims of Christianity either upon
the platform or through the pages of The Theologue, where your
article appeared, and in Secular Thought.
In speaking of Christ you remark he “ imperceptibly drew all
�12
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
classes of men to him—lifted them up from the horrible pit in
which they were imbedded, into heavenly places, till poverty
gave place to comfort, intellectual degradation to intellectual
development.” This statement is almost an unpardonable sin
upon the part of a scholar who should know that “ all classes of
men ” never were drawn to Christ either in the past or at the
present time. Even the Rev. Dr. A. Burns, of Hamilton, Ont.,
admits: “ No dialectical skill, nor witchery of logic or rhetoric,
can justify the attitude of the church toward the nine hundred
millions who have yet to hear the first Christian sermon. On
what principle can the Church affirm that Christianity is
for the healing of the nations ? Do Christians believe that ?
Could they make the sceptic believe that they were sincere ? ”
As to your allegation that comfort and intellectual development
replaced poverty and degradation under the influence of the
church, history records the very opposite as being the fact;
poverty and submission are the essential teachings ascribed to
Christ, and during the greater part of seventeen hnndred years
of Christian rule the masses throughout Christendom were the
victims of want, misery, ignorance, and mental degradation.
If you read Professor Draper’s “ Conflict between Religion and
Science,” and “ The History of European Morals,” by Lecky,
you will discover that for centuries, when Christianity was
paramount and unrestrained, there was “ A night of mental and
moral darkness,” as recorded by Lecky, who further adds:
“Nearly all the greatest intellectual achievements of the last
three centuries have been preceded and prepared by the growth
of Scepticism. . . . The splendid discoveries of physical
science would have been impossible but for the scientific scepti
cisms of the school of Bacon. . . . Not till the education of
Europe passed from the monasteries to the universities ; not till
Mohammedan science and classical Freethought and industrial
independence broke the sceptre of the Church, did the
intellectual revival of Europe begin.”
Equally reprehensible is it on your part to allege that the
Church has been opposed to slavery and that “ its complete sup-
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
13-
pression is due mainly to the operation of Christian influences.”
It would be almost impossible for a more groundless assertion
than this to be uttered; and if such reckless writing is to be
taken as a fair sample of the historical knowledge possessed by
the clergymen of Halifax, no marvel that they avoid debate and
publish their perversions of facts where no correction can be
given. It is thus that theological presumption thrives and ortho
dox errors are perpetuated. The truth is that slavery is a Bible
institution, that while some professed Christians opposed the
crime it was fostered by the Church, and many of those who
condemned its cruelty and injustice were designated by Chris
tians as “ Infidels.’ Lecky and Gibbon have shown that the
condition of slaves was, in some instances, better before than it
was after the introduction of Christianity. Prior to Christianity
many of the slaves had political power, they were educated, and
allowed to mix in the domestic circles of their masters, but subse
quent to the Christian advent the fate of the slave was far more
ev ere; hence, Lecky observes, “ The slave code of imperial
Rome compares not unfavourably with those of some Christian
countries.” (“ Hist, of Morals,” Vol. I, p. 327.) The Council of
Laodicea actually interdicted slaves from Church communion
without the consent of their masters. The Council of Orleans
(541) ordered that the descendants of slave parents might be
captured and replaced in the servile condition of their ancestors.
The Council of Toledo (633) forbade Bishops to liberate slaves
belonging to the Church. Jews having made fortunes by slave
dealing, the Council of Rheims and Toledo both prohibited the
selling of Christian slaves except to Christians. Slavery laws
were also passed by the Council of Pavia (1082) and the Latern
Council (1179). During all those ages, priests, abbots and bishops
held slaves. The Abbey of St, Germain de Pres owned 80,000
slaves, and the Abbey of St. Martin de Tours 20,000. Let me
suggest that you carefully read that excellent work : “ Acts of
the Anti-Slavery Apostles,” by Parker Pillsbury, and “The
American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery,” by
James G. Birney, and you will then learn how the Churches op-
�14
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
posed the abolition of the slave trade. It is stated in “ The
Life and Times of Garrison ” that at a convention held in May,
1841, Mr. Garrison proposed : “ That among the responsible
classes in the non-slaveholding States, in regard to the existence
of slavery, the religious professors, and especially the clergy,
stand wickedly pre-eminent, and ought to be unsparingly ex
posed and reproved before all the people.” In a recent editorial
in Voice (N.Y.) appears the following: “Even the powerful
East New York M. E. Conference publicly reprimanded five of
its members, one of whom was the late Rev. Dr. Curry, for the
sin of attending an Abolition meeting addressed by Wendell
Phillips ! This is the way Mr. Phillips found it necessary to
lash the hesitating, time-serving clergy of Boston in his speech
on the surrender of Sims in 1852 : ‘ I do not forget that the
Church all the while this melancholy scene was passing [the
surrender of the fugitive slave Sims] stood by and upheld a
merciless people in the execution of an inhuman law, accepted
the barbarity and baptised it Christian duty.’ ” Theodore Parker
said that if the whole American Church had “ dropped through
the Continent and disappeared altogether, the anti-slavery cause
would have been further on.” (His Works, Vol. 6, p. 233). He
pointed out that no Church ever issued a single tract among all
its thousands, against property in human flesh and blood; and
that 80,000 slaves were owned by Presbyterians, 225,000 by
Baptists, and 250,000 by Methodists. Even Wilberforce himself
declared that the American Episcopal Church “ raises no voice
against the predominant evil; she palliates it in theory, and in
practice she shares in it. The mildest and most conscientious of
the bishops of the South are slaveholders themselves.”
Your identifying Secularism with “ Robert Elsmere ” and
calling it the “ Gospel of Despair ” is evidence that you do not
understand what Secular philosophy really is. It is not pre
tended that “ Robert Elsmere ” was a Secularist. Permit me to
remind you that Secular principles enable a man to live a noble
and a happy life and die a contented and peaceful death, with the
belief that if there be another existence or a continuation of the
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
15
present one, he is safe to realise all its advantages. With the
Secularist there is no despair, no fear of hell with its inhuman
tortures, but the highest consolation born of confidence in the
result of meaning well and of doing well.
I have now pointed out enough of your sins of omission and
of commission to exhibit to the candid reader how recklessly you
have written upon matters to which you clearly have not given
.much thought and attention. In conclusion allow me to express
a sincere hope that in future you will seek to learn the facts of
anything you oppose before hastily condemning it, and that
thereby you may avoid violating the Bible command not to
“ bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
Charles Watts.
SECULARISM :
Is it Founded on Reason, and is it Sufficient to
Meet the Needs of Mankind ?
DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING
MAIL (Halifax, N.S.) AND CHARLES WATTS,
EDITOR OF SECULAR THOUGHT.
WITH PREFATORY LETTERS
BY
GEO. JACOB HOLYOAKE
and
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
AND AN INTRODUCTION
BY
HELEN
60 pages, price 25 cents.
H.
GARDENER.
Secular Thought Office, Toronto.
�Charles Watts’ Works.
THE TEACHINGS OF SECULARISM COMPARED WITH
Orthodox Christianity. 96 pages. Price 25 cents.
SECULARISM : IS IT FOUNDED ON REASON, AND IS IT
SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MANKIND? Debate be
tween the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail and Charles Watts. With
Prefatory Letters by George Jacob Holyoake and Colonel Ingersoll, and an
Introduction by Helen H. Gardener.
60 pages, 25 cents.
A REPLY to FATHER LAMBERT’S “ TACTICS of INFIDELS.”
20 cents, post free.
CHRISTIANITY : ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
32 pages, price 15 cents.
THE HORRORS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION : THEIR
CAUSES.
24 pages, price 10 cents
SECULARISM; DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE. 22
pages in cover ; price 10c.
BIBLE MORALITY. ITS TEACHINGS SHOWN TO BE CONtradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 24 pages, price 10c.
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH IS THE
More Reasonable ? 24 pages, price 10 cents.
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 10 cents.
SAINTS AND SINNERS—WHICH ? 24 pages in cover : price 10c.
THE SUPERSTITION OF THE CHRISTIAN SUNDAY: A
Plea for Liberty and Justice. 26 pages ; price 10c.
“THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.” 22 pages in cover; price 10c.
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL; or, BELIEF AND
KNOWLEDGE.
24 pages, price 10 cents.
THE AMERICAN SECULAR UNION ; ITS NECESSITY, AND
the Justice of its Nine Demands. (Dedicated to Colonel Robert
Ingersoll.) 32 pages in cover; price 10c.
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION : An Open Letter to the Rev.
Dr- R. F Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
r6 pages, price 5c.
New Work by Mrs. Watts.
Just published.
CHRISTIANITY : DEFECTIVE AND UNNECESSARY.
By
Kate Eunice Watts. 24 pages, price 10 cents.
Contents.—I. Why is Christianity Believed ? II. “ Our Father which art in
Heaven.” III. The Fall and the Atonement. IV. The Basis and Incentive of
Orthodox Christianity, V, Christianity Not a Necessity to Mankind.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, TORONTO, ONT.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Theological presumption : an open letter to the Rev. Dr. R.F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 15 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on back cover.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Theological presumption : an open letter to the Rev. Dr. R.F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA841
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Agnosticism
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bfc2d0adea1377e29071531f3536bd7a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TliiGpUjsiKs6nFfoV1fCfPYs%7E%7ETORHqgBNHBDdk4arXrzabt4hTmZjRgL-Zc2G2n5oDCXQk6zKZ5VikN7zbdbCUfgAmzBmmv0vwjGJIAD8mzBVQN48dzLsgiVnG1El66b1PukwljPfimvDWhJB2%7Ekz0zms6wooBqy8US439iMM-qZ6JehG34xsFAsF8Dojn3wLUevSgNf2ccZ3OOR4VE3gYjHMmZID7hwMFqse0LZJ3zheanyWpZbaxglxccpG7tUz%7EPSKvxBcrLq%7ENDcTGGXpz8UbjFtf0NZ59R4wNM9PNXkMyqaWWKunjCgs-mBPX1sRcHj3cdBkXLll3tqAyQA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
67677de598a438f6d8053e9ede309360
PDF Text
Text
of Secularism
Tl?e
COMPARED WITH
Orthodox Christianity
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of Secular Thought
CONTENTS.
Physical Teachings
Intellectual Teachings
Present Condition of Society
Morality
Ethics add Religion
Secularism and the Supernatural
Secularism at the hour of Death
Secularism in Theory
Secularism in Practice
Secularism more Reasonable than Christi
anity
Secularism more Noble than Christi
anity
Secularism more Beneficial than Christi
anity
Secularism Progressive
Secularism, its Triumphs
Secularism, its Service to Mankind
Secularism, its Struggles in the Past
Secularism, in the Future
Secularism, Summing up
TORONTO
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, 31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS
��Tfye Teacfyin^s of Secularism
COMPARED WITH
Orthodox Christianity
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of Secular Thought
CONTENTS
Physical Teachings
Intellectual Teachings
Present Condition of Society
Morality
Ethics and Religion
Secularism and the Supernatural
Secularism at the hour of Death
Secularism in Theory
Secularism in Practice
Secularism more Reasonable than Christi
anity
Secularism more Noble than Christi
anity
Secularism more Beneficial than Christi
anity
Secularism Progressive
Secularism, its Triumphs
Secularism, its Service to Mankind
Secularism, its Struggles in the Past
Secularism, in the Future
Secularism, Summing up
TORONTO
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, 31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS
��SECULAR TEACHINGS.
I. PHYSICAL.
♦
As Secularism has been so thoroughly misrepresented of late in
the press and pulpits of Toronto, we purpose in the following pages
to explain to our readers what true Secular principles really are.
We commence at the very foundation of our philosophy. The first
subject of importance to man is his physical health. His bodily
organization, from any point of view, demands special concern.
With an abnormal condition of body a normal state of mind is
hardly possible ; and certain it is that there must be an entire ab.sence of comfort and pleasure where the physical frame is subject
to the ailments of disease. Of all the branches of knowledge that
civilized man has engaged in that which relates to his own health
is of supreme importance.
Man is related to everything that surrounds him. The sun influ
ences his daily life, and the moon and stars light him to his couch
■of repose. The earth furnishes him with the ten thousand needs of
his bodily frame, and the very winds are his servants. Electricity,
and the other mighty forces of nature, he makes subservient to his
will, while the lower animals and plants he employs for his daily
food. Wherever he looks, and with whatever object he comes into
^contact, he finds materials ready made to his hands, to be moulded
into new forms for new uses all subservient to his life and happi
ness. It is of the highest importance, however, how he uses those
agents. For while they are all adapted to supply health and com
fort, they are also calculated to spread abroad disease and death.
The most beneficial object with which he is called upon to deal
frequently becomes the vehicle of some fatal malady. Great care,
�2
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
therefore, is requisite in dealing with these. That which is, under
ordinary circumstances, the most productive of good, may become
the deadliest of poisons. The water we drink may contain the
seeds of death, and the very atmosphere become the means of dis
seminating contagion. What is called physical education is. there
fore, deemed by Secularism of paramount importance.
It has been said that self-preservation is the first law of nature,
yet in respect to health it is frequently most terribly neglected. In
this age, when enlightenment has become so wide-spread, and edu
cation so general, it is lamentable to see how coldly indifferent
many persons are with regard to the laws upon which their health
depends. A sound mind in a sound body every person extols in
theory, but in practice, alas ! how rarely do we come across either
the one or the other ? Health all agree to be the chief good of
life, the principal aim of man ; and yet how few pursue it as though
they considered it worth the seeking for. Money, fame, the
“ bubble-reputation,” ambition, men struggle to obtain, overcoming
what appear to be insurmountable difficulties in the contest; but
health, which is of a thousand times more importance than all the
others put together, they scarcely bestow a thought upon, until it
is irretrievably ruined and incapable of being restored. Then
physicians are asked in vain to do that which was once so easy,
but has now become impossible. It was Voltaire, I think, who de
fined a physician as a man who was asked every day to perform a
miracle—viz., to reconcile health with intemperance. But it is not
simply intemperance, in the sense in which that word is usually
employed, that destroys health, but a thousand apparently harmless
acts which are every day performed, which eat into and destroy
the most vigorous frame and strongest constitution. The neglect
of the important laws of life is one of the deplorable evils of the
present age, and it is to be found, not simply amongst the illiterate,
but it reigns supreme in the midst of the halls of intellect, the
temples of genius, and even the places where Science should hold
her sway. In this age, when knowledge of natural law is so
general, and when most persons are aware that defective health is
to be largely traced to a derangement of one or more of the vital
functions, such as digestion, circulation, respiration, and that these
functions are to a large extent mutually dependent in the economy
of the human frame, we should expect them all to be most assidu
ously attended to and cultivated. Unfortunately, this is not so, for
it too often happens that if one of these functions receive any at-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
3
tention, the rest will be completely neglected, and eyen the utter
neglect of them all is far from being uncommon. Sir Philip Sidney
has well said that :—
“ The ingredients of health and long life are,
Great temperance, open air, light labour, little care.*
All these are most terribly neglected in these modern times. Our
business pursuits, as a rule, shut out the whole of these ingredients,
and hence the prevalent disease and premature deaths that abound
amongst us.
The relations of the human body to the aliment which sustains
it is a point of the greatest moment. As is the food of a people, so
will the people be. Gross diet makes gross men and women ; an
extravagant and luxurious regimen will result in indolence and
apathy on the part of those who indulge in it, and pure, healthy,
and unstimulating food will give rise to (other things being equal)
a pure, virtuous, and healthy population. There can be no doubt
that the downfall of the great Roman Empire, so long the mistress
of the world, was largely due to the extravagant and luxurious
living of the Emperors. From this came indolence, effeminacy,
and finally the overthrow of the whole Empire. There is one fact
in connection with food which may be mentioned here ; it is that
nature has placed within us certain sensations, which point out to
us, in an infallible manner, when we require afresh supply. These,
of course, we do not fail to attend to in some way or other, since to
neglect them is painful. But we violate great and important laws
bearing on the question notwithstanding. We eat too rapidly, we
do not allow the requisite time for digestion, and, above all, we are
not careful as to the kind of food we take. We study our appetites
rather than our health. The consequence of all this may be easily
foreseen. As we have to go in search of our food, we require to
labour to procure it, and hence some sort of forethought and judg
ment is essential to the obtaining it, which fact of itself no doubt
causes us to devote a larger share of attention to the subject than
we otherwise should do ; but still with all this the neglect is terrible
to contemplate.
With the air we breathe the case is very different from the food.
Except under circumstances attending its entire exclusion, we ex
perience no sensations as to the need of it at all corresponding to
the appetite for food. Neither does any sense analogous to taste
enable us to detect its impurities. True, this is done to a certain
�4
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
texent with the nose, but only in a very partial degree. The at
mosphere of a room may be deteriorated to an extent highly preju
dicial to health, and we may remain in entire ignorance of the fact.
The consequence is that our negligence here is a thousand times
greater than in regard to food, and hence the innumerable train of
diseases that flow from the inhaling of impure air, with which
every student of sanitary science is familiar.
Impure air is one of the chief causes of disease at the present
time, and it is also a source of enfeebled intellect and deteriorated
morals. For virtue and health are more nearly allied than many
persons imagine. And the intellect cannot be clear in an atmos
phere that is not fit to breathe. The great thinkers of the past
spent most of their time in the open air. Sir Isaac Newton made
his greatest discovery in a garden where he was accustomed to
carry on his studies. To go farther back, the Peripatetics, the
most enlightened philosophers, perhaps, of their age, used to walk
up and down in the porches of the Lyceum at Athens. And of old
Homer, who spent most of his life in wandering from placetoplace
in the open air, it is said ;—
“ Seven cities contend for Homer dead,
Through which the living Homer begged his bread.”
This is not the place to enlarge in detail upon the advantages of
pure air or sound food ; but to point out the great importance of
attending to the laws of health is the duty of every Secular teacher,
for what is true Secularism but to make the very best use of the
world in which we live ? Hence the health of the body should
claim the foremost attention amongst Secular duties.
II. INTELLECTUAL.
The great John Locke well remarked that 11 In the sciences every
one has as much as he really knows and comprehends. What he
believes only, and takes upon trust, are but shreds which, however
Well in the whole piece, make no considerable addition to his stock
who gathers them. Such borrowed wealth, like fairy money, though
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
5
it were gold in the hand from which he received it, will be but leaves
and dust when it comes to use.” Knowledge is to-day diffused over
a larger surface in society than it ever was before. Yet, unfortu
nately, through indolence or inability, or some other cause, the
great mass of mankind are content to skim lightly over its surface,
leaving the sweets of its inner mysteries untasted. Such persons
are like tourists who content themselves with congregating upon
the frontiers of a country, but do not care to penetrate into the
interior. It is to be regretted that most men’s information upon
the great questions of science and philosophy is extremely super
ficial. As a rule, men are not thinkers ; thinking is a process, which,
being laborious, becomes tiresome and fatiguing to all but a few
who have cultivated their intellectual powers to such a degree as
to render it easy and agreeable. The consequence is, that for every
one who possesses anything like profound information upon any '
particular topic there are ten thousand who simply repeat other
men’s opinions, having none of their own, nor any real material
stored in their minds out of which such could be manufactured.
The bright side of this state of things is that it has greatly tended
to the multiplication of elementary books on the various branches
of science. These books, elementary as they are, usually show a
considerable improvement upon the knowledge of former days, and
prove, therefore, conclusively the direction in which humanity is
moving. That mankind are advancing intellectually there can be
no doubt. Looking back to the infancy of our race, at least as
near to that time as history will allow us to approach, and contrast
ing the state of things then existing with what we experience to
day, we cannot but be struck with surprise at the enormous changes
that have occurred. Yet in science more real progress has been
made in the last half century than in all the previous ages. The
present is, therefore, essentially a scientific age. And although the
general knowledge, of mankind is on the surface, still it is a great
improvement on the past, which argues well for the future. Our
task—the task of to-day—is rather to help on the movement than
to complain that it has not gone further on, or struck its roots deeper
into the soil of human nature.
Civilization, says Guizot, embraces two elements—the improve
ment of society and the improvement of the man ; and the ques
tion which he says is put to all events is, What have they done for
the one or the other ? I stop not here to enter upon a discussion
fraught with difficulty, and yet full of interest, as to which of these
�6
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
is the cause and which the effect, or whether they may not each be
cause and effect in turn. Guizot himself seems to think—and he
quotes Collard on that side—that the individual is made to advance
society. But much might be said on the other side. Our real busi
ness as Secularists, however, is to see that some kind of advance
does take place, and to help it on to the utmost extent of our power.
No doubt, mental progress is a law of the race, and as such will
force its way on at any risk or cost. As the poet has said:—
“ Go bid the ocean cease to heave,
The river cease to flow,
Bid smiling Spring retrace her steps,
And flowrets cease to blow.
Go drive the wild winds to their home,
The lightning to its nest,
Then bid the car of progress stay,
Whose courses never rest.”
In this matter we should resolve to aid in pushing on the great
car of progress ; and he who does not, but stands in its way, is very
likely to get crushed after the fashion of the victims of Juggernaut,
beneath its wheels. All progress is intellectual, all improvement
refers to the mind ; hence, the importance of intellectual discipline.
There can be no doubt that the publication of so large a number
of books at the present time tends greatly to the spread of know
ledge and the deepening of the intellectual character of the age.
The printing press has been the instrument employed for furthering
education and increasing mental culture. “ In these late ages,”
says old Vicesimus Knox, “ there is scarcely a subject which can
reasonably excite human curiosity on which satisfactory informa
tion may not be acquired by the perusal of books ; and books, too,
from their multitude and cheapness, obvious to all who are disposed
to give them their attention. Poetry, history, eloquence, and phil
osophy, in all their ramifications, are. constantly at hand, and ready
to gratify the mental appetite with every variety of intellectual sub
stance. The imagination can at all times call up, by the medium
of books, the most vivid representations of every object which the
physical and moral world have been known in any age or country
to produce. Exempt from the inconvenience of foreign travel, from
the dangers of a military life, from the narrow escapes of the voy
ager, from the tumult of political engagements, the student can
enjoy, in the comfortable retreat of his library, all that has em-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
7
ployed the active faculties of man in every department of life.”
Books are brilliant stars in the intellectual hemisphere, and their
value must not be underrated nor their advantages neglected. Mind
receives its necessary pabulum by communing with mind, and this
it can do more easily and more perfectly in books than perhaps any
where else. Hence books are the greatest and most powerful agents
in mental development. Some one has curiously described a book
as a brain preserved in ink—not a bad description, remembering
that the mightiest thoughts of the mightiest brains are there pre
served.
In almost every department of knowledge has the genius of im
provement and invention been at work, and the results may be seen
scattered abundantly around us whichever way we look. The en
tire earth has been converted into a huge observatory or laboratory
for man, in almost every part of which he is found daily working in.
comparing results and communicating knowledge. Could the great
men of the past, who devoted themselves to physical science—fore
most amongst whom was Aristotle—rise from their graves, and catch
a glimpse of the present state of things, how, after the first feeling
of surprise was ovar, would‘their hearts be gladdened by the spec• taele they would then behold ! Astronomical, geological, physio
logical, and chemical discoveries, throwing all the science of the
past into the shade, form the heritage of the poorest and most in
significant of mankind. True, the great problem of life is yet un
solved, and a score of metaphysical questions still remain unan
swered ; but in physical science the discoveries that have been made,
and the improvements that have taken place, are startling even to
contemplate. In all that concerns the practical, in all that has to
do with the subjugation of natural forces and the direction of the
laws of the Universe to new issues conducing to the happiness of
man, modern progress has been rapid almost beyond conception.
The simplicity of the processes by which some of the mightiest and
grandest of the discoveries of the age have been made, and the
elementary character of the laws concerned in their production, are
exceedingly pleasing to the man of intellect. “ Almost all the great
■combinations of modern mechanism,” remarks Sir John Herschel,
“ and many of its refinements and nicest Improvements, are creations
of pure intellect grounding its exertions upon a moderate number
of very elementary propositions in theoretical mechanics and geo
metry.” The truth of these remarks will be apparent to every scien
tific student.
�8
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
In what position do we as Secularists stand intellectually towards
the present age ? This is a question that each and all of us should
carefully consider. Every Secularist should make it his especial
business to practise mental culture, and to induce others to do the
same. A man who. neglects the discipline of his intellectual powers
is a stranger to the highest enjoyments of existence ; he is no re- x
cipient of that lofty influence which emanates from the pure foun
tain of intellectual treasures. Secularists profess not to waste their
time in attempting to solve problems that defy solution, nor to search
for discoveries in the field of metaphysics as impossible as the object
of alchemy. We are taught by our principles to have to do with
the real side of human life, and to care only for the speculative in
so far as it has a direct influence on practical things. Intellectual
culture is a reality. We know what it means, and we prefer to deal
with it from a practical standpoint, and on its useful side. The
moment we stop to discuss the question, What is the intellect in its
nature and essence? we bid fair to leave the well-beaten track of the
real, to wander in fields of speculative ether, where there are no'
highways and no places to which they could lead. What do we
know of the exact nature of what is termed the human mind after
thousands of years of theorising on the part of philosophers ? We
simply employ the word “ mind ” as having reference to the intel
lectual part of our organisation. But as to what constitutes its
essence little or no progress has been made towards that discovery,
since the days of the great Stagyrite, and, perhaps, earlier. Such
is not the case with experimental science. Our obvious duty, there
fore, is to cultivate our intellectual powers, and no Secularist ought
to neglect it. As I have said, the age is superficial in its knowledge.
Let it be our business to remedy this state of things as far as pos
sible, and to render it deep and profound ; at any rate, we can do
this in the case of ourselves. Good books exist around us ; let us
read them with care and profit. Much of the literature of the age
I know is worthless and even worse ; but there is, after all, a great
deal that will pay for more serious reading and thinking over. Es
pecially is it a Secular duty to discriminate between the two, and,
having done so, to reject the weeds, and devote our time and ability
to the cultivation of the flotvers. We, of all people, should prize
good books, and turn them to good account, and at the same time
emphatically denounce bad ones, that are likely, not only to mislead
human thought, but also to corrupt and deprave, rather than to ele
vate, the intellect of man.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
9
III. THE PRESENT CONDITION OF SOCIETY.
“ Physician, heal thyself,” is most excellent advice, especially de
serving of application in these days of “ Mind-other-people’s-business-instead-of-your-own. ” Morally, the theological opinions of
neighbours are too. frequently considered before personal ethical
culture; politically, public attention is often directed to foreign
affairs rather than to home questions ; socially, the condition of the
heathen is regarded with the greatest solicitude, while the disgrace
ful state of our own poor is sadly neglected ; religiously, the soul's
salvation of the semi-savage abroad is deemed of far greater impor
tance than the moral regeneration of people at home. What has
been the result of such policy ? The present condition of society,
morally diseased to its very core, supplies the answer. After eight
een hundred years of the active reign of Christian theology, what
do we discover in our very midst ? A deplorable lack of real
physical comfort among the masses of the people ; a thoroughly
s unhealthy moral tone, no less in the religious than in the political
and commercial world ; and an air of artificiality permeating most
phases of society., Both in public and private life the real is dis
carded for the imaginary, and the shadow is accepted in lieu of the
substance. Principle is sacrificed to selfish interest, and fidelity to
conviction is made subordinate to popular favour. Theological
professions we have in abundance ; but a marked inconsistency
robs them of true ethical potency. The blessings of peace are
preached, while the humane observer stands aghast at the world’s
record of the blood and carnage of a brutal warfare. Love is ex
alted to a pinnacle of sublime admiration by the same people who
dim its transcendent lustre with dense clouds of theological hatred
and spite. Liberty, with its golden blossoms, is adored in name,
while many of its most sacred rights are ruthlessly trampled under
the feet of a self-appointed authority. The brotherhood of man is
loudly proclaimed at the same time that its fraternal bonds are being
divided by the monopoly of wealth and the false ideas associated
with class distinctions. The poor are blessed by the teachings of
theology and cursed by the laws and customs fostered and defended
by the Church and its priests. Might takes the place of right, false-
�IO
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
hood is substituted for truth, and law stands for justice. Society
may not be, sick unto death ; but its health is sadly impaired, and
a skilful physician is indeed required. Where is this Saviour of the
race to be found ? Not in the domain of theology, for from its
school have come so many moral quacks that its genuine reputation
cannot be maintained. Evidently these theological physicians do
not understand the nature of the disease they profess to cure, and
consequently they apply a false remedy. Regarding all moral dis
eases as being alike, they have only one remedy for each and all,
and that remedy is theology. Thus we have the introduction of
the “ kill or cure ” principle, and there can be no doubt that the
moral deaths far outnumber the patients cured through the adoption
of this alleged panacea. The lesson of history clearly demonstrates
that theology is impotent to rid society of those moral evils which
now so extensively mar the happiness of the human race; the true
requirement, therefore, is a correct knewledge and application of
ethical science.
The human race is in reality governed by the two great princi
ples of good and evil, right and wrong. Upon one of these princi
ples must the construction of society, and the character of those
beings who compose it, be based. The old religion of the Persians
appears to have sprung from the recognition of this fact, and mod
ern legislation has proceeded upon a similar acknowledgment. By
the term good, when applied to man’s activity, we mean that line
of conduct based upon truth, leading to unity and general happiness.
By evil we understand those actions founded on falsehood and de
ceit, ending in disunion, vice, and wretchedness.
Taking society as it is, there are few persons who will contend
that it is constituted as firmly as it should - be upon the principles
of goodness, union, and mutual love. Theoretically—from the
Christian standpoint—this certainly should be the character of so
ciety, for so many years have gone by since, according to the
orthodox belief, the angels of an omnipotent God came down through
the blue vault, of the firmament with the welcome message of
“ Peace on earth, goodwill towards men.” Instead, however, of
such a peace and goodwill having been inaugurated, the centuries
that have flown by since those words were supposed to have been
uttered, have been notorious for their falsehood, disunion, and
misery ; and up to the present time little or no fundamental im
provement has taken place. Many of our institutions, having em-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
II
anated from laws based upon ignorance of the real requirements
■of human nature, have been the means of keeping the people im
becile in mind and wretchedly poor in body. These institutions
and laws still keep many in idleness who would gladly be employed
in adding to the general wealth ; they allow others to be a dead
weight upon industry; they perpetuate pauperism, foster bad hab
its, and encourage crime. The great ethical science is ignored,
and while the primary causes of physical diseases are lost sight of
or neglected, millions of money and much valuable time are wasted
in every generation in futile endeavours to effect a partial cure cf
the diseases thus engendered. Throughout Europe we find a bitter
feud existing between the aristocracy and the democracy, leading
to conspiracies, ostracisms, and the maintenance of huge standing
armies. In short, the present state of society is something worse
than artificial: it is opposed to the welfare of mankind, it causes
■degradation, injustice and. cruelty; hence it is that in so many
'countries there are conspiracies—men banding together, and pledged
to effect, at any risks, immediate social revolution.
The same evil conditions existing around us affect even the rising
generation. Those who know what the tuition of the ordinary
street Arab is, who have instituted comparisons between the gutter
child with his fluttering rags, his unkempt hair, dirty face, obscene
■and ribald language, habits of theft, lying, etc., and the well-clad,
neat, dainty, and “ respectable ” scion of the aristocrat or plutocrat,
can well appreciate the necessity for radical reformation. In the
image of God, says the theologian, are they all made; but shame
to the hypocrisy which, Pharisee-like, suffers this neglected gutter
urchin to give the lie direct to its own loud professions of love to
God and man. To-day, under the shadow of our proud cathedrals
and lofty domes, under which incense burns and gaudily-vested
priests and choristers chant praises to God for having done all
things well; to day, be it remembered, beneath the shadows of the
towers and pinnacles of the many churches and chapels, staring'
with gaunt countenance, hollow cheek,"and hungry eye, rustling the
gay dresses of fine ladies as they pass, dying ever and anon on door
steps, or being carted away enclosed in a parish coffin, are thou
sands of those “images ” for whom apparently God has done no
thing, and society, if possible, even less.
That improvement of a very fundamental character is considered
necessary is evident from the fact that in all civilised countries the
�12
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
major portion of the population are urgently demanding reform.
The question is, what is the remedy for existing evils, and to whoni
shall we look to obtain it ? To my mind, the true remedy is to be
found in the highest moral, physical, and intellectual development
of human nature, the acquirement and application of genuine edu
cation, and the destruction of all priestly and imperial power which
seeks to fetter human thought and despotically control individual
action. The highest outcome of ancient civilisation in Greece and
Rome was at a time when true freedom adorned their history. In
Athens and Republican Rome we have glorious illustrations of this
fact. Potent in arms, able at one period to defend and preserve
their liberties against every aggressor, these States were mighty in
other and nobler fields. In philosophy, science, literature, art, and
all that enriches and elevates mankind, these grand democracies
were unequalled. Even to-day they are to us as luminaries—they
“ being dead yet speak ” to all posterity.
The great object that Secularists should keep in view is to pro
mulgate principles capable of re-moulding society in such a man
ner that the greatest possible liberty and happiness may be secured
to the individual and to the general community. To obtain this
thoroughly, a knowledge of the causes of good and evil to man must
be acquired. Ignorance is admitted to be an evil which directly
impedes human progress and stands in the way of human happi
ness. This ignorance many of us regard as being possible to re
move, and to substitute in its place a knowledge of the pathway
leading to goodness, truth and virtue.
It must distinctly be understood that no sudden revolution, in
recklessly overturning the social equilibrium, by fire and sword, is
recommended by Secularism. All such attempts would be cruelly
disastrous ; besides, the misery and bloodshed thereby engendered
and caused would in all probability “ put back the hands of the
clock,” and hand society over to the tender mercies of some other
unprincipled tyrants and oppressors. Having established a sound
system of education; having secured a knowledge of the power and
duty of man ; of the value of truth ; of the necessity of fidelity toconviction ; of the recognition of the rights of others ; of the impo
tence of all theologies as reforming agencies ; of the service of
science ; of the nobility of self-reliance ; of the necessity of intellec
tual discipline and moral purity, our attention should then be di
rected to the best means of extending the usefulness of these re-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
13
quirements, and of applying them to the practical duties of daily
life.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the panacea for the wrongs
and woes of the time is not to be found in Church doctrines or
•dogmas. Old creeds have had their day, and before the power of
modern thought the superstition that those creeds bolstered up is
rapidly tottering to its basis. Society, as now constituted, with its
strongly-marked distinctions between rich and poor, its blatant
hypocrisy, its wicked extravagance and abject penury, has been
too long supported by the theories of so-called Divine predestina
tion and ordination. These theories are, fortunately, becoming
more and more discredited by the intelligence of the nineteenth
century. The world of man is waiting and struggling for some
signs of its redemption by human agencies. The priest, with his
incantations and conjurings, will, we hope, shortly be known only
as an evil of the past, and then will be inaugurated a new era,
wherein we shall all be true kings and priests—kings in our own
free individuality, and priests in the grand temple of nature, offer
ing up daily and hourly an uninterrupted and unselfish sacrifice of
duty and devotion for the benefit of an enlightened and a progres
sive humanity.
IV. MORALITY.
Secularism accepts as its moral code the system of ethics known
as Utilitarian. There are hundreds of acts which we agree with
all believers in an alleged supernatural religion in considering
vicious, as there are hundreds of others that all men, whatever may
be the particular system of ethics that they accept, admit to be vir
tuous. About these there is no dispute. The reasoning by which
the conclusion is arrived at, that one set of actions are moral, and
another set immoral, can in no sense affect the question as to our
duty in relation to them, when their moral or immoral character
has been once made out. This world is the scene of our deeds, be
they good or bad. The most enthusiastic advocate of a future life
admits that his duties lie in this world whilst he remains in this
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
world. Herein, therefore, we are agreed. To him there may be—
and no doubt are—many duties which we, as Secularists, should
not recognize as such ; our business is not with them, but with the
large class of acts about which we are agreed, and in reference to
which, therefore, there is no dispute.
As soon as a human being comprehends the relation in which he
- stands to other human beings, there must arise between them a
' system of morals. This is based upon the fact that the one ought
to exercise certain dispositions, and display certain feelings towards,
the other. At the same time he expects similar conduct from the
rest towards himself. “ It is manifest to everyone,” says Wayland,
“ that we all stand in various and dissimilar relations to all the
sentient beings created and uncreated with which we are acquaint
ed. Among our relations to created beings are those of man to
man, or of that of substantial equality, of parent and child, of
benefactor and recipient, of husband and wife, of brother and sister,
citizen and magistrate, and a thousand others.” These relation
ships involve certain duties, which we call moral acts, and the best
state of society is that in which they are the most perfectly
practised.
Now, that morality to-day is terribly defective no one can doubt..
There are fearful vices amongst us, which are eating into the
heart’s core of society. Drunkenness, debauchery, and hypocrisy
prevail to an extent that is alarming, and things apparently are
growing worse and worse. In trade, morality is at a very low ebb.
The commercial world seems to have amoral (?) code of its own,
to which it strictly adheres, but this code is not one of which a
moralist can approve. In self-defence a civilised man has often to
become a semi-savage ; so it frequently happens that a scrupulous,
trader is driven to become unscrupulous, in order to compete with
men less honest than himself. Mr. Darwin somewhere says that
the law of the animal kingdom is “ eat and be eaten
in the trad
ing community there is a sort of parallel in “ cheat and be cheated.”
This state of things is much to be deplored, and it is our business,
as Secularists, to do what we can to remedy it. What is needed
is a purified public feeling, and this can only be accomplished by
the individuals of which society is composed doing their duty.
The business of the Secularist in these cases is to set an example
to his religious neighbours. We pride ourselves on having out
grown old and obsolete superstitions; we must, therefore, show
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
15
that with us morality is of paramount importance. It is often
urged that even if religion be not true, yet it exercises certain re
straints over men that would render it extremely dangerous to
society to remove its influence, and thus turn the quondam devotee
adrift without a guide. Perhaps there is some truth in this when
applied to ignorant and uncultivated men ; let Secularists show by
their superior morals that the remark does not apply to them.
Our business is to do the best that we can to promote the welfare
of society. Of all people in the world, therefore, we must not
neglect the sphere in which our whole duty lies. The Secularis.
who does not look properly after the affairs of this life is an anomaly
and a paradox. To him this life is the only life—at least, the onljr
one that he knows anything of—and, therefore, his every energy
should be devoted to making the best of his present state. The
Science of Morals it becomes the Secularist essentially to study,
and not only to study theoretically, but to put into practice. The
eyes of all men are upon us, watching for an opportunity of tri
umphing over our failings. It behoves us, therefore, to be exceed
ingly careful how we act. People who are content to run in the
old grooves will be excused should they stumble ; but those who
chalk out a new path for themselves must keep erect, not even
allowing a foot to slide, or heavy penalties will be visited upon their
heads.
There is great room for improvement in this respect amongst
mere Sceptics, arid hence the necessity of obedience to the moral
law being enforced as a Secular duty. Many persons are too much
inclined to run into an opposite extreme from that which prevails
in the religious world. While some rely entirely on faith as their
rule of life, others seem to attach too much importance to the want
of faith. The latter cry out loudly that belief cannot save man
kind, but they appear to forget that neither can unbelief. The
world wants deeds—great, noble, and consistent deeds. Society
can only be reformed by works—i. e., by moral acts, which carr^ in
their train all the real blessings of peace, gentleness, kindness, jus
tice, truth, and love. To perform work that will bring about these
desirable results is the highest morality.
Among the systems of moral philosophy that have been promul
gated as guides for human conduct, Utilitarianism occupies the
foremost place. It appears to Secularists as more definite and sat
isfactory than any other, and certainly at the present time it is more
�16
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
generally accepted by thinkers and that class of men whose views
mould the intellectual opinions of the age. The principle of Utili
tarianism has a regard solely to the uses of things ; hence all actions
by it are to be judged of by their use to society, and the morality of
an action will consequently depend upon its utility. An important
question here suggests itself: What is Utility, and how is it to be
judged of and tested ? What, it is urged, may appear useful to one
man, another may regard as altogether useless ; who, therefore, is
to decide respecting the utility of an act ? The answer will be found
in the greatest-happiness principle, which is of itself a modern de
velopment of the doctrine, and somewhat in opposition to the first
form of Utilitarianism. “ Usefulness,” observes David Hume, “is
agreeable, and engages our approbation. This is a matter of fact,
confirmed by daily observation. But useful ? For what ? For
somebody’s interest, surely. Whose interest, then? Not our own
only, for our approbation frequently extends farther. It must,
therefore, be the interest of those who are served by the characters
or action approved of ; and these we may conclude, however re
mote, are not totally indifferent to us. But, opening up this
principle, we shall discover one great source of moral distinction.”
Here it is clear that with Hume the doctrine of utility was intim
ately associated with approbation—in fact, the two were insepar
ably connected. The greatest-happiness principle, as will be seen,
grew very naturally out of this, but is a much more recent devel
opment. '
The utility of acts and objects have doubtless had much to do
with the estimation in which these are held in society, whether the
fact be recognised or not. Hume says : “It seems so natural a
thought to ascribe to their utility the praise which we bestow on
the social virtues that one would expect to meet with this principle
everywhere in moral writers, as the chief foundation of their
reasoning and enquiry. In common life we may observe that the
circumstances of utility is always appealed to; nor is it supposed
that a greater eulogy can be given to any man than to display his
usefulness to the public, and enumerate the services which he has
performed to mankind and to society.” That this is so there can
not be the slightest doubt. Nor is this principle a purely selfish
one, as some have contended, since the use of arts refers not
simply to their operation upon ourselves individually, but upon
society at large. Self-love is no doubt involved here, as, in
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
-
k
fact, it is in everything we do. But self-love is not the ruling
principle any further than that it is identical with the love of hu
manity. The great fact of mutual sympathy here comes in. The
reciprocal feeling of joy or sorrow has been experienced probably
by every person. The pleasures and pains of our fellows affect us
largely, whether we will or no. There is no man so selfish but he
finds his joys increased when they are shared by others, and his
griefs lessened when he sorrows in company. This fact Hume has
worked out at great length, with a view to show why it is that
utility pleases. Viewing Utilitarianism, therefore, as simply a
question of utility in the lowest sense of that word, it is yet a most
potent agent in society, and has much more to do with' forming our
conclusions as to the morality of certain acts than is usually im
agined. The man of use is the man whom society delights to
honour; and very properly, for he is the real benefactor of his
species. To say that a thing is useful is to bestow upon it a high
degree of praise, while no greater condemnation can be passed upon
any piece of work than to say that it is useless. Even the supposed Gods have been estimated by their utility ; for Cicero charges
the Deities of the Epicureans with being useless and inactive, and
declares that the Egyptians never consecrated any animal except
for its utility.
The principle of Utilitarianism as a moral system cannot be said
to have received a definite shape until it was advocated by Jeremy
Bentham. Even with him it did not appear in that clear and
explicit form which John Stuart Mill has since imparted to it. In
his writings we have for the first time something like philosophic
precision. Pleasure and pain are shown to form the basis of utility,
and to furnish us with the means of judging of what is useful and
what is oot.
To speak of pain and pleasure to ordinary persons conveys no ,
idea as to the welfare or otherwise of society, but leads the mind
to revert to its own individual good or evil, and then to impart a.
selfish basis to the whole thing. This was not what was meant by
Bentham, as the following passage from his work will show : “ By
utility is meant that property in any object whereby it tends to
produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness (all this,
in the present case, comes to the same thing), or (what comes
kgain to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain,
•
.
* <
�i8
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered: if
that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the
•community; if a particular individual, then the happiness of that
individual.” Bentham takes great pains to show that the com
munity is a “ fictitious body composed of the individual persons
who are considered as constituting, as it were, its members,” and
that, therefore, the interest of the community is simply “ the sum
•of the interests of the several members who compose it.” He then
goes on to affirm that “ an action may be said to be conformable to
the principle of utility, or, for shortness' sake, to utility (meaning
with respect to the community at large), when the tendency it has
to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has
to diminish it,” which is really another way of saying the greatest
happiness of the greatest number, or, to use a far more preferable
phrase, the greatest amount of happiness for all. “The words
ought and right and wrong, and others of that stamp,” take their
meaning from this principle. This philosophy was full of the prac
tical spirit of the age which gave it birth, and it exhibited an utter
■disregard for the unproductive theories of the past. The idea of
happiness very largely took the place of the old idea of duty,
■wherein was seen a powerful reaction against the sentimental ethics
that had prevailed so long. Its attempt was to base virtue on moral
legislation, rather than on feeling, and to construct an ethical code
out of the most matter-of-fact materials. Thus self sacrifice, which,
of course, is one of the highest and noblest duties of man, is in no
way incompatible with Utilitarianism and the pursuit of happiness;
since, whatever pleasures he who practises self-denial may volun
tarily forego, it is always with a view of procuring, if not for him
self, yet for his fellows, some greater good. The martyr at the
stake, the patriot in the field of battle, the physician penetrating
into the midst of the death-breathing miasma with a view to allevi
ate pain, each feels a sense of satisfaction in the act, which is really
the intensest kind of happiness to himself, and, what is more im.
portant, he is procuring happiness on a large scale for his fellow
creatures. It is not individual, but general, happiness that the
Utilitarian has to keep before his eye as the motive of all his
actions.
Secularism submits that acts are moral which produce the
greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number. This view
i
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
x9
of morality is justified by a knowledge of two important principles
—namely,1 the doctrine of circumstances, and the doctrine that
general utility should be the object of all our endeavours. Secu
larism urges that it is. the duty of society to acknowledge these
principles, to study their operation, and to develop their influence.
The doctrine of circumstances teaches us the mutual relations of
man and society, indicating how they affect and are affected by
each other. The doctrine of utility shows that those relations may
'be improved by the proper encouragement of beneficial influences.
The scientific definition of any particular object of our contempla
tion is, that it is the sum of all the causes which produced it. If
one of the causes which tended to produce that particular pheno
menon had been deducted, or if additional influence had been
added, the result then produced would have differed from the re
sult as it now stands, in precise proportion to the efficacy of the
cause which had been added or withdrawn. Now, Secularism
views human nature in this harmonious light. Man is as much the
consequence of all the causes and circumstances which have affect
ed him and his development previous to and since his birth as any
•one tree or mountain.
The influence of circumstances on human conduct is forcibly
illustrated by a reference to the science of botany. In England
the myrtle is a small shrub or plant, but in the north of Africa it is
an immense tree.
The English lily is remarkably fine and
delicate, but within a few miles of Madrid it is a huge tree of some
ten or fifteen feet in its dimensions. Botanists inform us that this
difference is in consequence of the different circumstances by which
each shrub or plant is surrounded. The influences in Africa and
Spain are more favourable to the extensive development of those
plants than they are in England. The same principle is shown,
■in the various productions of the soil. We take a wild flower
from the woods for the purpose of improving its appearance and
value. It has grown up under what is named natural circum
stances ; we transplant it to a garden, and endeavour to modify its
condition. According to the end we have in .view, so are, to use
technical language, the “ artificial causes” we bring to act upon its
particular condition. We begin with an examination into its con
stitution and character. If it has faults and blemishes, we imme<liately remove those chemical causes, or protect it from those
�20
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
climatic influences which produced such faults. If it be its half
developed beauties which we wish to foster into full maturity, wemultiply and stimulate those conditions which we have discovered
by experience to have a positive influence on the better part
of its nature. The change in its condition and appearance
has been produced by the modification and encouragement
here, discouragement there, depression in one quarter, elevation
in another of causes, all of which were in existence and operation as
much when the flower grew in its wild state as now when it adorns
the house garden with its breadth of foliage. Now to apply this
to the argument under consideration. Secularism may be here
designated as the science of human cultivation. The problem that
it sets to itself with reference to man in his moral relations to so- ✓
ciety is, to bring him from the condition of the wild flower to
that of the garden flower. And as with the uncultivated flower, so
it is in many respects with the wild, uneducated man. The flower
is what it is, and the wild, undisciplined man is what he is, in con
sequence of the aggregate of causes which have made them both
what they are. Secularism recognizes these influences of circum
stances. It cannot, therefore, regard man as naturally bad; onthe contrary, it believes in the goodness of human nature, remem
bering that man frequently lacks improvement as the result of
being surrounded by imperfect conditions, through the neglect of
correct discipline, and a want of proper understanding of his moral
and intellectual faculties.
In any moral system it is essential that not only should the code
laid down be clear, but the motive to obey it should also be made
apparent.
In other words, what is termed the sanction of the
principle must be pointed out. It would be of little value to have
a perfect method in morals unless the sanctions were such as were
likely to influence mankind. Now, Mr. Mill has not overlooked,
this fact in connection with Utilitarianism, but has devoted con
siderable space to its consideration. He seems to think, however,
that no new sanctions are needed for Utilitarianism, since in time
—and in an improved state of society—it will have at command
all the old ones. He says : “ The principle of utility either has,,
or there is no reason why it might not have, all the sanctions which
belong to any other system of morals. These sanctions are either
external or internal.” He then enlarges upon these with a view
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
21
to show that the greater number of them belong as much to Utili
tarianism as to any other ethical code. The sanction of duty, upon
which so much stress is laid by the opponents of Utilitarianism,
becomes as clear and as powerful under the new system as under
■the old. Whatever may be the standard of duty, and whatever
the process by which the idea has been attained, the feeling will
in all cases be very much the same.
The pam occasioned by a
violation of what is called the moral law, constituting what is
usually termed conscience, will be felt quite as keenly when the
law has been arrived at by a Utilitarian process of reasoning, and
when the moral nature has been built up upon Utilitarian princi
ples, as in any other case. The ultimate sanction of all morality
is very much the same—a subjective feeling in our own minds, re
sulting from physical conditions, country, and education.
This, then, is briefly the Utilitarianism which we hold to consti
tute a sufficient guide in morals, and to be worthy to supplant the
■old and erroneous systems that now prevail. As Secularists, we
are content to be judged by this standard. This system we accept
as the ethical code by which we profess to regulate our conduct.
There can hardly be conceived a higher aim than happiness,
-especially the happiness of the race. That perfect happiness is
not attainable we, of course, admit ; but neither is anything else
in perfection. Nothing, however, can be more certain than the
fact that very many of the present causes of unhappiness could be
removed by well-directed effort on the part of society, and the
result be a state of things of which, at the present time, we can
hardly form any conception. The duty of each of us is to do as
much as possible towards bringing this about.
In Mr. Mill’s work upon “ Utilitarianism ” the following passage
•occurs : “ The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals
■utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness ; wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is
intended pleasure and the absence of pain ; by unhappiness, pain
and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral
standard set up by this theory, much more requires to be said; in
particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and plea
sure ; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these
supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life upon
�22
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
which this theory of morality is grounded—namely, that pleasure and
freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends, and that all
desirable things (which are as numerous in the Utilitarian as in any
other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in them
selves, or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the preven
tion of pain.” It must be understood that the word pleasure here
is used in its very highest sense, and includes, consequently, such
enjoyments as arise from the culture of the intellect, the develop
ment of the sentiments, the use of the imagination, and the action
of the emotions. One of the errors into which the opponents of
Utilitarian happiness frequently fall is that of confounding pleasure
with the mere gratification of the animal propensities. If this were
so, the whole system would be a most despicable one, and unworthy
the attention of men of intelligence and moral worth. But it is
not; and he who brings this as a charge against it does so either
in gross ignorance, or with a view to pervert the truth. Perhaps it
was not wise to use the words pleasure and happiness as being syn
onymous, seeing that they are usually employed to mean two very
different things; but the explanation having been given that they
are so used, no one can plead this use as an excuse for falling into
orror on the subject.
Secular morality is based upon the principle that happiness is the
chief end and aim of mankind. And although there are, doubtless,
persons who would warmly dispute this fundamental principle, it is
very questionable whether their objection is not more verbal than
anything else. That all men desire happiness is certain. The
doctrine enunciated in the well-known line of Pope is frequently
quoted, and generally with approval :
“ Oh, happiness I our being’s end and aim.”
When we meet with persons who profess to despise this aspira
tion, it will be generally found that it is only some popular con
ception of happiness of which they are careless, while they really
pursue a happiness of their own, in their own way, with no less
ardour than other people. A definition of happiness itself is not
easy to give. Each person would, were he asked to define it, in all
probability furnish a somewhat different explanation ; but the true
meaning of all would be very much the same. To refer again to
Pope, what truth there is in the following couplet !—
“ Who can define it, say they more or less
Than this, that happiness is.happiness ? ”
�SECULAR' TEACHINGS.
2?
With one it is the culture of the intellect ; with another, the ex
ercise of the emotions ; with a third, the practice of deeds of phil
anthropy and charity ; and with yet another—we regret to say—
the gratification of the lower propensities. In each case it is the
following of the pursuit which most accords with the disposition of
the individual. And wherever this course does not interfere with
the happiness of others, and is not more than counterbalanced by
any results that may arise from it afterwards, it is not only legiti
mate, but moral. Broadly, then, Secular efforts for the attainment
of. happiness may be said to consist in endeavouring to perform
those actions which entail no ill effects upon general society, and
leave no injurious effects upon the actors. Such conduct as is here
intimated involves the practice of truth, self-discipline, fidelity to
conviction, and the avoidance of knowingly acting unjustly to
others.
Mr. Mill points out—and herein he differs from Bentham—that
not only must the quantity of the pleasure of happiness be taken into
consideration, but the quality likewise. He remarks : “ It would
be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is con
sidered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasure should be
disposed to depend on quantity alone.” True, it may not always
be easy to estimate the exact respective value of the different quali
ties of pleasure ; but this is not necessary. An approximation to
it can he obtained without difficulty. In all those who have had
experience both of the higher and lower kinds of pleasure—that
is, of the culture of the intellect and the gratification of the pas
sions—a preference is generally shown, at least in theory, for the
higher. And the rest are in no position to fairly judge. It may be
urged that many a man who possesses the rare wealth of a cultured
mind will be found sometimes grovelling in the mire of sensuality,
thereby showing a preference for a time for the lowest kind of plea
sure. To this it may be replied that the fact is only temporary, and
cannot, therefore, be set against the experience of months and
years—perhaps of the greatest portion of a life ; and, secondly, he
does not in his own opinion, even while descending to indulge in
the lower pleasure, give up his interest in the higher ; so that the
defection cannot be looked upon in the light of an exchange. He
feels that he will be able to go back again to his intellectual pur
suits, and enjoy them as before. Ask him to make, a permanent
exchange—to give up for ever the higher pleasures, on the condition
�24
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
that he shall have a continuance of the lower to his heart’s content,
and probably he will treat the offer with scorn. “ Few human
beings,” observes Mr. Mill, “ would consent to be changed into
any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of
a beast’s pleasure ; no intelligent human being would consent to be
a fool; no instructed person would be an ignoramus ; no person of
feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they
should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better
satisfied with his lot than they with theirs. They would not resign
what they possess more than he for the most- complete satisfaction
of all the desires which they have in common with him.” Those
who neglect their capacities for enjoying the higher pleasures may
probably imagine that their happiness is greatest; but their opinion
on the subject is worthless, because they only know one side. On
this question, therefore, we find a unanimity—at least with all who
are competent to judge of the question.
The most important point to be considered in connection with
this question of Secular happiness is that it is not the pleasure of
the individual that is considered paramount, but of the community
of which he forms a part. The principle of the greatest happiness
is often treated in a discussion of this subject as though it meant
the greatest possible pleasure that the individual can procure for
himself by his acts, regardless of the welfare of his fellow creatures,
which would be selfishness in the extreme. Nothing can be more
unselfish than Secular morality, since the sole object it has in view
is the happiness of the community at large. And every act of the
individual must be performed with this in view, and will be consid
ered moral or not in the proportion in which this is done. In cor
roboration of this view, Mr. Mill truly remarks : “ According to
the greatest-happiness principle, as above explained, the ultimate
end with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are
desira-ble (whether we are considering our own good or that of other
people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as
rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality;
the test of quality and the rule for measuring it against quantity
being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of ex
perience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness
and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of compari
son. This being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of
human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
25
may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human con
duct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been
described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all
mankind ; and not to them only, but to the whole sentient creation.”
Two facts of great importance are to be noticed in this extract;
first, that happiness is the end of existence, and that all human
■effort should be bent as far as possible to the attainment of this
•object; and, secondly, that here, and here only, can the true stan
dard of morality be found. The second principle flows as a neces
sary consequence from the first. All human action must, therefore,
be brought to the test of how far it is conducive to the promotion
of the greatest happiness of society at large. The consistent per
formance df such action will tend to promote the Secular idea of
human happiness and the welfare of mankind.
The question is asked, Why is Secularism regarded by its adher
ents as being superior to theological and other speculative theories
•of the day ? The answer is (1) because we believe its moral basis
to be more definite and practical than other existing ethical codes ;
and (2) because Secular teachings appear to us to be more reason
able and of greater advantage to general society than the various
theologies of the world, and that of orthodox Christianity in particular.
First, compare Secular views of morality with the numerous and
■conflicting theories that have been put forward at various times on
the important topic of moral philosophy. From most of those
theories it is not easy to reply satisfactorily to the question, Why
is one act wrong and another right ? The.re is no difficulty, gen
erally speaking, in pointing out what acts are vicious and what
others virtuous ; but to say why one is immoral and another moral
is a very different matter. Ask for a definition of virtue, and you
receive in reply an illustration. You will be told that it is wrong
to lie, to steal, to murder, etc.—about which there is no dispute ;
but why it is wrong to indulge in these acts, and right to perform
others, is the business of ethical science to discover. But here
again the method that will be resorted to, with a view to reply to(
this query, will depend upon the moral code believed in by the per
son to whom the question is put. This method it is, in point of
fact, which constitutes what is called ethical science. On looking
over the history of moral philosophy, apart from Secularism, we
find such diversified and conflicting theories advanced on this sub-
' J
/
>
�26
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
ject that it is frequently difficult to arrive at the conclusion that
there can be any certainty in the matter whatever. Some hold,
with Dr. Samuel Clarke, that virtue consists in the fitness of things;
others, with Adam Smith, discover its basis in Sympathy ; others,
with Dr. Reed, Dr. Thomas Brown, and Dugald Stewart, contend
for a moral sense ; another class, with Miss Cobbe, maintain, that
there is such a thing as intuitive morality ; others, with Paley, as
sert that virtue consists in doing good to mankind in obedience to
the will of God, and for the sake of everlasting happiness ; others,
with Dr. Johnson, are content with the will of God as a basis, with
out adding the motive introduced by Paley; and yet others, with
George Combe, fancy they have a key to the whole thing in phren
ology. Now, all these theories are resolvable broadly into three
great classes—first, those who regard the “ will of God ” as the
basis of moral action ; secondly, those who contend that the true
guide of man in morality is something internal to himself—call it
conscience, moral sense, intuition, or any other name that you
please to give it; and, thirdly, those who urge that moral science
is, like other science, to be discovered by the study of certain ex
ternal facts. To the latter of these the Utilitarian or Secular sys
tem belongs.
A small section of professing Christians have now given up the
will of God as the groundwork of their morality. This, however,
seems to us inconsistent with their faith, for the following reasons .i. If the Bible God be the father of all, surely to act in accordance
with his will should be the best guide in life. 2. Christian morality
is supposed to consist of the teachings of the Bible, the alleged
record of the will of God. 3. If God’s will is not the basis of Chris
tian ethics,.what is, from the Christian standpoint ? As Secular
ists, we cannot regulate our conduct by the Bible records of God’s,
will, inasmuch as " that book is so thoroughly contradictor}' in its
interpretation of the said will. In one passage the killing of human
beings is forbidden by God, and in another passage special instruc
tions are given by the same being to commit the prohibited crime.
The same conflicting injunctions are to be found in the “ inspired
word ” in reference to adultery, lying, retaliation, love, obedience to
parents, forgiveness, individual and general salvation, and many
other acts which form part of the conduct of human life.
As to the internal guide to morality, nothing can be more clear
than the fact that, even if man possesses a moral sense with which
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
*7
he is born into this world, and which is inherent in his nature, its
teachings are not very distinct, and the code of law based upon it
is by no means definite. For not only do the inhabitants of differ
ent countries vary considerably in regard to the dictates of con
science, according to the nature of their education, but the people
of the same country will be found to be by no means agreed as to
what is right and what wrong, except in a few well-marked deeds.
One man feels a conscientious objection to doing that which an
other man will positively believe to be a praiseworthy act. In this,
as in other matters, education is all-potent over the mental char
acter. It would indeed be difficult to reconcile these facts with the
existence of any intuitive moral power.
Recognizing the difficulties and drawbacks pertaining to the
above theories, Secularists seek for a solution of this moral-philo
sophy problem elsewhere—that is to say, in the eternal results of
the acts themselves upon society, and in the effects that invariably
spring from them whenever they are performed. , It must be dis
tinctly understood that we do not claim perfection for our mor?l
code ; but we do believe that it is the best known at the present
time, and that it is free from many of the objectionable features,
which belong to those theories which we, as Secularists, cannot ac
cept. It may be urged, as an objection to the external test of the
result of action, that it tends to make morality shifting and depen
dent verymuch upon the circumstances existing at the time. This
is doubtless true ; but it is of no value as an argument against the
doctrine of utility. For is not all that we have to do with subject
to the same law of variation? Fashions change, customs alter,
and even religions become considerably modified by external cir
cumstances. The following stanza in Lord Byron’s “ ^hilde Har
old ” portrays a great truth :—
. 1
“ Son of the morning, rise, approach you here ;
Come, but molest not yon defenceless urn.
Look on this spot, a nation’s sepulchre :
Abode of gods, whose shrines no longer burn.
Even gods must yield, religions take their turn ;
’Twas Jove’s, ’tis Mahomet’s ; and other creeds
Will rise with other years, till man shall learn
Vainly his incense soars, his victim bleeds ;
Poor child of doubt and death, whose hope is built on reeds 1”
�*8
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
V.—ETHICS AND RELIGION.
Throughout the history of mankind morality and religion have
been two potent factors in influencing the formation of human
character. By the term morality is understood the principle which
rules and regulates the customs and habits of society; and the
word religion is employed to represent Theistic beliefs or aspira
tions which are said to be possessed by a majority of the human
race. In connection with these two factors the arts of sacerdotal
ism and priestcraft have associated the error that religion and
morality are really identical; that the two are mutually interde- *
pendent, and to sever them would be absolutely fatal to both.
The fact is that morality was distinct from religion in its origin,
and the two have, in many important instances, remained so up to
the present in their development. The origin of the first forms of
religion of which we have any record was fear and the prostration
of reason; while that of morality was the outcome of intellectual
culture and thoughtful experience. This fact has been clearly
shown in a very able work entitled “ The Morals of Evolution,” by
Minot J. Savage. On page thirty-one he observes : Religion
and morality were totally distinct in their origin. At first they had
nothing to do with each other. Religion was simply an arrange
ment between man and his gods, by which he was to gain their
favour or ward off their wrath. Morality, on the other hand, is a
matter of behaviour between man and man.” On pages twentyfour and twenty-five Mr. Savage says : “ Go far enough back into
antiquity to come to the time when large numbers of men were
fetish worshippers; when the object of their adoration, their
reverence, or fear, is a stick, or a stone, or a reptile. Of course,
you will understand in a moment that the worship of an object like
this cannot be associated in the mind of a worshipper with any
necessity for telling the truth, with any necessity for being pure,
with any necessity for being charitable and kind towards his fel
lows.” The same principle is enforced in the case of the Indian
devotee, who fasts and torments himself, not that he may benefit
mankind morally by his sufferings, but solely in order that he may
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
2g
acquire favour and power with the gods Brahma, Vishnu, and
Siva. Such a man is very religious, but he is not necessarily a
mbral man, for, if his fellow men were to emulate his example, the
human race would be enervated, if not become extinct.
A similar proof as to the ancient differentiation between religion
and morality can be found in the Old Mexican religion, and also in
the Old Testament record of the dealings of Jehovah with the
Hebrew people. Jacob was religious, but certainly not very re
markable for morality; as indeed were Samson, David, Jephthah,
and other characters in the Hebrew records. It was not morality
which induced Joshua to command the unmerciful slaughter of
the Canaanitish men, women and children. It was not morality
which led Samuel, God’s high-priest, to murder Agag, whom even
Saul would have spared ; nor that prompted David to kill the
Philistines, while he himself was the honoured recipient of Philis
tine hospitality. Such actions cannot be defended morally ; but
religiously they can ; and they have been vindicated and excused
by Christian teachers and preachers.
Not only have religion and morality been dissociated in the past,
but we know that they have been kept far from each other in the
immediate present. Need reference be made to those most iniquit
ous, immoral wars, not many years since, in Zululand and Afghan
istan ? Did not Christian bishops from their seats in the English
Parliament openly express their approval of the cold-blooded and
sanguinary policy which brought down upon the nation the
opprobrium due to the cowardly and uncalled-for assailer and
despoiler of the weak, the unprotected, and the semi-savage; a
policy which directly led to national suffering, national poverty,'
national degradation and humiliation, and which caused the blush
of shame to mantle the cheek of every true-hearted Englishmanpossessed of a virtuous zeal for the reputation of his native land ?
Mr. Gladstone publicly declared his sorrow at finding so many of
his co-religionists going woefully, fatally wrong in matters of
national morality. His words were : “ To my great pain and dis
appointment, I have found during the last three years that thou
sands of Churchmen supplied the great mass of those who have
gone lamentably wrong upon questions involving deeply the in
terests of truth, justice and humanity. I should hear with much
comfort any satisfactory explanation of this very painful circum-
�30
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
stance.” It is not here contended that morality is never associated
with religion, but rather that the two are not necessarily allied,
and that there is no lack of instances where the one is to be found
professed and acted upon without the other.
The highest forms of religion to-day bear upon them the impress
•of that morality which has gradually grown with our growth and
strengthened with our strength ; it is morality that has modified
religion, not religion that has modified morality. This will explain
in some measure why it is that men to-day are not worshippers of
fetiches ; that they have not deities of the wood, the mountain, and
the cave; that the Christianity of to-day is more humane than it
was in the time of the Inquisition ; that it now reprobates offences
which but four centuries ago it was wont to excuse and condone.
The morality of men, their love, their benevolence, their kindly
charity, their mutual tolerance and long-suffering—all these spring
directly from their long-acquired and developed experience.
The ethical science of the nineteenth century derives no assistanceTrom orthodox Christianity, based as it is upon what is re
garded as a divine revelation from God to man. Such a system is
incapable of promoting the moral development of humanity. This
can only be effectually done by the action of those social, political,
and intellectual forces to which we a¥e indebted, as it were, for the
building up of man from the very first institution of society. These
have been, are, and ever must be, the moral edifiers of the human
race. Without them true progress is impossible, since it is by
them that we are what we are. It is (i) the social activities that
have led to the formation, maintenance, and improvement of human
society; (2) the political activities that have led to the formation,
maintenance, and improvement of the general government, to the ’
establishment of States or nations, and to the recognition of the
mutual rights and duties of such States; and (3) the intellectual
activities that have led to the interchange of human thoughts, to
the formation of literature, to the pursuits of science and art, to
the banishment of ignorance and the decay of superstition ; to the
diffusion of knowledge, and, finally, to all that mental progress
which so widely removes the ci.vilized man from the savage.
The manner in which society has been built up has been clearly
shown by Mr. Spencer in his “ Data of Ethics ; ” but we need no
learned disquisition or treatise to convince us of what is a self-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
31
evident fact. By experience we learn all things ; as the homely
proverb has it, “ the burnt child dreads the fire.” So, in the early
ages of society, men had to learn from experience what was good
and what was bad for society. In the early stages of national
governments nations had to discover what was conducive to the
welfare, and what detrimental to the well-being, of a State. The
exercise of man’s intellectual activities has also been purely empiri
cal, or experimental. In literature, science, and art, the records of
the past ages have been records of continually growing experiences.
We are wiser to-day than our fathers were, because we possess all
their experiences plus our own. Upon the same principle, subse
quent generations will be superior to us, inasmuch as they will
have additional experience to guide them to what we possess. Our
morality is the resultant, the outcome of experiences, and wise
action based thereon. Intelligent men no longer slay hundreds of
thousands of sheep and oxen in sacrifice ; desolate other regions •
massacre myriads of their fellow men ; burn heretics at the stake ;
or condemn a race to perdition because of their unbelief. Society
would no longer tolerate the infliction of the tortures of the Inqui
sition, or the intolerant decrees of the Star Chamber ; and
why ? simply because our social, political, and intellectual experi
ences have shown us how utterly absurd, cruel, and ridiculous all
those past follies have been. What has altered all this ? It can
not be said that Christianity, the Bible, and the Church have pro
duced the change. All these orthodox agencies existed amid the
human weaknesses and wrongs referred to ; but the present im
proved moral sense did not then obtain, hence the immoral acts.
This, then, constitutes the practical ethics of time—namely, our
social, political, and intellectual status, and we are proportionately
more moral in the present era as we are socially, politically, and
intellectually superior to what our forefathers were. The orthodox
revelation has really had nothing whatever to do with this improve
ment, because revelation from a God to man cannot logically
change or modify itself; it must be, like the laws of the Medes
and Persians, wholly unalterable, “ the same yesterday, to-day^
and forever.” This, indeed, is what orthodox religionists claim for
what they call their morality—that it never changes. But such a
contention is fatal to their claim to possess a truly humanitarian
system of morality. The very essence of such a system is its
�32 '
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
adaptability to the ever-varying necessities and circumstances of
mankind. It is not here contended that prudence, honesty, benevo
lence, must ever change their inherent nature. On the contrary,,
they will ever be binding upon man ; but for what reason ? Merely
because he cannot exist justly and happily without them. He must
be prudent or he loses his all, and thus becomes a burden on
others ; he must be honest, or he will be a criminal to society, and
will not be able to have any guarantee for his own rights and for
the safety of his own possessions ; he must be benevolent, or else
he will neglect his duty to others, and the old age of iron will return,
with its law of might making right, and the despotic rule of the
strong over the weak.
This is what is meant when we affirm that we can have no fixed
rule of morality. It is said, however, that without such a fixed
rule for conduct, all guarantees to virtue would be absent. Not
so ; Secularism recognizes a safe and never-erring basis for moral
action, which is taken, not from Revelation, but from the Roman,
law of the Twelve Tables, which laid down the broad general
maxim that “ the well-being of the people is the supreme law.”
This may be taken as a fundamental principle for all time and all
nations. The kind of action which will produce such well-being
depends, of course, upon individual and national circumstances,
varied in their character and diversified in their influence. Rulesof life, “ revealed ” eighteen hundred years ago, do not meet the
requirement and satisfy the genius of to-day. This progressive
morality is the principle of the Utilitarian ethics which now govern
the civilized world. It is not merely the individual, but society at
large, that is considered. To use an analogy from nature, societarian existence may be compared to a beehive. What does the
apiarian discover in his studies ? Not that every individual bee
labours only for individual necessities. No ; but that all is sub
ordinated to the general welfare of the hive. If the drones increase,
they are expelled or restricted, and well would it be for our human
society if all drones who resisted improvement were banished from
among us. In the moral world, as in religious societies, there are
too many Nothingarians—individuals who thrive through the good
conduct of others, while they themselves do nothing to contribute
to the store of the ethical hive.
It has been intimated that a higher and still further improved
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
33
condition of society is before us. The true ethical standard of the
future will doubtless be based upon the recognition of the primal
truth that it must always be right to act for the welfare of society.
One consequence of this will be that it will be our duty to promote
our individual interests. No man can do this without indirectly
benefiting his neighbour, so that from the increased good of the one
springs the increased good of the many.
The welfare of humanity does not necessarily depend upon the (
belief in a Deity or a future state. “ The proper study of mankind
is man.” The wisest of the Romans, the great statesman and phil
osopher, Cicero, taught his son that man’s morality was the neces
sary result of reasoning built upon human necessities. Robert
Owen gave practical meaning and force to this teaching, by incul
cating principles the adoption of which would assuredly end in the
establishment of a new moral world. Such a world, we believe,
lies before us—a world wherein every human character shall be
formed upon principles based upon right-knowing and right-doing,
upon the enforced expulsion of ignorance and the removal of the
causes of evil. If religion is to be retained in the future, the only
religion which will be worthy of the name as a binding system will
'be one in which the good of all faiths shall be retained, and from
which their errors shall be eliminated ; a religion based, not upon
supernatural figments and allegories, but upon the eternal laws of
nature and the laws of that great kingdom of human nature whose
only monarch and subject is man. He it is who must be regarded
as the foremost actor in the great drama of life. Down through the
ages we trace his footsteps, from the time when he appears totter,
ing as the infant, to the present age wherein he is learning to stand
erect. How gradual, indeed, has his progress been, with what
slow and faltering steps has he gone on from generation to genera
tion, from century to century. Truly, it has been a long and a toil- <
some journey that he has trodden ; a journey over rough rocks,
through brambles, briers, and thickets of ignorance; but, happily,
the race has contrived always to keep the true light somewhere be
fore it, although many a false light has been held up to mislead it»
“ Through the shadow of the globe we sweep into the perfect day.1
�34
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
VI. SECULARISM AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
It is very desirable that the teaching of Secularism in reference to
the supernatural should be clearly understood. What does this
term really mean ? Etymologically it signifies, super (“ above ”) and
natura (“ nature ”)—that is, something above, greater than, or dis
tinctly higher than, nature, or things natural, as these phrases are
ordinarily, employed. This word nature mankind has used in a
duplicate manner. Thus we talk of nature when we refer to what
philosophers term the cosmos, or the whole of the things percep
tible to the senses, from the rose and its delicate fragrance to the
planets, comets, suns, stars, and their motions. The other appli
cation of this term is to the constitution, mental and physical, of
man regarded as a living animal and as a rational being. When
used in the latter sense, the word is generally conjoined to another,
thus making the compound, “ human nature.”
The word superhuman would probably be more appropriate than
supernatural. Still, if the latter phrase is intended only to con
vey the idea of something beyond general human experience, then
it is not difficult to understand the meaning of its use. For ex
ample, take the old illustration ; we can readily imagine a creature
formed like the idol Dagon, of the Philistines, which was repre
sented as being half fish, half woman. We can also create other
mental visions which would, in their extreme grotesqueness, put to
shame the ogres and chimeras of romance, but these would be
supernatural in the above signification of the word, inasmuch as
their archetypes were never known to man in any stage of his pro
gress through the ages. Hence it may be possible to conceive
a thing supernatural so far as human nature is concerned; but
.how, it may be asked, are we to determine with respect to the
cosmos, to that universal nature of which the human nature forms,
after all, but a part ?
This question goes to the very root of the matter, and much
more, both in philosophy, science, and religion, depends upon our
answer than might, at first sight, be supposed. “ How are we to
determine as to what is supernatural with regard to the universe ?”
Man is, it will be urged, confessedly a finite being. His faculties
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
35
•of perception, his powers of seeing, hearing, etc., are limited. How,
then, it may be asked, is it possible for man to determine what
realities may exist either “ in the earth beneath” or in the heavens
above ? The reply to this is, that human nature is the key of uni
versal nature ; that the non-apparent is to man the non-existent;
and that those things must be considered by man as things above
nature of which no perception or demonstration can be possible.
If by the term supernatural is meant a personal being above and
apart from nature, then Secularism says: Such a problem it leaves
for each mind to decide, if it can, for itself. Being unable to in' form, the Secularist should refuse to dogmatize upon a subject
upon which he can impart no information. In the opinion of the
present writer Secularism has no necessary connection with any
form of Theism. If it be asked whether or not a Theist can be
a Secularist, the answer is, It depends upon the nature of his
Theism. A consistent believer in the Bible God cannot be a
genuine Secularist. On the other hand, if a Theist believes that
he can best serve and love and honour his God by serving, loving,
and honouring his fellow-men, and by making the most of this
life, then he may be an admirable Secularist.
The lesson of history is that the mystic and dogmatic teachings
in reference to the existence of a Supernatural Being have ever
been fraught with wrong to man. The records of the past are
ample proof of this. Whether it be Pagans with their deities,
Jews with their Jehovah, or Christians with their Trinity, all such
theologisms have brought forth cruelty, oppression, and intolerance.
Truth, virtue and love are the three elements which should go to
wards the foundation of human conduct. They formed its basis
in the case of Buddhism, in the humanitarianism of Auguste
Comte, and in the great science of man’s true education and en
lightened benevolence, as promulgated by that great philanthropist
and philosopher, Robert Owen.
From the historical development of the churches’ idea of the
Supernatural it will be seen that it has never been a necessary
factor in human elevation. We should, therefore, apart from all
such vague speculation, learn how to perform aright the duties and
requirements of life. The true way to effect this is to work for the
improvement of Humanity, and this can be done by the forma
tion of good characters, which ennoble it, by the exemplification of
�36
r
r
It
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
tion of good characters, which ennoble it, by the exemplification of
correct conduct, which enriches it, and by securing the triumph of
the better part of our natures, which dignifies it.
Ethical unity is the proper basis of true benevolence. This
great human instinct is not dependent upon any form of Super
naturalism for its manifestation ; its activity is evoked by a
desire to alleviate the sufferings of the afflicted, and to enhance
the happiness of the unfortunate. To aid in securing a fair oppor
tunity for the exercise of this benevolence prompts Secularists to
aim at correcting every cherished error by the substitution of a true
knowledge of the natural for the old doubtful speculations as to the
alleged Supernatural.
The Church proclaims that love to God is the basis of religion ;
Secularism, on the other hand, teaches that the principle that
fosters the development of virtue, happiness and nobility of char
acter is service to man. This is practical morality, and experience
demonstrates that it is superior as a reforming agency to Super
natural beliefs. For eighteen hundred years the Supernatural
notion has been incorporated into the Church. “ To it has been,
given all power. Its hand has wielded every sword. Every
cannon has stood ready charged to second its command. Every
crown has received its blessing; every standing army its prayers
and the training of its priests. But what has it done to establish
justice and truth in the earth ? Let the dungeons of the Inqui
sition make answer. Let the gibbets, whose chains hang heavily
freighted with skeletons, rattle in your ear. Ask the millions of
ragged, starving paupers, covered with filth and vermin, on their
knees to the few who are covered with diamonds and royal in
signia, to sing its triumphs. Alas, poor wretches ! blinded by
ignorance, they do; but their song breathes no hope for this
world. Let the millions, upon whom it rivets its fetters of slavery,
tell how it brought them glad tidings. Let the prisons, glutted
with men and women, their hearts filled with savage hate produced
by the cruelty and vengeance of our criminal laws, illustrate its
beauty. Let the thousands of brothers, sustained by the degrada
tion and ignorance it has cursed the bodies of men and women
with, in order to save their souls, establish its power to cleanse the
world with blood. Let the millions who, after toiling ten hours a
day, cannot satisfy the bare necessities of life, the thousands of
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
37
■white-faced and sad-hearted children toiling’ in the factories, wit
ness to its power to make men just and kind. In the name of rea
son and humanity, is this morality ? Are these things right ? Is
this the ought-to-be, to which all must yield in the spirit of faith ?
Must we continue to say that man is born to misery, as the sparks
Uy upward, and that all this is but just punishment for our sins ?
Are we always to have the poor with us, because even the revised ,
New Testament says so ? Are the powers that be ordained of
•God ? Is there in reality a Devil, an almost infinite fiend, who is
permitted to go about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may
devour ?”
These are the errors and delusions and impotent views taught by
believers in the Supernatural, and is it not time that such evils and
weaknesses were removed, and a course of action adopted to avoid
their repetition ? To perform this task effectually, we must incul
cate the truth that right and wrong have their foundation in the
mind of man, and not in Supernatural ideas. A cultivated reason
and a well-trained judgment are the surest guarantees for noble
actions and benevolent and just consideration for others. This
may not be religion, but it is the teaching of Secularism ; and in
proportion as it is adopted by mankind, so shall we advance to the
physical, moral and intellectual regeneration of our race.
VII. SECULARISM AT THE HOUR OF DEATH.
It is ,a favourite, and, as they seem to think, an effec
tive argument of the Christians, that, although Secularism
may do very well in healthy life, it fails in sickness
and at the -hour of death.
Were this supposition true, it
would be but a poor compliment to Christianity. If its chief
use is for the sick or dying, it is a mere drug or anodyne, things
which are abominable to the strong and healthy, instead of being
wholesome food and drink. A dose of opium would be just as
good. The only religion or philosophy which should command our
allegiance is one that supplies a sound rule of life, a principle by'
which we may live well, not by which we may die easily. Very
few instances of Christian resignation equal the calmness and
indifference with which any ordinary Eastern submits to death
when death can no longer be avoided. The stories still current
�38
„
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
among the more ignorant of orthodox Christians of the terrible. death of eminent Freethinkers have again and again proved to be
but pious frauds. Even were they true, they are counterbalanced
by the accounts given themselves of the deaths of very religious
persons, haunted and agitated almost to their last moments by
dreadful fears of perdition. But, in fact, as those who have had a.
large death-bed experience, can testify, nearly all men die serenely,,
without reference to their faith or want of faith. Fallen into,
extreme weakness, they cannot feel strongly on any subject; the
past, the present, and the future are but as dim dreams, in which
their languor takes but the faintest interest; life slips very
easily from the relaxed grasp; exhausted with the long struggle,,
they are not only willing, but rather anxious to sleep.
But, apart from these considerations, let us take the case of a
consistent Secularist lying for weeks upon a sick-bed, regarding
with lucid mind the certain approach of death. What has he tofear ? If he has been faithful to his convictions, acting up con
sistently to the light which his intellectual industry has acquired,,
why should the honest Secularist have any dread as to any here
after? His life has been glad and he has made the most of it; he
has drained the cup of its wine to the lees, and can retire satisfied
to slumber after the banquet. Or his life has been stern, and still
he has made the most of it; he has fought its battle to the bitter
end; and wounded, worn out, and broken down, must rejoice when
he can sink to rest. There surely should be no forebodings in the
forethought that the sleep maybe eternal. As John Stuart Mill
finely says in concluding his posthumous Essay on the “ Utility of
Religion,” which, unlike the following Essay on Theism,was writtenbefore his mind was shaken by the loss of his idolized wife : “I
cannot but think that as the condition of mankind becomes im
proved, as they grow happier in their lives, and more capable of
deriving happiness from unselfish sources, they will care less and
less for this flattering expectation (of a future life). It is not,,
naturally or generally, the happy who are the most anxious either
. for a prolongation of the present life, or for a life hereafter; it
is those who never have been happy. They who have had their
happiness can bear to part with existence ; but it is hard to die
without ever having lived. When mankind cease to need a
future existence as a consolation for the sufferings of the present,,
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
39
it will have lost its chief value to them, for themselves. I am now
speaking of the unselfish. Those who are so wrapped up in self,
that they are unable to identify their feelings with anything which
will survive them, or to feel their life prolonged in their younger
contemporaries, and all who help to carry on the progressive move
ment of human affairs, require the notion of another selfish life
beyond the grave, to ■ enable them to keep up any interest in exist
ence..............But if the Religion of Humanity were as sedulously
cultivated as the supernatural religions are (and there is no difficulty
in conceiving that it might be much more so), all who had received
the customary amount of moral cultivation would up to the
hour of death live ideally in the life of those who are to follow
them; and though, doubtless, they would often willingly survive as
individuals for a much longer period than the present duration of
life, it appears to me probable that after a length of time, different
in different persons, they would have had enough of existence, and
would gladly lie down and take their eternal rest.........................The
mere cessation of existence is no evil to any one ; the idea is only
formidable through the illusion of imagination which makes one
conceive oneself as if one were alive and feeling oneself dead.
What is odious in death is not death itself, but the act of
dying and its lugubrious accompaniments, all of which
must be equally undergone by the believer in immortality.”
And in the final sentence: “It seems to me not only pos
sible but probable, that in a higher, and, above all, a
happier condition of human life, not annihilation but immor
tality, may be the burdensome idea ; and that human nature,
though pleased with the present, and by no means impatient to
quit it, would find comfort and not sadness in the thought that
it is not chained through eternity to a conscious existence, which
it cannot be assured it will always wish to preserve.” In this
thought Mr. Mill was anticipated by Lord Bacon in his fine frag
ment on Death : “I have often thought upon death, and I find it
the least of all evils. All that which is past is a dream ; and he
that hopes or depends upon time coming, dreams waking.........
Physicians in the name of death include all sorrow, anguish,
disease, calamity, or whatsoever can fall in the life of man, grievous
or unwelcomebut these things are familiar unto us, and we suffer
them every hour, therefore we die daily. I know many wise men
�40
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
who tear to die ; for the change is bitter, and flesh would refuse to
prove it; besides, the expectation brings terror, and that exceeds
the evil. But I do not believe that any man fears to be dead, but
only the stroke of death.” If there be an eternal sleep, it promises
the positive gain of release from all suffering and sorrow, while the
seeming loss of pleasure is cancelled by unconsciousness. If we
are not to see our loved ones more we shall have no wish to see
them, and soon also they will have no wish to see us. And so with
every other apparent privation. The dreamless slumberer desires
nothing, regrets nothing. “ There the wicked cease from troubling;
and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together ;
they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and great
are there ; and the servant is free from his master.”
The orthodox believers assure us that Christianity is necessary
to enable a person to die happily. Is not this the height of folly,
and a reflection upon the alleged goodness of God ? Are all the
other religions in the world impotent in this particular ? If, as I
have shown in my pamphlet, “ Secularism, Destructive and Con
structive,” we estimate the various religions of the world which
conflict with each other, more or less, at one hundred-a very
moderate calculation—there can only be one that is true, so that
the Christian has only one chance out of a hundred, while there
are ninety-nine chances against him. What, then, is the difference
between the Christian and the Secularist ? The one rejects ninetynine, and the other goes “ one better ” and rejects the whole hun
dred. But the Secular position does not rest even upon this. If
God be just, he can never punish a man for not believing that
which his reason and judgment tell him is wrong. If we have to
appear before a heavenly tribunal, is it to be supposed that such
questions will be asked as, “ To what church did you belong ?
What creed or dogma did you accept ? ” Is it not more rational to
believe that if any inquiries are made they will be, “ Were you true
to yourselves and just to others ? ” “ Did you strive to make the
best of existence in doing all the good you could ? ” “ Were you
true, morally and intellectually ? ” If the answers are given
honestly in the affirmative, then no one need fear the result. It is
degrading to the character of any God even to think that he would
punish one to whom, on earth, he did not think fit to vouchsafe the
faculty of discerning his existence, for honestly avowing that he
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
41
■did not discern it, for not professing to see clearly when the eyes
he thought fit to give saw nothing. Would he not be apt, if at all,
to punish those (and they are very numerous) who, not seeing,
confidently assert distinct vision ? If we act honestly and man
fully according to the best light we can obtain ; if we love our
fellow-men whom we know, and try to be just in all our dealings,
surely we are making the best preparation for any future life ; the
best preparation for the higher knowledge, the clearer vision, the
heavenly beatitudes. Though we are execrated and condemned
by the tender mercies of human bigots, we may, if we have lived
as true Secularists, commit ourselves without dread to an infinitely
good and wise God, if he is the loving father of all his children.
We can die without fear, as we have lived without hypocrisy.
“ What if there be a God above,
A God of truth, of light and love;
Will he condemn us ? It was he
Who gave the light that failed to see.
If he be just who reigns on high,
Why should the Secularist fear to die?**
VIII, SECULARISM IN THEORY.
The theory of Secularism is simply that this life and this world
in which we live demand and will reward our utmost cultivation;
that the instruments of this cultivation are reason and social effort;
that the harvest to be reaped from it is happiness, general and
individual.
Looking at the world/we are convinced by what human reason
has already discovered in it, and by the experience which has veri
fied the discoveries, that it is perfect order, in the sense that its
operations follow unvarying laws, that the like antecedents have
always the like consequents. This immutable constancy of what
are termed the Laws of Nature, gives us a stable foundation on
which to build up physical science and all the arts which are the
applications of such science. The laws we know we cannot change;
but the more we learn of them the better we can adapt ourselves
�42
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
and the conditions of our life to them, the better we can avoid such
of their workings as would be otherwise harmful to us, the better
we can avail ourselves of all in their workings which is profitable
to us. Thus Secularism regards science as the true Providence;
and affirms that by persistent careful study of Nature, and per
sistent application of the results of that study, this Providence
can be made to yield ever richer and richer benefits to our race.
Looking at mankind, we are convinced in the same manner, that
human nature, no less than nature in general, is the subject of
unvarying laws, that in it also the like antecedents have always
the like consequents; and the stability of law in this domain gives
us firm ground on which to build up physiological, psychological,
and sociological science, and the political and social constitutionswhich are the applications of such science. These laws also we
know we cannot change; but in their case also the more we learn
of them the better we can adapt ourselves and the conditions of
our life to them, the better we can avoid their injurious and avail
ourselves of their beneficial workings. So that here also Secular
ism regards science as the true Providence ; and affirms that by
the study of Man, and the application of the results of that study,
this Providence can be wrought to confer ever richer and richer
boons on our race.
As for the controversy between virtue and happiness, which is in
a great measure a mere contest as to words, we know how the
great name of Epicurus was almost from the first degraded by his
opponents into a great synonym for the pursuit of coarse sensuous
pleasure, in the term Epicureanism. But why should this happi
ness, which Utilitarianism teaches us to seek in common, be spoken
of as something mean ? The great object of Christian life is to gain
eternal happiness in heaven, and we do not find that such happi
ness is supposed to be concerned only with sensual joys; on the
contrary, it is assumed to involve all the most sacred emotions and
aspirations, to include all the beatitudes. It is such happiness, in
so far as it shall prove to be attainable, that Secularism seeks to
realise, not in heaven but on earth, not in eternity but in time>
not for elect individuals here and there, but for all mankind. This
happiness implies, firstly, material well-being, sufficiency of food,,
clothing and houseroom, with good air, good water, and good
sanitary conditions : for these things are necessary to bodily health’
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
43
and this is essential to the health of the mind, and only in health
is real happiness possible. Again, it implies mental well-being,
sufficiency of instruction and education for every one, so that his
intellect may be nourished and developed to the full extent of its
capabilities. Given the sound mind in the sound body, it further
implies free exercise of these, absolutely free in every respect so
long as it does not trench on the equal rights of others, or impede
the common good. In this full development of mind as well as
body, it need scarcely be said that true happiness brings into its
service all the noblest and most beautiful arts of life. Some per
sons seem to fancy that Secularists have nothing to do with music,
painting, sculpture, care nothing for the glories and grandeurs of
the world, have no part in the treasures of the imagination ; as if
there were no utility in any of these. But we recognize in them
the very high utility of touching to rapture some of the finest
chords in our nature ; we know and feel just as well as others, and
perhaps better than most, since we give ourselves more to the scien
tific study of man, that there are different kinds and degrees of
enjoyment, and that some kinds are far superior to others, and we
know how to value the superior as compared with the inferior.
But yet more, this social happiness implies all the great virtues
in those who can attain and keep it. Wisdom, for without this,
transitory and selfish pleasures will be continually mistaken for
happiness; and even with a desire for the common good, this good
will be misconceived, and the wrong means taken to secure it.
Fortitude, to bear when necessary, and the necessity in the present
state of the world is as frequent as it is stern, deprivation of per
sonal comfort rather than stifle our aspirations and relax our efforts
for the general interest. Temperance, for with excess no per
manent happiness is possible. Magnanimity, for only by aid of
this virtue can we keep steadily in view, as the sole aim of all our
striving, the sole aim worthy of true men and women, the greatest
good of the greatest number ; all littlemindedness ever turns to
selfishness. Truth, for without it the stability of society could not
be maintained. Justice, and above all else Justice, for it is the
profound and unchangeable conviction of the equal rights of all
which alone can inspire and impel us to seek the freedom and
happiness of all, oppressions since the world began having been
based on injustice, the oppressors exaggerating their own rights at
�44
SECULAR teachings
the expense of those of the oppressed. And to these great virtues
of the mind, we must add, as essential to this true happiness, what
are commonly called the virtues of the heart, the fervour of Zeal
or Enthusiasm, and the finer fervour of Benevolence, Sympathy,
or, to use the best name, Love. For if Wisdom gives the requisite
light, Love alone can give the requisite vital heat; Wisdom climb
ing the arduous mountain solitudes, must often let the lamp slip
from her benumbed fingers, must often be near perishing in fatal
lethargy amidst ice and snow-drifts, if love be not there to cheer
and revive her with the glow and the flames of the heart’s quench
less fires.
Seeing thus what qualities and energies are required in those
who would win this happiness for themselves and their fellows, or
would even advance but a little the great day of its advent, we
are surely entitled to ask, What virtue can be more noble than
this ? What more lofty and unselfish object can be proposed for
human effort than this of destroying ignorance, oppression, and
suffering, of instituting enlightenment, freedom and • happiness ?
We believe that the final test of any so-called virtue, as of any
action, is the question, Does it tend to the common good ? If it
does, we hold it in esteem, and in some cases in reverence; if it
does not, however fine the name it bears, we look upon it as an
error, and in some cases as a vice or crime.
IX. SECULARISM IN PRACTICE.
Secularism is clearly a theory of action, to be realized in conduct;
not a theory of speculation, which may be held without influencing
our every-day life. The theory of Secularism is a theoryof War
against theological pretensions; and the warfare to which it applies
is continual, without intermission of treaty or truce, for every brave
and loyal man, being warfare against all that is noxious and may
be vincible, in nature and human nature. So that if any one makes
profession of Secular principles, without putting them or striving
to put them into practice, we must declare that he is really not a
Secularist; just as we should declare him no soldier who should
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
45
pore over military books, and dream about strategy and tactics,
without ever taking part with head or hand in the fight to which
his duty called him. With head or hand, because it is clear that the solitary thinker, carrying on his profound investigations into
the elements and processes and evolution of the world, or into the
subtle nature and obscure history of man, and communicating the
results of these for the enlightenment and advantage of his fellows,
is not less but rather more essentially active on our side in the
battle of life, than he who is called the man of action himself; just
as the statesman who prepares for the war, the administrator who
organizes the army, and the general who plans and directs the
campaign, have far more to do with the result—though they strike
no blow and fire no shot—than any of the banded subordinates who
use sabre, lance, or rifle.
We are in constant struggle with Nature,—to make its barren
regions fertile, its unhealthy regions wholesome; to soften its
rigours, and guard against its perils; to breach its barriers, and
bridge its abysses, between nation and nation; to bend its powers
to our service, and fashion its productions to our commodity; to
trace out its hidden treasures, and penetrate its secrets, availing
ourselves to the utmost of every discovery. Wherefore the Secu
larist, to the full extent of his faculties and opportunities, assists, .
encourages, and welcomes each advance in any of the sciences or
useful arts. Nothing which gives or promises new knowledge of
nature can be indifferent to him, however remote it may seem from
the concerns of ordinary life ; for in wrestling for such knowledge
the intellect is braced, and in conquering it is expanded ; while it
is always possible, and has frequently been the case, that the
most abtruse researches have led to priceless, practical benefits.
We are also in constant struggle with Human Nature, as hitherto
developed in ourselves and others, and with the political and social
institutions which have sprung from it; to cure its manifold dis
eases of body and mind, amend its manifold defects, establish it in
vigorous health to diminish, and, if possible, destroy, its abound'ng gross ignorance, want, oppression, bigotry, disunion, hatred,
envy, selfishness ; to increase, and, if possible, make universal, the
contraries of all these. And with regard to the question of possi
bility, as we who look forward with hope and trust to vast and
indefinite improvements in the state of mankind, are often mocked
as impracticable dreamers, there is one word to say: Until all
�46
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
who love their fellows and regard posterity, find themselves, having
done their utmost, without spark of hope or sinew of strength for
further effort, until our whole race crouches in impotence and
despair, no one can say, Here is the extreme boundary of improve
ment ; and until such boundary is reached, indefinite advance is
possible. For this is a contest in which hope itself is puissant
toward victory, and in very truth a sure pledge of victory; for hope
means endeavour, and endeavour precludes defeat; seeing that our
object is to vanquish Nature, not by resisting her laws, but by
taking advantage of them, and that we are ever living successful
lives, and fighting a winning battle, while we can endeavour with
hope.
Therefore, the true Secularist is, and always will be, in the van
of all efforts to improve the condition of the great bulk of the
people, physically, mentally, morally, socially, politically. As he
regards all men as really his brothers (not his “ dear brethren,” as
clergymen say on Sunday from the secure height of their pulpits,
to poor creatures whom they consider mere serfs, hewers of wood,
and drawers of water, on week days) and believes that all have
equal rights to full development and free exercise of their faculties,
his politics will naturally be of a most liberal tendency; he will
constantly work towards the government of the people by the
people, towards making the Executive the servant and not the
Master of the nation. It does not follow that in all cases he'will
desire the immediate establishment of a Republic ; he may be con
vinced that the mass of his countrymen are not yet fit for such a
form of government. But if so, he will not be content that they
should remain thus unfit; he will do his best and urge all whom
he can influence to do their best likewise, to decrease and ulti
mately to destroy this unfitness ; preparing the way for a govern
ment based upon the will of the nation. To this end he will do
all in his power to diffuse Secular instruction, particularly among
those of the rising generation, whose minds are fresh and eager for
new knowledge, whose characters are plastic to training, who are
not yet hide-bound in prejudice and hardened by old habits. Feel
ing himself essentially a “rational social animal,” he will endeavour
always to act in company with as many of his fellows as possible,
and will frankly support co-operation in every department of
activity. Thus for the political education of the people, both in
Xheory and practice, nothing can be more valuable than well organ-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
47
ized Clubs and Societies. Lectures, debates, and readings inform
and brighten the intelligence; the various functions of the
members, and the mutual forbearance requisite to amicable work
ing, furnish excellent civic training; and the “ rational social”
being thus provided for, there, is every opportunity to cultivate the
“social’ in its most familiar sense by amusements in common;
for the reflection of joy from one to another, where many friends
are gathered, indefinitely multiplies the enjoyment of each.
The Secularist cannot but strive for the abolition of all privi
leges of Class or Sect in the body politic; while he will seek to
make all change with as little violence as possible and with as
much consideration for those who must be dispossessed of what
■does not belong to them, as they themselves and the circum
stances would allow. For doubtless all the reforms demanded by
our principles can be brought about by legal means ; by patient,
orderly, persistent, and combined constitutional efforts on the part
of the people. We do not wish to stir up Class or Sectarian
animosities, though we are continually accused of doing so we
are well aware that the privileged persons have become what they
are by long habit and training, or, generally speaking, by the force
-of circumstances ; and that we ourselves, if brought up in the same
conditions, would probably cling as stubbornly as they do to these
inequitable distinctions ; but we cannot cease or remit our endea
vours to redress wrongs or cancel injustice, in the interest of the
whole nation, out of tenderness for certain misguided and selfish
sections.
In our relation with other countries, the ruling desire of the
Secularist, who regards not only his own people but all mankind
as brothers, will necessarily be for peace and amity, for mutual
profiting instead of mutual destroying. There have been, and
probably will be often again until nations in general have grown
much better and wiser than they are, wars certainly justifiable,
because necessary, on the one part. But no reader of history can
fail to see that the majority of wars have been justifiable neither
■on the one part nor on the other; that they have been brought
about by the pride, greed, passion and folly of rulers, and the
imbecile ignorance of subjects, who allowed themselves to be first
inflamed, then impoverished and slaughtered, for objects in which
they had no real interest, which indeed very often were such that
their real interests were far better served by defeat than by victory.
�4^
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
Secularism in practice does not seek to destroy any one truth
that is associated with Christianity. Its practical force is employed
in building up Secular principles, and in combatting orthodox doc
trines and actions which are so many obstacles to the development
of positive Secular principles. For though the influence of ortho
doxy is much less than it used to be, both in depth and expanse,
and is decreasing year by year, it still floods wide tracts, making
barren fens and swamps of what should be, and will be, when it is
drained off, among our most fruitful fields. If it has now little of
whatever power for good it once had over the thoughts and actions
of men, it has still much power for evil. If it no longer makes
saints and martyrs, it makes serfs and bigots. We want real
Secular education for all our children, such as shall endow them
with some useful knowledge and the instruments for acquiring
much more, such as shall, prepare them for their work in the world,
and make them intelligent citizens; and -we cannot get this because
of sectarian squabbles, because of the arrogant greed of the Church.
Primer, copy-book, and arithmetic shall be withheld, unless the
Bible may be everywhere thrust in amongst them; the Bible, with
its beautiful stories of Noah, Lot, Dinah, Tamar, and the rest, to
inform the intellect and purify the heart of the young; the Bible,
with its lucid dogmas, as to which all the sects are at loggerheads
among themselves. Hard at work all the week, we want to enjoy
ourselves on Sunday; but orthodoxy, so far as it can, shuts us out
from all means of rational amusement; closing museums and art
galleries, stopping innocent entertainments, leaving the general
masses of the people no alternative but the stupefying influence of
most stupefying sermons. Politically, again, the mass of the
Church has been for long generations, and is henceforth pretty
sure to be always obstructive to every movement for the benefit of
the mass of the people.
Orthodox Christianity is opposed to civic freedom, free thought,
free speech, free action ; it is opposed to Science, at the heels of
whose noblest philosophers its curs are always yelping now they
dare not bite; it is opposed to Utilitarianism, withdrawing fine
intellects from useful studies into barren controversieSj and gener.
ous hearts from social labours into cloistered asceticism. There
fore, Secularism in practice must be at war with it continually,
until its cathedrals, churches, and chapels are ennobled into
Schools of Science, Museums of Arts and Secular Halls.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
4?’
X. SECULARISM MORE REASONABLE THAN CHRISz_
TIANITY.
Orthodox Christianity being, by its own avowal, built upon faith.,
which is the abnegation of reason, while Secularism is built upon
reason and experience, it may be thought superfluous to enter upon
an argument to prove that the latter is more reasonable than the
former. But Christians in general, although in the interest of their
mysteries they vilify reason, are very glad to avail themselves ofwhatever help, or apparent help, they can derive from it.
This is especially true of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism,more consistent and thorough, gallantly offering to us in itself the
reductlo ad absurdum of faith trampling reason underfoot. Protes
tantism is an illogical compromise between reason and faith, expe
diency and religion, common sense and uncommon nonsense. It
upholds the right of private judgment, and condemns all who
exercise this right beyond its own strait limits. It appeals to
reason against the absolute claims of Rome, and to faith against
the unanswerable arguments of science. [It worships an alleged
infallible book, and rejects an infallible interpreter of the book. It
tries to buttress its sinking and sloping walls with laborious “ evi
dences,” and brands the inspection which shows that these arehollow and unsound as heterodox Rationalism. It has no firrm
ground to stand upon ; nor can there be any between the orthodox
faith without reason of the Ultramontane and the reason without
the orthodox faith of the Secularist.
Christianity boasts an infallible book, and no two of its manifold,
sects can agree in its interpretation. Ah, they reply, in a momen
tary truce with each other, that all their arms may be turned against
the unbeliever, our differences are on points not essential, in essen
tials we all agree.. But if the differences are of such small moment.,why dispute so desperately about them i' Why fine, imprison,
banish, torture, and put to death, because of them ? Why organize
wholesale massacres, and engage in bloody wars, whose records
are atrociously cruel even for the annals of ,warfare, on account of
these insignificant, differences ? Lollards and Puritans, Waldenses,
Albigenses, and Huguenots, Guelphs and Ghibellines, Lutherans
and Roman Catholics, none of these were Atheists or Sceptics,
they were all alike ardent Christians, and their murderers were.
�5°
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
ardent Christians too. But such things can be no more ! Probably
not, but no thanks to orthodoxy; they have receded before the
growing spirit of Secularism. The spirit of the sects is just as
loving as of old ; but we, whom they slander, have bound them
over to keep the peace ; they dare not smite, they can only rail at
each other. Romanism cries : “ Let everyman who trusts in his
reason be accursed,” while Protestants exclaim : “ The Romish
Church is the masterpiece of Sataji.” Christianity professes to
have an infallible book, which it worships. Yet all Christians
•competent to judge admit that there are doubtful and interpolated
passages in the original, and many errors in the translation. Hence
■a. body of learned but fallible divines have been engaged in revising
■our version, so as to settle its infallibility. All intelligent Christians,
also, while affirming that it is the very Word of God, adding to or
taking from which is to be followed by certain penalties, under
stand it in various senses : some parts in the literal, some as alle
gorical, some as poetical, some as spiritual. But what right have
they to do so ? Where can such a process end ? Who has the
■infallible authority to draw the lines, saying, This you shall inter
pret thus, that you shall interpret otherwise, and so on ? An infal
lible book must be taken as a whole, if taken at all, though reason
be entirely ignored in the taking; you are not at liberty to say, I
will accept this bit, I will reject that; who are you to set up for a
judge, citing the very Word of the living God before your tribunal,
making it justify and explain itself, ruling this verse to be admis
sible and that not, deciding that God said just what he meant in
■one place, but did not in another ? The first exercise of private x
judgment, in explaining or explaining away the meaning of any
.single verse, leads logically and inevitably to the criticism of the
whole Bible as if it were any other book ; tamper with a word, and
you lose the infallibility ; the Bible is handed over by faith to reason,
that merciless inquisitor for inspired writings.
This infallible book includes a story of the Creation of the World,
-of a universal Deluge, of the confusion of tongues ; long historical
narratives; positive statements affecting chronology, astronomy,
.and other sciences; all of them demonstrably wrong in certain
particulars, many of them self-contradictory. It is not necessary
here to go into details on these matters, for they have been abund
antly analyzed and tiye assertions proved in books which Christians
have tried in vain to refute ; nay, in many instances, the wiser or
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
'
-
51
lowing his example ; they tell us his precepts are divine, and utterly
ignore them in daily‘life.
more astute Christians, after defending to the utmost their unten
able positions, have evacuated them altogether, with the consolatory
remark that they were really worth nothing, that the Bible teaches
moral and spiritual and theological truths, not history and science.
Thus no one of any intelligence, however orthodox, would, I sup
pose, venture now in England to assert that the sun and the moon
stood still at the command of Joshua, or that the sun went back
ten degrees as a sign to Hezekiah that his life should be prolonged.
It is urged, however, that the infallible book is only infallible in
its moral, spiritual, and theological teachings ; and, of course, in
its narratives of the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascensiom
of the Divine Man, Christ Jesus. But the narratives differ so
among themselves that no amount of ingenious sophistry, and
assuredly abundance of this has been brought to bear, can reconcile
them. No one has hitherto, even proved it probable that they were
written by the men whose names they bear, or within a century
and a half of the time to which they refer ; no one has given valid
reason why they should be preferred to a multitude of similar con
temporary narratives which the Christians call Apocryphal. No
Christian can give a reason for accepting the miracles recorded in
the Gospels, which would not, were he consistent, make him accept the miracles recorded of Brahma, Buddha, Mohammed, and
the innumerable miracles of the Romish hagiology, stretching with
out interruption from the Acts of the Apostles to the acts of our
Lady of Lourdes, from the wounds of the risen Christ to the stig
mata of Louise Latour. No Christian can prove that all the prin
cipal, superhuman features in the career of his Christ were not
copied from the much older myths of the Hindoo Chrishna, these
themselves pointing to physical myths far more ancient.
And then, supposing the Gospels authentic as to the moral teach
ings of this God-man, and as to the life he led upon earth. Are
not many of his precepts injurious, many quite impracticable ? and
all affected by the illusion possessing him that the end of the world
was at hand ? Was not his mode of life such that if any one in
this un Christian Christendom of the nineteenth century dared to
imitate it, he would be certainly imprisoned as a vagabond, pro
bably confined as an incurable lunatic. The Christians hold him
.(Christ) up as the Great Exemplar, and carefully refrain from fol-
, '
�52
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
As to the theological teachings of this infallible Book. It has
been super-abundantly demonstrated in Freethought literature,
that its cardinal doctrines, the Triune God, the Creation, the Origin
of Sin, Fall of Man, Original Sin, Incarnation, Atonement, Resur
rection, Ascension, eternal Heaven and Hell, are absurd and self
contradictory ; that they make the Dejty at once a remorseless and
unjust tyrant, and a vacillating ruler. No Christian really believes
them, for no Christian, nor any other man, can understand them ;
and we cannot believe propositions of which we cannot catch the
meaning, which cannot be put into plain words without manifest,
self-contradiction. The Christian can only suppress his intellect
with regard to them ; resolutely shut his eyes and mutter, I believe
that anything may be there for aught I can see to the contrary; he
can only act with reference to these astounding mysteries, as he
knows it would be ruinous to act in any other business of life.
So much for the reasonableness of Christianity. Over against,
this inextricable entanglement of reason and faith, freedom and
servility, candour and sophistry, these absurd and degrading im
possibilities, self-contradictions, self-stultifications, Secularism
offers the plain, straight, spacious pathway of reason and experi
ence. It has no science, no history, no books, no persons, that it
wants to hide or shield from free human criticism. It has no
theories which it is not ready and eager to abandon, directly facts,
shall have declared against them ; no rule of conduct which it will
not at once modify if change seems necessary in the interest of the.
general happiness. Mysteries it acknowledges, and confesses that
they are truly mysterious, without proceeding to exhibit them in.
dogmas as if it had turned them inside out. It is not weighted
with the impossible tasks of reconciling the existence of evil with
that of an Omnipotent and All-good Creator ; and of proving and
worshipping the Infallibility of a book crowded with evident errors.
It does not threaten the vast majority with never-ending torments,,
and promise an elect few never-ending bliss, both alike preposter
ously disproportioned to any possible merits or demerits of human
life ; it simply seeks by the best approved means to make this life
as happy as possible for all, assured that if there be another it
could not be better prepared for than thus.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
XI.
53
SECULARISM MORE NOBLE THAN
CHRISTIANITY.
Not only are the cardinal doctrines of Christianity intellectually ab
surd and self-contradictory, but many of them are ajso morally degrad
ing. Not only do they soften and confuse the brain which tries to
believe them ; they also harden and pervert the heart which tries
-to justify them. Thus in the endeavour to reconcile the sub
sistence of an All-good, All-wise, All-powerful God, Infinite and
Eternal, Creator of all things and beings, with the existence of
Evil and the Devii; with the dogmas of the Fall, the Atonement,
•and the everlasting Hell for unbelievers; a man’s conscience must
be sophisticated as injuriously as his reason. They are as revolt
ing to the healthy moral sense as to the healthy common sense.
They could only have arisen among a barbarous people, who
looked upon God as an irresponsible tyrant, like the human tyrants
they were accustomed to crouch under abjectly, but fiercer and
more powerful, able to extend his vengeance over all regions and
prolong it through all times ; they only survive now among persons
who are otherwise comparatively free and intelligent, by the force
of early training and habit, by the influence of venerable associ
ations, which benumb the moral sense, emasculate the reason,
and baffle honest inquiry with their prodigious prestige. If a
thousand average children were brought up without hearing of
Christianity, subject simply to the Secular education and moral
discipline now generally recognized in England and on the Ameri
can continent, as needful to prepare them for the ordinary work of
the world and make them good citizens (and assuredly this is no
high standard of instruction and training); and if, as they
approached manhood and womanhood, the Bible were placed in
their hands, and its leading doctrines calmly explained to them, as
held by the leading Christian Churches, it may be safe to assert
that every one of these youths and maidens would reject large
portions of the Book, not merely with contempt, but with abhor
rence, and reject the. whole of the doctrines, not merely as
irrational, but as immoral, essentially wicked and vile. 'And
surely the priests are one with us in this forecast; else why do
they so desperately insist on thrusting their Bible into our public
�54
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
schools, even though they have ample opportunities for instilling:
its teachings into the young in private, in the family, m the church ?'
The more nakedly and coldly one states the chief doctrines of
this Bible, and the chief acts it records of its Deity, the more false
^.nd ignominious do they show themselves. The perfect God
makes a perfect man, having previously made a wicked Tempter;,
and the perfect man succumbs to the very first temptation. For
this lapse the Merciful God curses, not only him, but likewise all
his posterity, and the very earth on which they live.
In the
course of time this Immutable God repents him of having made
man, and destroys with a flood, not only all mankind, but all living
things, save the few of each in the Ark. The destruction works
no good, for men are as wicked after the deluge as before. This God,
who is no respector of persons, has his chosen people, whom he leads
into a promised land, ordering them to murder ruthlessly all its
inhabitants,but not finding power in his Omnipotence to enable them
to do so. This is the only thing in which the chosen people heartily’
try to fulfil his commandments ; in all else they are constantly re
belling against him and falling away from his worship, despite the
countless miracles it is said he works amongst them. This good
God rends the kingdom from Saul for not utterly destroying the
Amalekites, as divinely ordered, “ man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” This loving God slays
seventy thousand of his chosen people because David, at God’s
instigation, has caused a census to be taken. Having left all man
kind, except the Jews, in the perdition of idolatry for about two
thousand years ; having also destroyed or dispersed ten-twelfths of
the chosen people, so that no sure trace of them is left, and re
duced those remaining to servitude, soon to be followed by disper
sion ; this tender God resolves to redeem the world, that as in
Adam all died, so in Christ may all be made alive. This
one God has by this time .become three Gods, while ever
remaining one, having begotten on himself a Son, and from
the Father and Son a Holy Ghost having proceeded, the
three co-eternal, co-equal, and each almighty. Nothing less
than the sacrifice of a God can atone for the sins of men;
so.God the Holy Ghost begets God the Son from a human
virgin, who remains a virgin after conception and child-bearing,
though she purifies her untainted self Bom the maternal taint, in.
accordance with the low notions of her people ; and God the Son,
�“•TV-4'
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
55’
who is innocent, must suffer death to appease the wrath of himself
and the other two persons of the sole God against man. God the
Son is crucified, and dies and descends into Hell, and rises from
the dead and ascends into Heaven ; yet as God he could not dier
as God he was and is everywhere ; and if only his manhood died,
there was no divine, no sufficient atonement. The scheme of hissacrifice involved inexpiable and unpardonable guilt in his betrayer
and murderers ; God could only assure the atonement by securing;
the necessary crime in men who are in his hands as clay in the
hands of the potter. All who believe in this God-man shall be
saved, all who disbelieve shall be damned or “ condemned ” ; and.
as the vast majority who have since lived never heard of him, and
a continually-increasing minority of those who hear of him can’t
believe in him, while the bulk of those who profess to do so
don’t keep his commandments, this Gospel of Salvation,
is in truth a Gospel of Damnation; as he said himself, “ Many
are called, but few are chosen.” The chosen people, of whom
he, was one on the mother’s side, among whom he lived, and who
had the opportunity of knowing and judging him, rejected him, and
their descendants reject him still. Jesus, good as a man, is de
cidedly objectionable as a God ; for in this character he could have
revealed himself indisputably and immediately, to the redemption
of all.
Orthodox Christianity is ignoble in that it makes our salvation
depend upon blind faith instead of upon reason and love and good
works. It is ignoble in that its votaries must more and more so
phisticate the moral sense in seeking—and seeking how vainly !—
to reconcile ever-growing natural truths with stark old super
stitions. It is ignoble in that, by demanding absolute faith
from men who mzist doubt and disbelieve much of its teach
ings, it manufactures dissemblers and hypocrites. It is in
tensely ignoble in its “sublimated selfishness” of making the
chief end of life the salvation of one’s ' own precious soul.
It is horribly ignoble in making the eternal bliss of the few
elect, compatible with the- eternal torment of the majority pre
destined to damnation : a man must be fiendishly callous and sel
fish who can rejoice in looking forward to such a Heaven counter
poised by such a Hell. It is ignoble in what it deems its noblest
emotions, its love and reverence and adoration of the Deity, its
ecstacies of Divine influx and communion. For these emotions
�56
SECULAR TEACHINGS
are irrational, the object of the love is a dream and a delusion, the
-God revered and worshipped is pourtrayed in its own Bible as
•capricious, unjust, vindictive, merciless ; and these orgies of reli
gious excitement, which overstrain, rend, and often ruin the moral
.fibre, are as harmful as any other drunken revels.
Secularism, on the other hand, is quite free from all these moral
•degradations which are of the essence of orthodoxy. Secularism
is not called upon to reconcile irreconcilable antinomies; has no
meed to palter with the standard of right and wrong, truth and
falsehood; does not ask for pretence of belief where there is no as
surance ; does not fetter the reason and mutilate the conscience.
It recognises abundant evil and misery in the world, and endea
vours by hard work to decrease and as far as possible destroy
them; it recognises much good .and happiness, and endeavours by
wise work to increase and extend them ; untrammelled in either
case by obsolete myths or incredible dogmas. The true Secularist
loves and reveres his fellow men whom he knows, not the Bible
God of whom he does not know. Upright, as an honest man who
respects himself and his fellows, he dees not abase himself, and
•crouch down crying that he is a miserable sinner, because he has
read in an old story-book that the first woman and man ate an
.apple countless millenniums, as science has taught him, after the
human race came into existence. He seeks happiness, not selfishly,
but unselfishly, not for one, but for all; the Heaven on earth
towards which he strives would be no Heaven to him if counter
balanced by a Hell.
XII. SECULARISM MORE BENEFICIAL THAN
CHRISTIANITY.
It has been already shown in previous articles that Secularism is
more beneficial than Christianity in two most important respects,
namely, its freedom from intellectual absurdities and from moral
sophistication. But generally, and avowedly, Christianity is not
beneficial for this life and this world. The teachings and actions
of its author were based upon the fixed delusion that the end of
the world was at hand. Thus he says : “ For the Son of Man
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
57
shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels ; and then he
shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say
unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of
death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Again, having foretold wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes,
false Christs, and false prophets showing great signs and wonders,
he adds: “ Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall
the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and
the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens
shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of
Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,
and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with
power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great
sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from
the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” And he
■concludes : “ Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass
till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matt. 24 : 5-34 ; compare Luke
-21 : 25-32, and 1 Thess. 4: 14-17.) These are among the most
■explicit prophecies in the Bible, and the most exact as to date of
the events foretold. Yet it would be difficult to find them quoted
by any Christian advocate in the very astonishing collections of
“Prophecies fulfilled” with which we are abundantly favoured.
This omission may be due to the facts that, although the period for
their fulfilment is long overdue, although all standing there have
tasted of death, and all that generation have passed away nearly
eighteen centuries since; although frequent alarms have been
given, and a bright look-out has been everywhere kept; the Son
of Man has not been seen coming in the glory of his Father with
his angels.
Consider the effects of this delusion upon Christ’s teachings.
Why care for this world, whose destruction was imminent ? Why
trouble about this life, so soon to be swallowed up in the life
•eternal ? This life and this world were naturally contemptible to
him ; their enjoyments and treasures were baits and snares of the
Devil. Therefore we read in the Gospel called of St. John (which
Luther tells us “is the true and pure Gospel, the chief of the
Gospels, inasmuch as it contains the greatest portion of our
Saviour’s sayings ”), “ He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he
that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal ”
(John 12 : 25) ; and again, “ I pray not for the world ; but for
�58
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
them which thou hast given me ; for they are mine. . . . 'Theyare not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John 17 :
9, 16). Therefore he said : “ Take no thought for your life, what
ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what
ye shall put on. . . . Take therefore no thought for the mor
row; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself”
(Matt. 6: 25, 34). Therefore he contemned all natural affections
(Matt. 10: 37; 12: 46-50; 19: 29). Therefore he taught, Resist
not evil (Matt. 5 : 39) ; and his great apostle taught abject sub
mission to tyranny, “the right divine of kings to govern‘wrong ”
(Rom. 13: 1, 2). Therefore he enjoined poverty and asceticism
(Matt. 19 : 21, 23, 24); not the regulation, but the destruction, of
our natural instincts, the continence of self-mutilation and castra
tion (Matt. 5 : 29, 30 ; 18 : 8, 9 ; 19 : 12). As every student of the
New Testament is aware, it would be easy to multiply texts from
the Gospels and Epistles, all in a similar strain, and all spoken or
written under the influence of the fanatical delusion that the de
struction of this world and the advent of the kingdom of Heaven
were imminent. It is clear from these maxims and precepts that
all the improvements, social and political, scientific and artistic,
commercial and mechanical, wh’ch have been made in the world
since the birth of Christianity, have been made in spite of it, not
because of it; have been wrought by the spirit of Secularism ever
struggling, and in recent centuries with ever-growing success,
against the spirit of dogmatic religion.
But Christianity puts in a predominant claim to beneficence, in
that it secures to its believers everlasting bliss after death, or, at
the worst, blesses their lives here with the hope and expectation
thereof, even should the expectation not be realised. In the first
place, we answer that it likewise assures, not only to all dis
believers, but to nearly all if not quite all professing believers,
everlasting torture after death ; or, at the best, curses their lives
here with the dread and expectation thereof, even should the ex
pectation not be realized. For Jesus said, “ Why call ye me Lord,
Lord, and keep not my commandments ?” and again, “ By their
fruits ye shall know them ;” and the truth is there is no man or
woman living in Christendom who does keep his commandments,
and scarcely any who seriously and thoroughly tries. Who takes
no thought for the morrow ? Who resists not evil? Who, being
smitten on the one cheek, turns the other also ? Who, being asked
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
59'.
for his cloak, gives also his coat ? Who sells all that he has and
gives it to the poor ? So-called Christians would have been
extinct in the first century after the crucifixion of their Jesus had
they not copiously adulterated their other-worldliness with thisworldliness, their uncommon nonsense with common-sense ; and
the result is that we can’t find a genuine Christian among the
hundreds of millions of Christendom, unless it be here and there a
fanatical monk pr hysterical nun.
As to the hope of Heaven, which the Christians claim as a bless
ing in this life, it is over-balanced by the curse of the fear of Hell.
But in truth, though the hope and the fear seem effective to some
minds as arguments in a debate, they are seldom effectual in rea^
life. A good many Christians in rare moments, a very few zealotsmore commonly, may be exalted by the foretaste of Heaven or
tormented by the foretaste of Hell. When wrought to intensity
fear certainly does more harm than the hope can do good; there
are but too many instances of persons thus terrified into incurable
lunacy, into the very worst species of. delirium tremens known.
But, as a rule, every honest and intelligent man must.be aware
that the fear of Hell in itself has scarcely any influence in keeping
Christians from what they think sin, and the hope of Heaven
scarcely any influence in attracting them to what they think holi
ness. No stronger proof of the weakness and unreality of the
general faith in Heaven could be adduced, than the fact that good
“ Christians” cling to this life as hard and as long as they can ;
that when they are sick they pray for recovery—from what ? from
the danger of going straight to eternal beatitude ; that they will
physic and doctor themselves desperately, preferring a miserable
death-in-life here to perfect life in the kingdom of glory ; that they
never resign themselves to the Saviour’s bosom until they can no
longer keep out of it. If this point had really the important bear
ing on the case that some weak-minded and low-thoughted persons
seem to fancy it has, one could further answer that Christianity, in
this respect, simply stands on a level with all other revealed re
ligions, since each of these promises future felicity to its own
faithful and threatens future punishment to unbelievers. Why, then,
should hope of Heaven’ allure us, or fear of Hell frighten us, into
Christianity rather than into Mohammedanism, Brahminism, or
Buddhism ? If intelligent belief were subject to the will, and not
the offspring of independent reason, probably most men would
«
�6o
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
prefer the Heaven of Mohammed, and most men and women the
Nirvana of Buddha to that everlasting psalm singing in long white
nightgowns, amidst the howling of “ all the menagerie of the Apo
calypse,” which constitutes the Heaven of Christ.
Secularism is more beneficial than Christianity, inasmuch as it
teaches no figment of the “ end of the world,” of the existence of
a personal Devil; no submission to despots; no anxiety whether
we shall “ be with the damned cast out or numbered with the
blest.” The world is our home, and Secularism teaches us a
paramount duty to make the best of it by striving to increase its
usefulness, its purity, and its ethical greatness.
XIII.
SECULARISM PROGRESSIVE; CHRISTIANITY
STAGNANT.
Christianity, as taught in our churches, is chained fast and
riveted with iron to the immutable dogmas of an immutable God;
round its neck hangs the millstone of an infallible book, which it
worships in abject stupor as a Fetish; the multiplex windowless
walls of its dungeon are adamantine Traditions and Creeds, Articles
and Catechisms, Decrees of Councils, and Decrees of Popes. It is
thus essentially stagnant and inert; it does comparatively but
little useful work in the world; it is perishing of atrophy, brain
and heart and limbs irretrievably wasting away. In this life it has
no future; its future is in the life to come (or not to come!); its
ideal is in the past, to which its vacant eyes are ever reverted in
the dense gloom of its prison-cell. Its perfection was in the Primi
tive Apostolic Church, the Church of the immediate disciples of
its Lord and Saviour; the Lord who has almost practically ceased
to reign, the Saviour who has almost ceased to save. His example
and teachings were regarded as being perfect; those who lived
with him were thought to be blessed with these in unstinted abund
ance, in untainted purity. Flowing through the long centuries
since, the slender rill has grown a mighty river,’ pouring itself
through many branches into the sea; but how the purity of the
fountain has been adulterated in its course !—it has been impreg
nated with the most various soils, mingled with affluents from
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
61
diverse regions, polluted with all the abominations of the cities
that have arisen on its banks, and the ships that have sailed upon
its waters. Such now is the Church of many churches ; but the
genuine Christianity thereof is limited to that thin thread of “ the
pure water of life which has trickled down from the divine source,
Jesus. It is, therefore, a fallacy to speak of the development of
Christianity; if it were born full-grown and perfect, how could it
admit of development ? The great churches have swelled from it,
but how ? By unlimited dilution and adulteration. They have
taken to themselves the things of this world, which are alien from
true Christianity; they have allied themselves with the powers of
this world, which are hostile to true Christianity ; they have mixed
reason with faith, science with Providence, time with eternity,
earth with Heaven, wealth with poverty, comfort with asceticism,
self-indulgence with self-renunciation; and this unclean.composite
slush is the Holy water of Ecclesiasticism, but assuredly it is not
the “living water ” of Christ. As well talk of developing a bottle
of good wine into a barrel, by flooding it with gallons of ink, milk,
gin, beer, and blood.
And this fallacy of the development of Christianity suggests
another not less gross : the fallacy that former Freethinkers have
been refuted, because modern Freethinkers as a rule take other
grounds for attack. The shifting is always due, not to the repulse
of the assailants, but to the retreat of the assailed. Speaking
broadly, no Freethought assault on the entrenchments of Chris
tianity has ever been baffled. But as the Christian champions
were driven out of one line they withdrew to another ; and the
Freethinkers in following up their success of course had to abandon
their old parallels. Sap and mine had done their work effectually
there, and must be advanced against the next inner line. Driven
' out of this in turn, the Christians fell back on another, to be there
duly beleagured by the ever-advancing Secularists. Let us
honestly confess that the Christians have shown immense ingenuity
and industry in planning and throwing up entrenchment within
entrenchment. Let us honestly admit that they have made a most
stubborn defence, having such mighty power and enormous wealth
to fight for. But the leaguer cannot last for ever. Storming one
after another, steadily and irresistibly, these concentric lines, we
must at length girdle and constrain the inmost citadel with a ring
of fire and iron, not to be broken by sallies from within, not to be
�62
SECULAR TEACHINGS
broken by assaults from without, which, indeed, are not to be
feared, since all the open country is friendly. Then the last hold
of the Christian Church will have its choice of surrender or starva
tion ; with' the chance of some stray bombshell exploding her
magazine, blowing casemates and garrison to the—fourth person
in the Christian Godhead. If she has then any sense left, she will
abdicate the usurped powers she has abused, disgorge the vast
treasures she has stolen and obtained • under false pretences, and
come down to live human life with human kind, happier and better
than she ever has been as Priestess of Delusions and Empress of
Slaves.
The Primitive Church was the realized ideal of genuine Chris
tianity, In so far as any of the modern Churches deviate from
this archetype they are degenerate and corrupt, void of the essen
tial spirit of Christianity. The first Christians, we are told, were
filled with the Holy Ghost, had the gift of tongues, worked miracles,
were delivered by angels, had all things in common, suffered all
things for Christ’s sake, believed that the end of the world was at
hand as Jesus had assured them, cared nothing for patriotism or
political freedom, had absolute faith, were opposed to the wise and
prudent, but at one with babes, preferred celibacy to marriage; we.
are even told, though it seems incredible to our modern experi
ence, that they continued together in one accord and loved each
other. In so far as our modern professors resemble these, they are
real Christians: in so far as they differ from these, not Christians
at all. Thus the Pope and the Ultramontanes are consistent
Christians in denouncing Rationalism, Liberalism, Science; in
encouraging celibacy ; in valiantly continuing to cultivate miracles,
scornful of a sceptical world ; and the Pope is signally consistent
in enduring persecution and the horrible imprisonment of the
Vatican, for the sake of the Church, and in the unlimited dust he
shakes off his feet against those who refuse to receive him. The
Catholic Apostolic Church of Edward Irving is consistently
Christian in claiming and exercising the primitive endowments,
such as the power to work miracles and edification by unknown
tongues. The Shakers are consistent Christians in having all
things in common; and the Peculiar People in depending upon
Prayer and Providence instead of worldly Science for the cure o I
disease. On the contrary, all the Churches and Sects are incon
sistent and un-Christian in so far as they add to or take from the
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
b3
revealed Word of God, in so far as they compromise with the
world and common-sense, in so far as they care for the mortal body
and neglect the immortal soul, in so far as they depend upon work
and science instead of prayer and providence, in so far as they are
concerned with this life instead of the life to come.
Christianity is essentially inert, stagnant, with its ideal perfec
tion in the past, Secularism is essentially active, progressive, with
its ideal of a loftier and nobler mundane existence in the future.
It is chained and riveted to no stark dogmas, it has no infallible
Book like a millstone round its neck, it is imprisoned in no admantine creeds and formulas. It has no decrees of Popes nor authority
of Thirty-nine Articles to retard its intellectual advancement. It
refuses to regulate its modern life by the dictums of by-gone days.
Its rftendacity is not fixed to the “ rock” of the first century. On
the contrary, Secularism is constantly growing in thought with the
constant growth of Science, it is always open to the corrections of
Experienee, it holds no theories so tenaciously that it is not ready
to fling them away directly facts contradict them. As time rolls
. on and the treasures of the universe are revealed by the activity of
the human mind, Secular philosophy is ever ready to avail itself of
this natural revelation. It assimilates gladly all it can find of good
and true in the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, as in Homer, Dante,
and Shakespeare, without burdening itself with what it deems bad
or false. It is ever increasing in action with the ever-increasing
inter-communication between the various countries of the world,
and the ever-increasing common interests of their inhabitants. Its
life of life is unintermitted activity and progress.
XIV. SECULARISM: ITS STRUGGLES IN THE PAST.
Although the name Secularism is comparatively new, the prin
ciples it embodies were recognized and influential long before the
birth of Christianity. The old classical religions were in a large
measure Secularistic, notwithstanding their myths, which, indeed,
were more fanciful than gloomily superstitious; they deified the
powers of nature, the great inventors and improvers of the useful
and beautiful arts, and the heroes who compelled into orderly
�64
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
peace the disorders of the world. They did not starve and degrade
this life in subservience to a dubious hereafter. And the old.
classical sages, who dissolved the grossness of the myths into sym
bols and allegories of natural and moral philosophy, had carried
far the cultivation of reason and science, before the blight of
Christianity fell upon them, and kept them barren for more than a
thousand years. In Alexandria, the great capital in which the
intellect and culture of the East met and commingled with those
of the West, there was immense literary and scientific activitylong before and long after the Christian era. Libraries of hun
dreds of thousands of volumes were collected in the Museum and
the Serapion ; there were zoological and botanical gardens ; experi
ments were vigorously carried on. The Alexandrians knew that
the earth is a globe; they had correct ideas of the poles, the axis,,
the equator, the arctic and antarctic circles, distribution of climafbs,
&c. They had invented a fire engine and a steam engine. The
geometry of Euclid comes from them ; the genius and achieve
ments of Archimedes in pure and applied mathematics h^ve pro
bably never been surpassed ; Ptolemy’s “ Treatise on the Mathe
matical Construction of the Heavens ” remained unequalled and
uncontroverted until the time of Copernicus. Christianity, with
its contempt for this world, and the science of this world, with its
fanatical visions of a new Jerusalem, coming in the clouds, swelled
to a delug< and overwhelmed the fruitful fields of philosophy with
ignorance and delusion. Constantine adopted it as a powerful
engine of statecraft, and it was adapted to the popular gross
Paganism in order to render it agreeable to the masses. No
historical facts can be more certainly proved than that the greater
part of the rites and symbols of Christianity came from the Pagan
idolatry, and most of the subtleties of its theology from Pagan
metaphysics. On the ground that all truth was contained in the
infallible Word of God, the early fathers and their successors for
centuries firmly held (and woe to him who overtly disagreed with
them !) that the earth was a plane, with the sky for dome, and the
sun, moon, and stars for lamps; with Heaven above the sky, and
Hell beneath the earth. Their chronology and geology, in so far
as they could be said to have any, were equally absurd, being
based on the Book of Genesis. St. Augustine got Pelagius con
demned, and the great truth established that there was no death
in the world before the Fall of Adam and Eve ! In Alexandria
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
65
itself Christianity celebrated its triumph over human reason by
destroying the Serapion and scattering its incomparable library,
and by.murdering Hypatia. The sweet Saint Cyril, who instigated
a Christian mob to this foul and brutal murder, was the same re
presentative of piety who triumphed over the Nestorians, and
foisted the worship of the Virgin into the Church ; Mary and her
son being but a Christian revival of the old Egyptian Isis and
Horus. Faith being supreme, science lay in a long catalepsy.
For fifteen hundred years Christendom did not produce a single
astronomer. Even the pure mathematics, which needed no experi
ment or apparatus, were utterly neglected ; the monks and hermits
believing that they had better things to think of! The learned
(by comparison) were, chiefly occupied with miraculous legends,
commentaries ingeniously obscuring the obscurities of the Bible,
disputes about mysteries and dogmas of which none really knew
or could know anything. The knights and nobles were always
fighting among themselves, or plundering traders and artisans.
The Church, as it grew more powerful, grew more worldly and
corrupt; Popes bribed and intrigued for election ; two, and even
three, at one time fought and cursed each other; bishops and
abbots were great luxurious lords ; monasteries and nunneries,
which at first were the dungeons of starved and mutilated
lives, grew proverbial for all voluptuousness ; Rome was the com
mon sink for the worst vices of all Europe. The peasantry and
labourers were mere serfs, crushed in hopeless misery beneath
feudal exactions and despotism. Their food was the food of hogs,,
their cabins were sties. As no laws of nature were acknowledged,,
no sanitary measures were thought of, though from the general
filth and want dreadful plagues and famines were frequent; the
Church got a rich revenue from shrine-cures, and relic-cures, and
miraculous cures of all sorts, which were so beneficial to the peo
ple that it has been reckoned that in England, to take one example,
the population scarcely doubled during the five hundred years
succeeding the Norman Conquest. As for superstition, it was
omnipotent; the air was supposed to swarm with devils and
angels ; witchcraft was thpught to be so common that “ witches”
and “ wizards ” were always being put to death ; relics commanded
a fetish worship as degraded as exists among the lowest tribes of
Africa.
Such was the beatific civilization established by Christianity (of
�66
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
whose civilizing influences we hear so much) after a thousand
years ! Whence came the re-awaking of the spirit of Secularism,
which has already brought us to a condition that, with, all its
drawbacks, is perfection itself compared with that of the holy
Middle Ages, so dear to the sentimental faithful ? Was it aroused
by some growth of Christianity within, or was it stirred from with
out ? It was stirred from without, for Christianity had no life in
itself for the development. Mohammedanism, with all its faults
and errors, kept itself pure from the base idolatry almost universal
in Christendom, and fostered to a certain extent literature, science,
and all the useful arts. Scholars tell us that the great Persian
poets rank with the greatest poets of all time. The noble works of
the Greek philosophers were translated into Arabic ; hence the
revival of learning and science in the West. The Moors in Spain
were centuries ahead of the rest of Europe in every department of
civilization. The Jews, whose treatment by Christians in the
Middle Ages was simply fiendish, were well treated by the Moslems,
tolerant of everything but image-worship, and developed trade,
and were skilful physicians. We know too well how both the
Moors and Jews of Spain were dealt with when the Christians had
re-conquered that country. The Crusaders, who went out in half
millions about twice a century, to recover the Holy Land from the
accursed Paynims, were hordes of barbarians, strong only in brute
strength and steel armour, compared with the liberal and culti
vated Saracens. When Godfrey took Jerusalem in 1099, he and
his chiefs wrote to the Pope that they had enjoyed a week’s
massacre of the Infidels, till “ our people had the blood of the
Saracens up to the knees of their horses.” From this commerce
between East and West came the revival of science, learning, and
art in Europe, which made the introduction of the basis of Secular
philosophy possible. The Greek and Latin classics were studied,
and as learning spread beyond the monkish cells heresies sprang
up, heresies which were the first faint germinations of Freethought
amidst the mental slavery of the Church, which fiercely resisted
,^-ygry step of progress—physical, moral, and intellectual. The
•only good things the Church seemed to foster were the fine arts ;
and these were really fostered, not by its Christianity, but by its
Paganism. For the Popes and Dignitaries of the Renaissance
were mere pagans, and its lovely Madonnas and babes are but
Venuses and Cupids with halos. As Mr. Ruskin candidly testifies
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
67
in the second volume of his “Stones of Venice”: “ I never met
with a Christian whose heart was thoroughly set upon the world
to come, and so far as human judgment could pronounce, perfect
and right before God, who cared about art at all.”
It is but fair to admit that the sceptical elements associated
with the Reformation of the sixteenth century ‘played an impor
tant part in preparing the way for the consolidation of Secular
principles. Doubtless the religious reformers, in fighting for free
dom, gave an impetus to Freethought. But, unfortunately, daunt
less as they were, they lacked consistency. Having reached the
pinnacle of freedom, they forgot the rugged path up which they
had climbed. Having overcome the tyranny of their oppressors,
they themselves persecuted those who desired to travel further on
the road of progress. Hence, liberty was deprived of much of
its valuable service through the influence of theology on the minds
of men who commenced fighting the battle of freedom, but who
had to yield to the dictates of a limited and exclusive faith. The
Freethought of to-day has been stimulated by men who cared little
or nothing for popular religion at a time when orthodoxy was at
its lowest ebb. The last century, the years from 1700 to 1800, was
the least religious, the least Christian century of the Christian era.
It was the era of philosophy, of science and of Freethought ; of
Voltaire, of Rousseau and of Hume; of Black, with his discovery
of the true principles of heat; of Dalton, with his discoveries in
chemistry; of Watt, with his improvement of the steam-engine;
of Hume, with his demonstrations of the absurdity of religion;
and of Thomas Paine, with his clear exposition of the great fun
damental principles of government. These are the men who have
really assisted in the progress of the world. Their principles have
sown the seeds of modern progress. To their efforts we are in
debted for much of the prosperity of the nineteenth century. As
Theodore Parker once said, the progressive philosophers of
Christendom to-day are not Christians. The leaders of science
and philanthropy in modern times are men who have the love o
•truth and the love of justice, who possess large and benevolent
hearts, but who have no practical faith in Christianity.
How the Church encouraged Freethought in the past may be
read in the lives of heretics and the histories of heresies : Abelard,
Arnold of Brescia, Bruno, Vanini, Dolet, Berquin, Huss, Servetus,
..Latimer, Ridley; the Waldenses, Albigenses, Lollards, Coven-
�*
68
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
anters. How she encouraged science may be seen in her condem
nations of the works of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo. First sheresisted printing, then tried to control it with her Index Expurgatoiius, her list of books forbidden to be read, being, in fact, a list
of books best worth reading. She opposed insurance, inoculation,
and vaccination ; she condemned the use of anaesthetics in ob
stetrics as impiously tending to remove from women the curse
imposed by God as recorded in Genesis. Geology, of course, she
has resisted with all the little might left her, for its immense cycles
of life make unutterably absurd her Biblical chronology of six
thousand years. She has steadfastly done her best and worst to
keep us back, and she has always been beaten in the long run ; she
could imprison, banish, and murder isolated men and women, and
even multitudes of men and women; but she could not for ever
imprison the human mind, or banish free thought, or murder our
aspirations toward liberty and light. Yet, in justice to her, to prove
how consistently and persistently she has struggled against pro
gress, two instances may be cited. It has been reckoned that be
tween 1481 and 1808 the Holy Inquisition punished 340,000 persons,
of whom nearly 32,000 were “ punished as gently as possible, and
without effusion of blood,” or, in common English, were burnt
alive; and Buckle refers to a list of 60,000 Dissenters, mentioned
by Jeremy White,, who in the 17th century were persecuted by the
Church of England, of whom no less than 5,000 died in prison.
XV.
SECULARISM : ITS DEFINITE SERVICE TO
MANKIND.
It is urged by orthodox believers, as an objection to Secularism,,
that its principles have not accomplished the same amount of good
for society that Christianity has. This comparison, however, is as
unjust as the conclusion drawn therefrom is fallacious. In order
that opposing principles shall produce equally beneficial results, it
is necessary that both shall have the same opportunities and facili
ties for manifesting their respective worth. This has not been thecase with the two systems under consideration; for while Christianity
has had nearly eighteen hundred years to exhibit its value, the
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
69
public recognition of Secularism is but of comparatively recent
■date. Besides,Christianity has commanded all the advantages which
wealth, influence, and patronage could bestow, while Secularism
has had to struggle in the cold shade of opposition, against theo
logical prejudices and religious persecutions. And history and
experience testify to the fact that systems which appeal to the
fears, the weaknesses, and the credulity of a people, have a better
chance of temporary success, than those principles whose claims
are submitted to the judgment of mankind. Hence; Secularists
are less emotional, as a rule, in their advocacy than orthodox
Christians are. Secularists seek to win with the aid of argument,
not with the use of threats. They, believing in works of utility,
pursue an even course of conduct, disregarding alike the perplex
ities of a mystic faith, and the allurements of the orthodox fancied
life beyond the grave.
The question is, has Secularism achieved more useful results
during its brief existence as an organized force than Christianity
accomplished in a relative time of its primitive days ? Unques
tionably we answer in the affirmative. It is a favourite boast of
■orthodox exponents that Secularists have built no hospitals,
erected no orphan asylums, and established no homes for the poor.
It is true that in their distinctive organization Secularists have not
had an opportunity to .do this, but in their individual capacity they
have always rendered valuable support to these useful agencies,
and for hundreds of years Christians did no more. It is the height
of folly to suppose that we are indebted to the Christian faith for
the benevolence of the worid. Professor Max Muller has shown
that philanthropy and charity existed in abundance long before
Christianity dawned upon the world, that the chief characteristic
of Buddhist morality was chanty, and that Buddha himself pro
claimed, the brotherhood of man and exhorted the rich to perform
their duty by giving to the poor. That eminent and impartial
author, R. Bosworth Smith, M. A., of Trinity College, Oxford,
furnishes some valuable facts upon this subject in his work
on Mohammedanism. “ No Christian,” says he, “ need be sorry
to learn, or be backward to acknowledge, that, contrary to what is
usually supposed, two of these noble institutions [hospitals and
lunatic asylums] which flourish now most in Christian countries
. . . . owe their origin and their early spread, not to his own
religion, but to' the great heart of humanity, which beats in two
�7o
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
other of the grandest religions of the world ” (“ Mohammed and
Mohammedanism,” p. 253). The writer then goes on to demon
strate that “ hospitals are the direct outcome of Buddhism,” and
that lunatic asylums are the result of “ Mohammedan influence.’
Lecky also observes that “ no lunatic asylum existed in Christian
Europe till the fifteenth century. The Mohammedans, in this form
of charity, preceded the Christians ” (“ History of European
Morals,” vol 2, p. 94).
Thus it will be seen that these institutions are not fruit from the
Christian tree. Such monuments of charity are supported by
benevolence, which is a human instinct belonging exclusively to no
one nation and to no one people. It is to be found wherever human
nature exists. It obtained long before Christianity was heard of,,
and it will doubtless continue to benefit mankind when the Chris
tian faith has shared the fate of other imperfect systems. If
benevolence is a Christian instinct only, how is it that we find it so
largely displayed by those who have no faith in Christianity ? Vol
taire was no Christian, yet his benevolent acts won words of praise
from Lord Brougham. Robert Owen, who had no sympathies
with the religions of the world, spent a life and fortune in doing
good to his fellow-creatures. During the distress in 1806, caused
by the embargo placed on the ports of America, this Freethought
philanthropist paid ^70,000 for wages while his mills were stopped,,
rather than the families of his work-people should suffer through
the lack of employment. Surely, this was disinterested benevo
lence. The history of Stephen Girard, the Philadelphia merchant,
indicates how “ infidelity” and philanthropy may be allied. Girard
was a “ total disbeliever in the Christian religion.” Notwith
standing this, during his life he gave the following proofs of his
generous nature:—“He subscribed $110,000 for purposes of
navigation, $10,000 towards the erection of a public exchange, and
$200,000 for railway enterprises. At his death he bequeathed
$30,000 to the Pennsylvania Hospital, $20,000 t® the deaf and
dumb institution, $10,000 to the public schools of Philadelphia,
and the same amount to the orphan asylum. In addition to these
bequests, Girard left large sums of money to the general poor,
and for sanitary and social improvements.”
James Lick
gave more than $1,000,000 for scientific and benevolent
purposes; James Smithson, an unbeliever, left half-a-million
to found the Smithsonian Institute at Washington; Peter
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
7r
Brigham gave $3,000,000 for the purpose of establishing
hospitals for the sick-poor of Boston ; John Redmon gave $400,000 '
to support free beds in the hospitals at Boston ; William McClure
gave half-a-million to aid the workingmen of Indiana. In Glas
gow, Scotland, the Mitchell Library, with its bequest of £70,000,
is the legacy of a Socialist and a Freethinker. Mr. George Baillie,
of the same city, left over £18,000 to establish unsectarian schools,
reading rooms, etc.; and the Haldan bequest, of Glasgow, and
the Glen Institution were gifts of those who had no faith in the
religion of the Churches. The fact is, benevolence is a human
instinct born of human sympathy and stimulated by utility, which
is pre-eminently a Secular principle.
It is alleged that the service of Secularism to the world has been
impaired in consequence of its being partly negative in its advocacy.
But its positive teachings should not be overlooked. Moreover,
if negation be an error, Christianity is certainly not free from it,
inasmuch as it negates all systems but its own, and even to that it
is not consistently positive. But why this professed alarm at
negative advocacy ? Is negation to error a crime ? Is the
destruction of wrong useless to society ? Is it no service to man
kind, while shams are regarded as realities and falsehoods wor
shipped as truth, to pursue a negative course of action ? Should
we be wise in being positive to foolish conjectures about another
world and injurious conduct in this ? £)n the contrary, it is necessary,
to prepare public opinion for the reception of advanced views by
clearing the human mind of the weeds of error, that we may have
some hope of successfully planting the flowers of truth. Instead,
therefore, of believing indiscriminately in ancient creeds, the Secular
advocate deems it wise to examine all faiths presented to him, and to
seek to destroy what is contained therein that is inimical to modern
improvement. The province of Secularism is not only to enunciate
positive principles, but also to break up old systems which have lost
their vitality, and to refute theologies which have hitherto usurped
judgment and reason. Secularism relies on no dogmas, and pays
no heed to religious theories about saving faith. It professes to
know nothing about worlds beyond the tomb, and asserts, should
there be any, their duties do not commence here. It declines
to be dictated to by any priests, or to listen to the ridiculous stories
about alleged sacred books. It recognizes no church but that of
humanity, and knows no code of morals but that which is based
�72
SECULAR TEACHINGS
upon the happiness of man. Whatever interferes with general
usefulness, Secularism regards as dangerous to the commonwealth.
Hence the Secularist opposes orthodox Christianity, because
he considers it antagonistic to the principles of utility. Secularism,
however, is not limited to “ cold negation.” While as Secularists
we are negative to the follies of theology, we are positive to the
wisdom of humanity ; while many of us reject what is said to per
tain to the supernatural, we readily accept that which belongs to
the natural, and deem it right to conform as far as possible to
nature’s laws. Experience proves that such obedience is the best
guarantee against the many “ ills that flesh is heir to.” Thus
Secularism inculcates the most positive duties of life, such as the
study of physiology, by which man can learn to know himself; a
knowledge of the chemistry of food, water, and air, whereby he may
be able to maintain a healthy organization ; an acquaintance with
the mental nature of man, which will enable us to know how cir
cumstances impel us in a certain direction, producing vice here,
virtue there, morality at one time, and immorality at another; a
consciousness of domestic obligations which will prompt men to
provide by their own industry for those dependent upon them, and
to seek to make provision by care and prudence for the evening of
life.
Secular workers have found it necessary to till and prepare the
soil of the human mind for the reception of the seed of truth
which has slowly but surely developed into flowers of mental
liberty.
True liberty is not the offshoot of a day, but
rather the growth of years. “ Our Elliots, our Hampdens, and our
Cromwells, a couple of centuries ago, hewed with their broad-swords
a rough pathway for the people. But it was reserved for the present
century to complete the triumph which the Commonwealth began.’’
And this is just the century in which Secularism has manifested
its activity. The battle of the freedom of the press and liberty of
speech has been nobly fought, and practically won, but the victory
cost Paine, Hone, Wright, Carlile, Williams, Hetherington, Wat
son, and many others their liberty, and imposed upon them priva
tions which were keen to endure. For selling the Poor Man's
Guardian only, upwards of 500 persons were thrown into prison.'
For publishing the “ Age of Reason” in 1797, Williams suffered
twelvemonths’ imprisonment in Coldbath prison. In 1812, Daniel
Isaac Eaton was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
73
the pillory, for the same grave offence ; and the following year, Mr.
Houston was sentenced to be imprisoned for two years in Newgate,
and fined /200, for publishing his book called “ Ecce Homo.” In
October, 1819, Carlile was tried for publishing Paine’s Theological
Works, and Palmer’s “ Principles of Nature,” and condemned for
the first to Dorchester Gaol, and a fine of ^1,000; and for the
second to one year’s imprisonment, and a fine of ^500, and had to
find security for good behaviour for himself in ^"i,ooo, and two
securities in ^100 each. His wife and sister were afterwards con
victed of similar acts, and suffered heavy sentences. Upwards of
thirty other persons, many of them journeymen of Mr. Carlile,
and the rest small booksellers, were also subjected to fine and
imprisonment in various degrees of severity. After this, Charles
Southwell was imprisoned and fined ^100, for publishing an article
in the Oracle of Reason.
The Christian Church has ever persecuted those who differed
from its teachings. This desire to promote free enquiry in its
early history was exemplified in the memorable proclamation of
the Christian Emperor Theodosius, in which he declared that
the whole of the writings of Porphyry, and all others who had
written against the Christian religion, should be committed
to the fire.
The writings of Celsus met with an equally
warm reception, and for a proof that the same desire has existed in
modern times, it is necessary not only to read the history of those
Freethought pioneers of the last and early part of the present cen
tury, but also to remember that now, whenever Christians have
the power, they close the halls against us, in order that we may
not have the opportunity to promulgate the . material for free in
quiry.
Thus it will be seen that Secularism in the past has of necessity
been principally destructive, having had to fight for its right of
existence; till this was won it had no opportunity of exemplifying
its constructive powers. It was reserved for a more recent date to
formulate its principles into order and practical working. This is
the pleasing task in which the Secular party is now engaged ; and
that is a work which we hope and believe will make Secularism an
important factor in the training and elevation of the present
generation.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
Z4
XVI.
SECULARISM : ITS PRESENT TRIUMPHS.
What benefits have accrued to us from the victories of our fore
fathers in the long and desperate conflict between Science and’
Religion ? The Copernican system, perfected mathematically by
Newton, in the words of Leibnitz, “ robbed the Deity of some of
his best attributes, and sapped the foundation of natural religion.’r
For people who. believed that the earth was the centre and chief of
the universe, the sun and moon and stars being merely little lamps
moving around it, and the sky a canopy above it, it was not ridi
culous to conceive that beyond the sky there was a Heaven, be
neath the flat earth a Hell; and that God was supremely interested!
in mundane affairs, and especially in the destiny of man, the
noblest creature of this royal earth. But such conceptions are
worse than ridiculous, they are idiotic, when we know that our
globe is a speck so minute in the Immensity of Space, that “ a full
stop in this print, as seen by the naked eye at a distance of twofeet, is several hundred times larger than the earth as seen from
the sun; ” while from the nearest of the fixed stars it would bequite indistinguishable with telescopes much’ more powerful than
we possess. If God gave his Only Son for us animalcules on this
microscopic spherule, what could he do for the Illimitable Uni
verse ? It is now seen that there is no above and no beneath; no
place for Heaven or Hell. And we are not less insignificant in the
boundlessness of Time than of Space. It is true that our race was
in existence myriads of years before the date of birth entered in the
family Bible, but other animals and the earth itself were in ex
istence myriads of years before us ; and as the condition of the earth
is ever changing, all probabilities point to the prospect of the earth
itself and other creatures being in existence myriads of ages after
we are extinct. A hopeful look-out tor our immortal souls!
While astronomy and geology have thus dethroned the earth
and man, dissolved Heaven and Hell, and reduced the Book of
Genesis to a jejune fable, the progress of all the sciences has im
pressed upon us the universality and immutability of law, the
invariable sequences of events, thus slaying miracle, despatching
Special Providence, and rendering prayer for celestial help a child
ish folly. Most of us look to medicin'e and sanitary measures for
health, not to supplication and shrined relics. And in most of us
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
75
are included our so-called Christians, for, in spite of their dogmas,
the greater part of their lives are conducted on the principles of
Secularism, though generally it is a Secularism deprived of many
of its better qualities. They shut down their brains on Sundays
in church, but keep them open with their shops all the week.
They are now willing to avail themselves of all the benefits of
science, but beg us not to shock their bashfulness by exposing its
principles and deductions in all their naughty nakedness.
If the question is asked, Is the present age practically Christian
or Secular ? to whom or to what shall we appeal for an answer ?
Shall we go to the Church of Rome? No; for its spirit is con
fessedly that of the past ages. Times change, governments alter,,
nations rise, civilizations come and go, but Catholicism remains
the same. Its philosophy is still that of Thomas Aquinas; its
creeds are still damnatory upon all who cannot accept them in
every jot or tittle. Shall we appeal to the Anglican Church ? No ;
for that Church refuses liberty of thought and speech to even her
own children, as when she visited with excommunication, obloquy
and reproach the endeavours of Bishop Colenso to throw the light
of reason upon the hitherto dark cells wherein the Pentateuch was
enshrouded from public inquiry. Not to either of these must we
make application,- but rather to the science, literature, philosophy
and politics of this nineteenth century of the Christian era.
First, then, let us appeal to science. “ Is the Bible scientifically
true ? ” To the geologist we say, “ Ought we to accept unques
tioningly the Bible account of the Creation ? ” The answer is dis
tinctly, “ No ! ” To the anthropologist we say, “ Is it true that all
mankind have proceeded directly from one man and one woman ? ”
The answer is distinctly, “ No!” To the astronomer we say, “ Is it
likely that sun, moon, planets and stars were made in order to
give light to the earth ? ” The answer is a decided “ No ! ” “ Is
it,” we ask, “ true that the sun and moon stood still at the com
mand of Joshua ? ” The astronomer says : “ No ; such a thing
would,in the nature of things,have wrecked and destroyed the solar
system.” To the critical scholar, the man whose life has been de
voted to the study of the age and the authenticity of the, different
portions of the Bible, we next apply to know whether these por
tions of the book were written by the men whose names they bear,
and in the age wherein their alleged occurrences transpired. He,
too, says: “ No ; these books are wholly human in their origin ;
•
�76
SECULAR TEACHINGS
they have been antedated, interpolated, added to and taken from j
you must not accept them as being the very word of the very God.”
So much for the characteristic of the age as represented by
science. If we turn to literature, what does that tell us ? That it
is wholly emancipated from the trammels of theology, that the
priest and the Index Expurgatorius no longer control it. There
was a time when the literature of Europe was confined to works
of theology and devotion. The first book, we believe, printed by
Caxton was a Bible, then a Missal, and so on. Lives of the saints
were abundant, telling of martyrs who, like St. Denis, walked
about with their heads in their hands after they had been decapi
tated, of ten thousand virgins murdered at once, and other fictions
even more incredible. All this, however, has been changed ; our
literature now pays little or no heed to theology. True it is that
Bibles are multiplied by the million ; that goody-goody tracts and
pious story-books are circulated in all directions ; but these do not
form the literature of the age. No ; that is the production of the
leading spirits of the time—of its doctors, its political writers, its
scientists, its lawyers, and its philosophers. Monthly, weekly—
aye, and even daily, the Press teems with productions many of
which are utterly at variance with the theological dogmas of the
past,
It is admitted even by eminent divines that the phase of unbelief
known as Agnosticism is a prominent characteristic of the age.
Agnosticism declares that we have no knowledge of God ; that we
cannot pretend to say that such a Supreme Intelligence exists ;
and that we are absolutely precluded from affirming that the uni
verse is really destitute of such a central Nous, or Highest Intelli
gence: “ Canst thou,” asked the writer of the grand old Semitic
drama—“ Canst thou by searching find out God ? ” This inter
rogation the honest Agnostic has put to himself, and after long and
earnest exercitation of mind, after the intensest study of the world
external and of the inner consciousness, he arrives at the conclu■ sion that the question cannot be satisfactorily answered, either
affirmatively or negatively.
The Philosophy of the age is far different to what it was when
men made their ignorance the standard of belief. There was a
time when even leeks, onions, and salt were worshipped as emblems
of power and of the preserving influence. We have outgrown such
idle Fetichism, and we believe that priestcraft has in the past
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
77
imposed these and all other theologies upon the world. It is not true
that there is something in the heart of man which beats responsive
to the figments of theologians. Fancy yourselves in a desolate "
island left to shift for yourselves from childhood, without either
priests or Bibles, or any means of becoming acquainted with the
thoughts and imaginings of other men in other regions. In such a
situation is it to be supposed that people’s hearts would prompt to
the education of the doctrine of the Trinity, of the necessity of
baptism, of regeneration, of the Apostle’s Creed, or the ThirtyNine Articles ? Where would be natural religion in such a case ?
The probability is that, except people were strong-minded, if they
were barbaric and ignorant, they would do as their distant pre
decessors in human history did—that is, fall down before and wor
ship the thunder, the tornado, the sun, or the starry host. Each
of these phenomena, then, would be endowed with a latent spirit,
and, in process of time, have added to them one supreme Unknown
Being, for whom would be invented a designation equivalent to
our word God.
Orthodox Christians misrepresent the philosophy of the age,
because they have been trained from infancy to attribute all things
whatever to a being external to themselves. But the present age
is more practical than any other by which it has been preceded : its
energies are directed towards its own improvement.
c
The political world is conducted on Secular principles ; scientific
research is unfettered by theology, and is, therefore, Secular ; and
the practical ethics of modern society are utilitarian, and are,
therefore, Secular. Happy, indeed, is it for the world that its
politics are now finally severed from religion. The stronghold of
the successful statesman to-day is the standard of utility. In his
reasoning, his whole argument is made to rest upon this, the
foundation of permanent progress. The career of Mr. Cobden in
England, and Mr. Lincoln in America, were illustrations of the
secularization of our modern public life.” They reveal to us the
path by which those must tread, whose ambition it is to benefit
their age. Had they lived a few hundred years ago, they might
have built churches, or founded monasteries,' or endowed colleges,
—been the Wyckhams or St. Bernards of their time. Their lot
was rather to legislate and agitate—to give food to the hungry,
to undo heavy burdens, and to set the oppres sed free ; to remove
impediments from the path of national progress, that human de-
�78
SECULAR TEACHINGS
velopment might be left to its own laws, to seek its welfare in its
own way. Life thus became to them mundane, secular, rational,
non-theological, spent amid the hard practical conflicts of politics,
and aiming at nothing higher than the advancement of justice,
righteousness, and liberty in the world.”
Indeed, this ignoring Christian principles as a guide is not con
fined to public men. Christians themselves have long since ceased
to be influenced in their every-day actions by the teachings of
their Master. In his work upon “ Liberty,” John Stuart Mill says,
that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individ
ual conduct by reference to those (New Testament) laws.” The
reason why those laws cannot be obeyed in the nineteenth century
is given in the words of Mill, that “ the morality of Christ is in
many important points incomplete and onesided, and that, unless
ideas and feelings not sanctioned by it, had contributed to the
formation of European life and character, human affairs would
have been in a worse condition than they now are.” The same
writer tells us that, “ other ethics than any which can
be evolved from exclusively Christian sources, must exist
side by side with Christian ethics to produce the moral
regeneration of mankind.” Buckle also in his “ History of
Civilization,” after showing that until doubt began, civilization
was impossible, and that the religious tolerance we now have has
been forced from the clergy by the secular classes, states “ that
the act of doubting is the originator, or at all events, the necessary
antecedent of all progress. Here we have that scepticism, the
very name of which is an abomination to the ignorant, because it
disturbs their lazy and complacent minds ; because it troubles
their cherished superstitions ; because it imposes on them the
fatigue of inquiry ;' and because it rouses even sluggish under
standings to ask if things are as they are commonly supposed, and
if all is really true which they from their childhood have been
taught to believe. The more we examine this great principle of
scepticism, the more distinctly shall we see the immense part it
has played in the progress of European civilization. To state in
general terms what in this introduction will be fully proved, it may
be said, that to scepticism we owe that spirit of inquiry which,
during the last two centuries, has gradually encroached on every
possible subject; has reformed every department of practical and
speculative knowledge; has weakened the authority of the privi-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
t
79
leged classes, and thus placed liberty on a surer foundation ; has
chastised the despotism of princes ; has restrained the arrogance
of the nobles, and has even diminished the prejudices of the clergy.
In a word, it is this which has remedied the three fundamental
errors of the olden time : errors which made the people, in politics
too confiding; in science too credulous ; in religion too intolerant.”
Thus, as the result of persistent Secular advocacy, we can con
gratulate ourselves upon having achieved many important
triumphs. We have a freedom of speech unknown in Christian
times. The press is more liberal than it ever was. Education is
becoming more secular every year, and orthodox persecution dare
not manifest itself as it di$l in the past. Hell is shut up, and the
•devil is practically dead, while the churches have left their old
moorings and are seeking to adapt their teachings to the Secular
requirements of the age.
We are told that the ethics of Jesus Christ are contained in the
four Gospels, and to the four Gospels they have ever been confined. Like
the old-fashioned silk dress of the old-fashioned cottager, they have
always been kept locked up, as being excellent to look at but too
fine for daily use. No man has ever succeeded, despite his protes
tations, in loving his enemy as himself; no man has ever turned the
second cheek to the ready blow of the smiter ; no man has syste
matically neglected himself out of a regard for the prosperity of his
•enemies. Indeed, the very heroes of the Bible never did this.
David cursed his persecutors ; the Apostles called down vengeance
from heaven upon Ananias, Sapphira, and Simon Magus; Paul
delivered over one of his enemies to Satan, “ that he might learn
not to blaspheme ; ” and generally throughout Christian history we
look in vain for the charity which beareth and endureth all things,
In our own age the real test of goodness of conduct is its useful
ness to the world. Though we do not make loud pretensions of
loving those who hate us, the whole gist and scope, of our morality
is directed towards promoting the welfare- of society by means
which will also secure the welfare of its component elements. This
is utilitarianism, not theology ; it is the recognition of the fact that
the thing called Duty is a something between man and man, not
man and God. In our mutual relationship we find the natural en
couragement and motive-power for the display of every virtue.
The theory of immortality has nothing whatever to do with our
prudence, our courage, our honesty, or our purity of character.
�So
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
The stringent, adamantine necessities of our existence imperatively
require the exercise of these virtues. Would we live secure from
peril of death by starvation, of penury the most abject, we must
prudently provide against the danger. Would we preserve our
national independence and individual freedom, we must be pre
pared to defend these against every adversary. Would we wish
to be ensured against false dealing and breach of faith, we must
ourselves deal honestly with all men. Would we keep a “ sound
mind in a sound body,” would we preserve our wives and daughters
from insult, we must keep our passions under restraint, and show
by our own example the wisdom of so living. Upon prudence
truth, courage, honesty, and. temperance is based the whole
edifice of modern civilization. Without them we could not exist
except as barbarians; they must always be the very corner-stones
of societarian morality.
XVII. SECULARISM IN THE FUTURE.
If ever since the Renaissance Science, Art and Freethought have •
steadily advanced in spite of all opposition, and the power of the
Church has steadily decreased ; if Naturalism, in the weak infancy
of its birth, has not only defeated all the attempts of Supernatural
ism to crush it, but has wrested more and more its rightful domains
from the usurper ; we cannot doubt the issue of the conflict be
tween Secularism and its foes now that the former is grown to
vigorous youth and the latter are falling into senile and anile de
crepitude. If Hercules even in his cradle could strangle venomous
serpents, he would have small fear of the brood when he was in
his prime, and they were fangless with age. With the impetus of
our long advance, with the growing momentum of our enlarging
mass and accelerating speed, our progress as Secularists in the
future, so far as human foresight can extend, must be yet more
rapid and irresistible. We have plenty of work before us, and
work abounding with difficulties ; but if the past is the prophet of
the to-come, we have every encouragement and augury of success
in undertaking it. If we and our immediate successors do not
signally triumph, it will be through our lack of courage, or energy,
or wisdom, or of all three ; for the triumph of our principles is sureas soon as they are worthily championed.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
81-
In the first place, we must continue our effort to educate the’
masses of the people, kept ignorant all these centuries back by the:
mental tyranny of Ecclesiasticism. The education on which we
should insist must be free, compulsory, universal, and Secular.
Those who want their children taught some religion can arrange
for this at home, or elsewhere, out of school hours ; the teaching
for which the nation provides must be of subjects which all the
nation recognizes as useful, and these subjects are strictly secular..
We have to remove all legal and other disabilities founded on sex.. *
Although the Christians are fond of boasting that their religion ha&
elevated woman, we know that the New Testament, as well as the
Old, distinctly proclaims her inferiority and subservience to man.
With our belief that all human beings have an equal right to the
full development and the free exercise of their faculties, we are
bound to open to women as to men all spheres of activity. Women,
will succeed in those for which they are fit, they will fail in thosefor which they are not fit; it is waste of time to discuss before
hand their fitness or unfitness for this or that; it is absurd as it is
unjust to hinder them from trying at what they will.
We have to promote sanitation in every direction, the provision
of pure air, pure water, pure food, sufficient house-room for even
the poorest classes. We have to do our utmost to extend and im
prove the cultivation of Science in general, and all the useful arts
which are nurtured by Science; and especially we have to further
both in theory and practice, the doctrines of Sociology, in order
that the just relations of man to man and society may be deter
mined and established in fact, and the present anarchy and hosti
lity between the classes of the privileged and unprivileged may be'
destroyed, and merged into a free and fraternal harmony. We'
have to endeavour to convince our fellow creatures that the real object of existence should be to learn how to live well; and that-’
this can only be accomplished by developing our physical organiza
tion, cultivating our moral sense, and training our intellectual
faculties. We have to enforce the truth that all the real wants of
human nature are comprised under the heads of the physical,
moral, intellectual, social, political, domestic, and emotional re
quirements of mankind ; and that all these requisites are supplied
by Secularism without the aid of any theology.
A few special words may be addressed to our own party, to thosewho are consciously and avowedly Secularists, and profess them-
�82
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
selves anxious to extend the principles and practice of Secularism.
We are stronger than we ever were, not only in ourselves, and in
the comparative freedom with which we can advocate our doc
trines, but also in the increased and ever-increasing amount of
powerful and intelligent opinion in favour of our leading principles,
though not yet consciously or avowedly Secularistic, and in the
diminished and ever-diminishing power of the Supernaturalism
and despotism to which we are opposed. It rests with ourselves
to make the most of our advantages. In the first place, we must
combine more generally, organize more thoroughly, work together
more cordially, than we have ever yet done. We cannot exercise
our due influence, we cannot as we ought hearten ourselves and
dishearten our adversaries without union and co-operation. The
very essence of practical Secularism is social, not isolated, effort;
as our end is freedom, education, health, and happiness in com
mon, we must strive in common for this end. In many towns
there are scattered Secularists who do little or nothing for the
cause, while, if they formed societies, they could do much. Of
course it is not required that any man should surrender or sup
press his convictions on essential points for the sake of conformity
with his brethren. But all genuine Secularists have so much that
is essential in common, that they can honestly act together, and so
multiply their strength, both for attack or resistance. Our devotion
to mental, moral, social, and political freedom should surely enable
us to live together in a brotherhood and sisterhood more cordial
and intimate than can be dreamed of by those whose main object
is selfish prosperity in this life, or selfish beatitude in a life to come,
or the dual selfishness of the one and the other.
Again, even where we have Societies, they are usually much too
restricted in their scope. Lectures, discussions, and reading are
very valuable, and indeed necessary, but it should ever be remem
bered that if a man simply hears Freethought lectures, or reads
.Freethought books himself, leaving his family to gratify their
social instincts in ordinary society, his children will probably grow
up saturated with the prejudices and superstitions from which he
has been freed. We want the wives, children, and other relatives
of our members to be interested and delighted in our work. To
.this end our Societies must be not only schools of instruction, but
also resorts for innocent recreation. We need tender hearts no
less than hard heads, and must cultivate warm feeling as well as
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
83
-cool reasoning. Secularism is little or nothing worth unless it be
-carried out in practice, unless it pervade the whole private and
public life of those who profess it. There are men—we all know
such—who, because they have been delivered from the fetters of
Supernaturalism ; because they have been enabled to learn that
the Bible is, like any other book of ancient times, a mixture of
truth and error, of good and bad; because they see clearly the
injustice of certain laws which bear heavily on themselves; flatter
themselves that they are very wise and distinguished men, far
superior to the vulgar folk about them, that they are shining para
gons of Secularism; while remaining as selfish and immoral as
before they were thus partially enlightened. Such men are not
Secularists at all, they are the opprobrium of Secularism. The
genuine Secularist, ever working toward the greatest good of
. the greatest number, in the light of the clearest wisdom he can
acquire, must be a brave, kindly, sincere and just man. His
Secularism will be felt as a radiating blessing, first and most
warmly and brightly in his own home, and farther off, in propor
tion to their distance, by all his neighbours. If a man neglects and
ill-treats his wife and children, if he is idle and intemperate, if he
cheats in trade or scamps his work, if he is tyrannical to those
beneath him and obsequious to those above him, if he is jealous
and envious, given to slander and falsehood, if he seeks only or
mainly self-gratification, whether of appetite or vanity or pride, we
must distinctly disavow him as a Secularist, however cleverly he
may write, however fluently he may speak, against the doctrines
adverse to our own. Secularism must no longer be charged, with
out protest, with the vices and lack of self-respect of persons v;ho
are really Nothingarians—men who are sceptical to the tenets of
-Christianity, but who never essay to regulate their every-day con
duct in accordance with the moral teachings of practical Secular
ism. We can only achieve a real and enduring triumph, and can
•only deserve to achieve it, by approving ourselves not simply more
intelligent, but also more virtuous, than our opponents, mote
courageous, honest, humane, zealous, and loving.
There is a large class of passive as distinguished from active
Secularists ; persons so circumstanced that they dare not, or think
they dare not, avow themselves publicly, fearing to wound and
estrange friends, or bring injury upon themselves. The cases of
such persons vary so extremely and indefinitely that no peremptory
�84
SECULAR TEACHINGS
counsel can be given applicable to the majority, or even to a large
number, save such as would be founded on the lofty but impracti
cable supposition, that all men ajike must be and can be heroes,,
and, if the occasion calls, martyrs. One consideration, however, can/
safely be urged upon all such persons. They are much more num
erous than they themselves suppose ; so numerous that, if they all
took courage to declare their principles, they would find them
selves far too powerful to suffer from the social obloquy and os
tracism from which they shrink severally in their isolation. EverySecularist is certainly required to show more vigour and couragethan the vulgar bondsmen of creeds and conventionalities. Weare already reaping rich harvests from the fields sown in the tears
and blood of the heroes and martyrs who went before ; it surely
behoves us, to whom by their efforts the task has been rendered somuch easier and less dangerous, to plant and sow more abundantly,
for the reaping and gathering of those who shall come after. Thisis our just debt to our ancestry, which can only be paid to our
posterity. If our forefathers dared undaunted the prison and the
scaffold and the stake, when the ultimate triumph of the Good Old<
Cause was so remote and dubious, we must be degenerate indeed
if we cannot dare some annoyance of ignorant contumely, some
injury to our business or social prospects, when its final victory is,
so much nearer and so assured.
XVIII. SECULARISM: SUMMING UP.
In concluding an exposition of the teachings of Secularism, it may
be of service to the reader to briefly summarize the leading featuresof Secular philosophy. Unfortunately it is too evident that through
out society there exist exceedingly imperfect ideas regarding man,,
his duties and requirements. The search for truth and the acquire
ment of a practical acquaintance with the obligations of life are
too frequently confined to the few, while the many neglect to real
ize the real advantages of existence. Why is this ? What hasproduced such misconception of the object of human effort ? The/
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
85
cause perhaps is not difficult to discover. It is apparent in’the
radical evil underlying the whole of the theological creeds of
Christendom—namely, a lack of the desire to concentrate atten
tion on the present. The term “ present ” is here used as having
reference to the life we now experience, entirely apart from con
siderations of any existence “ hereafter.” Accepted in this Secular
sense, it is of course a duty to take thought for the morrow. Such
a prospective aspiration is demanded by prudence, and justified
by experience. But the mistake of the theological world is that
ns members regulate their conduct and control their actions
almost exclusively by the records of the past or the conjectures of
a future. Their rules of morality, their systems of theology,' and
their modes of thought, are too much a reflex of an imperfect an
tiquity. Those who cannot derive sufficient inspiration from this
source, fly into the fancied boundaries of another world—a future
which is enveloped in obscurity, and upon which experience can
throw no light. History has been subverted by this theological
error from its proper purpose. Instead of being the interpreter of
ages, it has become the dictator of nations; instead of being a
guide of the future, it is really the master of the present. The
proceedings of bygone times are thus made the standard of appeal
in this ; the wisdom of the first century is regarded as the infal
lible rule of the nineteenth. The watchword of the Church is “as
you were,” rather than “ as you are.” Christian theology hesi
tates to recognize active progressive principles, but holds that faith
was stereotyped eighteen hundred years ago, and that all subse
quent actions and duties must be shaped in its mould. Observing
this defect, Secularism asserts that immediate positive work is
more valuable than either retrospective or prospective faith. And
rather than worship mysteries, and venerate the unknown, a
Secularist strives to avail himself of the utility and value of the
realities which lie around hiip.
Secularism is a term selected to represent principles having
reference to the existence and necessities of mankind on earth,
neither affirming nor denying an existence “ beyond the grave.”
Secularists recognize this life as an indubitable fact; should
there be another awaiting mankind in the future, all notions of
such a state must, we think, be mere conjectures. Therefore,
we deem it more useful to concentrate our efforts upon the
known life—that which really is—seeking to realize its value,
�86
SECULAR TEACHINGS
physically, morally, and intellectually, as fully as possible,,
thereby making the best of existence, and also preparing for
the highest enjoyment of any supposed life hereafter, if future ex
perience should demonstrate its reality. In reference to certain
theological views professed by the Christian world, the statement
of the “ Founder of Secularism” is here appropriate. “ Many of
us,” he observes, “ are not able to believe in the existence of a
Supreme Being, distinct from nature ; but we do not exact from
members of Secular Societies an agreement in opinion on thistheological question. We associate for practical purposes on the
wide field of Secularism, outside the abstract question of the ex
istence of Deity. Many of us do not hold the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul; but neither do we exact agreement on
this point, from our friends. We seek the co-operation of all who
can agree to promote present human improvement by present
human means. The existence of God, the future condition of
man, are questions which five thousand years of controversy
have not settled ; we, therefore, leave them open to the solution,
of intelligence and time ; they shall not be with us barriers which
shall divide us from our brethren ; we will not embarrass human
affairs with them. Morality, that system of human duties com
mencing from man, we will keep distinct from religion, that system
of human duties assumed to commence from God ” (Mr. Holyoake’s debate with Rev. B. Grant in 1853, page 7).
The teachings of Secularism are :—(1) That, as this life is the
only one of which we have any knowledge, we should seek to pro
mote, by material means alone, the physical, moral, and intellectual
condition of society. By material means we understand that which
is calculable in its operations, being the very antithesis of what is
called spiritual agencies. This, of course, includes the proper use
of every intellectual faculty. (2) That personal excellence and
general usefulness in human affairs ought to be regarded as being
of greater importance than the consideration of theological specu
lations and the adherence to alleged supernatural teachings, and.
should be the chief objects of human solicitude and labour. (3) That
the basis of all conduct is the temporal well-being of the people, and.
the object of all action is the acquirement and practice of wisdom,
truth, temperance, fortitude, and justice. (4) That reliance upon thediscoveries of science, and sharing in the benefits arising from rheir
application to the needs of mankind, are preferable to reposing trust
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
.
,
>
87
in theological faiths and the teachings of the Bible. (5) That the
motive prompting to action should be the attainment of the highest
possible individual and general happiness on earth, not the desire
for personal enjoyment in the alleged heaven of Christianity.
(6) That, if a just God exist, and if a judgment day ever arrives,
honest inquiry,earnest conviction, integrity of character, and fidelity
to principle should secure as warm an approval and as good a re
ward for the Secularist who rejects the faith of Christendom as
could be obtained by the Christian who is able to believe in the
teachings of the New Testament. (7) That to select the good and
reject the bad in any or all religions is a right that any and every
person should be allowed honestly and conscientiously to exercise,
without incurring any disadvantages here, or any punishment in any
possible hereafter.
As to the “theory of the universe,” Secularism allows its ad
herents to form what opinion upon this matter the individual deems
in harmony with the evidence before him or her. Experience proves
that uniformity of opinions upon speculative topics cannot obtain.
All persons are left, therefore, to decide for themselves according
to the “light before them.” We impose no ancient conclusion as
the limit and boundary upon modern thought. If men and women
will work, irrespective of theological dogmas, for the good of society
in this life, they are practical Secularists. Secularism is not neces
sarily Atheism or Theism ; its principles are broad enough to admit
either Theists, Atheists, or Pantheists within its ranks.
The Secular code of morals is based upon the principle of utility;
it enjoins self-discipline, the love of truth, fidelity to conviction, ac
quirement and application of knowledge, fortitude in good conduct,
temperance, magnanimity, justice, and considerateness for the
rights, comfort, and welfare of others.
It is-frequently asked : From a Secular standpoint, (a) What is
the source of moral obligation ? (b) What is the nature of a moral
action ? (c) What are the sanctions of morality ? (d) What are
the incentives to moral conduct ? The answer is clear and decisive ;Human nature is the source of m<*ral obligation. The
more that nature is improved by experience and cultivation the
better and stronger will be the moral source, (ft) Those actions
only are moral which are beneficial to mankind, and which add to
the welfare of society, both individually and collectively, (c) The
sanctions of morality are the protection of the individual and the
�88
SitCULAR TEACHINGS
debt he owes to the community for its protective service, (d) The
incentives to moral conduct are personal excellence and the general
haippiness and well-being of the community.
Secularists are often invited to indicate what Secularism has to
-offer to mankind for their good that Christianity cannot consis
tently proffer ? To which we reply : (i) The right to reject, with
out peril or condemnation, whatever appears to us to be erroneous
in any or all of the religions of the world. Secularism defends this
right; Christianity condemns it. “ He that believeth and is
baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”
(Mark 16: 16.) (2) The full liberty to regard Christianity as
being merely the outgrowth of the human mind. Secularism
grants this. The Church denies it in contending that Christianity is
2. Divine system, and that its founder was a part of the Godhead.
To those who do not obey Christ’s Gospel he will come “ in flam
ing fire, taking vengeance on them” (2 Thess. 1:8). (3) The ad-^
vantage of .believing the Bible to be of human origin in estimating
its contents by its intrinsic value and not by its supposed “ Divine’’
authority. Orthodox Christianity does not concede this. If it
did, its “ court of appeal ” would be at once gone as an infallible
“ authority.” (4) The absence of any fear of being punished
et hereafter ” for the legitimate exercise of reason in its true sphere
of Secular Freethought. Christianity does not permit this, inas
much as it enforces uniformity of belief, demanding all mankind
.to accept Christ as their Saviour. In the case of rejecting this
demand, Christianity says : “For whosoever will deny me before
men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven”
(Matt. 10: 33). (5) The acting upon the opinion that the princi
pal attention of man should be given to “time,” and not to
“ eternity.” The world practically acts upon this principle. If
this is denied let it be shown (a) that national progress is the
result of aught else but the devotion of man’s principal attention
to the things of “ timeand (6) that such attention renders a
person less fit for any possible “ eternity.” (6) That science is of
more value to man than faith in the alleged supernatural. This is
the very opposite to the following New Testament teachings :—
“ Take no thought for your life
“ Labour not for the meat
which perisheth
“ For what is a man profited if he shall gain the
whole world and lose his own soul ?” “Man is saved by faith with
out works
“ Set your affections on things above, not on things
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
89
on the earth;” “For the wisdom of the world is foolishness with
God;” “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of
/the Church.......... and the prayer of faith shall save the sick;’
“ Be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplica
tion let your requests be made known unto God;” “But seek ye
first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these
things [material wants of man] shall be added unto you.”
It is necessary to correct the erroneous orthodox allegation that
the positive teachings of Secularism have been purloined from
Christianity. We claim that the present life is the only one of
which we have any knowledge ; that well-being in this world is
our highest duty; that the only means we can rely upon to secure
this object are knowledge, wise action, and experience ; that con
duct should be judged by its issues on earth, and that science is
of more practical value than belief in any supernatural being
Surely these teachings are positive enough; but where are they to
be found in the New Testament ? Again, the Secular motive for
good conduct is the happiness of the individual and the welfare of
the human race in this life, while the motive power of Chris
tianity is supposed to pertain to some future life. Moreover,
Secularism teaches positively that no apprehension should be en
tertained of punishment after death for disbelief during life.
Christianity alleges the very opposite of this in its threatenings of
eternal punishment in hell. For New Testament proof of this
the reader is referred to Matthew 13 : 42 ; 25 : 30 and 46 ; Mark
9: 44; Revelation 14: 10, 11; 21: 8. The orthodox believer
replies to this by saying, “You can reject any truth without suffer
ing the consequences of such rejection.” Just so; but mark the
difference in the two cases. If you reject a Secular truth, the con
sequences are confined to this life, and they follow in time to make
reformation possible. Not so with Christianity; in it there are
not mere consequences, but punishment, to be inflicted for “ ever
and ever,” when all opportunity for improvement has passed.
Equally desirable is it to correct the fallacy of our opponents in
reference to Secular responsibility, and what they term the “ free
dom of the will.” Secularism does recognize man’s responsibility,
but by that term it means that we should deem it our duty to con
sider the effect of our conduct upon society, and that it is incumbent
. upon us to act with a view of promoting, not to injure, the welfare
of society. Such responsibility, however, is confined to this life.
�9°
SECULAR TEACHINGS
and its extent depends upon the conditions and position of theindividual, and his relation to the general community. Of course,
where there is no power to choose, there can be no responsibility.
Hence we fail to harmonize the doctrine of predestination and
those passages in the New Testament which speak of the “ elect,”
and that man of himself can do no good thing, with the theological
notion of responsibility.
Secularism does not accept the “ free-will ” doctrine as taught
by the churches. The “ will ” is, like all things else, an effect as
well as a cause. It certainly counts for something, indeed for
much, in human actions ; but then it has itself sprung from, and.
is conditioned by, organization, environment, and other causes
which it is powerless to control. Man’s motives do not arise from
his volition ; on the contrary, they govern the will. Man is free,,
of course, in a sense—that is, he is free to act in accordance with
his desires ; but these desires act independently of volition. And
this is all the freedom that is possible, and it is all that any rational
person should demand. No man wants freedom to do that which
he has no inclination to do, or to act contrary to his desires. His.
freedom lies in his capacity to obey his impulses; but these im
pulses the will has no power to create. The will is not an
originating cause, but itself an effect, the result of a complication
of circumstances, such as external surroundings, the condition of
the brain, temperament, age, sex, and 'heredity. To say that the
will is free in the sense that Arminians hold it to be, is to state
that which is paradoxical. For, if a person has the power to call
up a desire by the will, it is certain that some prior desire induced
him to do so. What, therefore, caused that desire ? Suppose one
individual says he wills to do a thing, and he does it: he must
have had an inclination, or he would not have thus willed and
acted. Some inclination must, therefore, precede the will, and,
clearly, the will cannot be the cause of that which precedes itself
in point of time, and to which, in fact, it owes its existence.
In our Secular advocacy we are being constantly met with the
statement that there is a “ religious instinct in human nature,” and
we are asked, How does Secularism propose to satisfy this ? Simply,
by allowing every individual to worship according to his or her
own desire, providing their action does not interfere with the rights
of others. Religion, in its truest sense, is not the monopoly of the
orthodox party. The Christian churches have robbed religion of
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
91
its legitimate etymological meaning and invested it with ecclesias
tical creeds and dogmas, thus limiting its proper signification and
also depriving it of its best and loftiest influence. With the
thoughtless masses religion is accepted as the teacher of fear, de
pendence and blind faith, instead of being regarded as the inspirer
of love, self-reliance and active service. The cross of Calvary is
erected as an emblem of redemption, making its devotees blind to
the lesson of history and experience, that the only redeemer of man
kind is man. Accepting religion apart altogether from theological
associations, it is quite possible to harmonize it with Secularism.
Of course, Secularism is thoroughly antagonistic to orthodox
Christianity; but, then, there are ample means, separate altogether
from this faith, of satisfying every instinct of human nature. Pro
bably, if this alleged “religious instinct” were thoroughly ex
amined, it would be found to consist principally of veneration,
fear, wonder, hope, and gratitude. These, however, are purely
natural faculties, and the mode of their manifestation depends
upon birth, education and locality. What would satisfy a Turk’s
“ religious instinct ” would not suit a devotee of the Greek Church,
and there is a marked difference between the religious gratification
of a Hindoo and that of a European. The Catholic would regard
the Quaker’s religious satisfaction as very inadequate, while the
Primitive Methodist would view that of the Unitarian with equal
disfavour. It is the misapplication of these human faculties,
through ignorance of natural laws and the power of the priesthood
that has perverted them from their legitimate functions. Secular
ists do not aim to destroy any human instinct; they wish rather
that it should be properly understood, and that in its development
it should be directed by wisdom and controlled by reason and
science.
»
It is frequently charged against Secularism that it destroys the
principle of the brotherhood of man. Such, however, is not the
case. The foundation of the brotherhood of man, from a Secular
point, is the recognition and application of the just principle that
individuals should not work merely for their own good, but also for
the well-being of general society, and that all mankind should have
an opportunity of sharing in whatever conduces to their highest
welfare. We do not accept the term “ brotherhood of man ” 'in its
societarian application, in the sense that all mankind came from
one parent, but rather as manifesting, in a general manner, that
�•92
SECULAR TEACHINGS
feeling of love that exists in the domestic circle, and which is, or
should be, mutual between brothers. If we adopt the theological
application, what can be said of the conduct of an assumed Father
of all, who could purposely arrange one race to be superior to and
above all others on the face of the earth ? who could decree that
some of his children should be born and kept as slaves to others of
his children ? of a Father who could love one child and hate
another before either of them was born ? of one who gave to mil
lions of his children such organizations that up to the present
moment they have been wholly unable to understand and to
appreciate the advantages enjoyed by a favoured few ? and, finally,
of a Father who should so order his family arrangements that the
vast majority of his children should be lost forever ?
“ Secularism,” as Mr. George Jacob Holyoake has said in his
admirable work, “ The Trial of Theism,” “ is a recognition of
causation in nature, in science, in mind, morals, and manners. In
electing its own sphere, however, it will combat without contemn
ing others. It may also omitmuch that it respects, as well as that
which it rejects—but to omit is not to ignore. The solution of the
problem of union can only be effected by narrowing the ground of
profession, and widening that of action—it requires to collect
sympathies without dictating modes of manifestation.
“ Secularism teaches the good of this Life to be a rightful object
of primary pursuit, inculcates the practical sufficiency of Natural
Morality apart from Atheism, Theism, or the Bible, and selects as
its method of procedure the promotion of human improvement by
material means.
“ Secularism holds that the Protestant right of private judgment
includes the moral innocency of that judgment, whethei’ for or
against received opinion ; provided il be conscientiously arrived
at—that the honest conclusion is without guilt—that though all
sincere opinion is not equally true, nor equally useful, it is yet
equally without sin—that it is not sameness of belief but sincerity
of belief which justifies conduct, whether regard be had to the
esteem of men or the approval of God.
“ With respect to the service of humanity, deliverance from
sorrow or injustice is before consolation—doing well is higher than
meaning well—work is worship to those who accept Theism, and
duty to those who do not.
“As security that the principles of Nature and the habit of
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
93
Reason may prevail, Secularism uses itself and maintains for
others these rights of reason. The Free Search for Truth, with
out which it is impossible. The Free Utterance of the result,.""
without which the increase of Truth is limited. The Free Criti
cism of alleged Truth, without which conscience will be impotent
on practice.
“ A Secularist sees clearly upon what he relies as a Secularist.
To him the teaching of Nature is as clear as the teaching of the
Bible, and since, if God exists, Nature is certainly His work, while
it is not so clear that the Bible is—the teaching of Nature will be
preferred and followed where the feaching of the Bible appears to
conflict with it.
“ All pursuit of good objects with pure intent is religiousness in
the best sense in which this term appears to be used, The dis
tinctive peculiarity of the Secularist is, that he seeks that good
which is dictated by Nature, which is attainable by material
means, and which is of immediate service to humanity, a religious
ness to which the idea of God is not essential, nor the denial of the
idea necessary.
“ Going to a distant town to mitigate some calamity there will
illustrate the principle of action prescribed by Secularism. One
man will goon this errand from pure sympathy with the unfortu
nate ; this is goodness. Another goes because his priest bids
him ; this is obedience. Another goes because the twenty-fifth
chapter of Matthew tells him that all such persons will pass to
the right hand of the Father; this is calculation. Another goes
because he believes God commands him ; this is piety. Another
goes because he perceives that the neglect of suffering will not
answer; this is utilitarianism. But another goes on the errand of
mercy, because it is an errand of mercy, because it is an immediate
service to humanity ; and he goes with a view to attempt material
amelioration rather than spiritual consolation; this is Secularism,
which teaches that goodness is sanctity, that Nature is guidance,
that reason is authority, that service is duty, that Materialism is
help.
“ Speaking mainly on the part of Secularists, it is sufficient to
observe—Man does not live by egotisms, hopes, and comforts—
but rather by self-renunciation, by service and endurance. It is
asked, will Secularism” meet all the wants of human nature ? To
this we reply, every system meets the wants of those who believe
�94
SECULAR TEACHINGS
it, else it would never exist. We desire to know and not to hope.
We have no wants, and wish to have none, which truth will not
satisfy. We would realize this life—we would also deserve an
other—but without the selfishness which craves it—or the pre
sumption which expects it—or the discontent which demands it.”
(pp. 222-3-4.)
In this age of hollow pretensions and lack of mental honesty,
Secularism has a great work to perform in the inculcation of sin
cerity and fidelity to profession. With the old faiths, which to a
large extent it ignores, it should leave behind the old customs,
many of which are not simply absurd, but positively injurious. In
striking out a new path in the field of thought, it should open up
new principles in the domain of action. If our conduct be no bet
ter than that of our fellow-men who have not the advantages of
our light, nor the aid of our principles, it is a poor recommenda
tion of our system to mankind in general. Fidelity to principle,
or to that which takes the place of principle, and for the time acts
as its substitute, is necessary in -all conditions in life, and under
all circumstances. Not only is truthfulness essential to the well
being of society, but it really forms the basis of morality. Ear
nestness is greater than genius, and more powerful than any
amount of ambition, while sincerity is the test of true heroism.
The great men of the past, who have influenced the destinies of
the world, may be judged by this standard. We cannot help ad
miring the sincere man, even when he is in error; true fidelity to
principles is sometimes most difficult. Heavy penalties have
frequently to be paid for the practice of integrity. Still they must
be paid, and in all ages they are paid by the few, which few are
indeed the salt of the earth. Winged falsehoods, foul persecutions,
vile slanders, may attack them, but they remain firm in the con
sciousness of having done their duty, and in the end their character
is vindicated by the power of fidelity.
Fidelity to principle necessarily involves the making our opin
ions known to those with whom we come into contact. That
which a man holds to be true it is his duty to teach, at proper
times and under proper circumstances. The right to think in
cludes the right to speak. No man is infallible; therefore, honest,
conscientious conviction is deserving of the highest respect. Tol
eration is a very objectionable term, because it professes to grant
as a privilege that which should be claimed as a right. My opinions
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
95
upon theological questions are as valuable to me as are those of
■other men to them. And, if I believe that society would be made
better by accepting my speculative views, I ask no man’s permis
sion to be allowed to publish them. I may have to brave scorn
and calumny, perhaps persecution, but my right remains, and my
duty is clear. He who tolerates me arrogates to himself, or to his
opinions, a superiority which he does not possess, and which I do
not recognize. Great advance has been made in this respect dur
ing the last half century. But there is still much obloquy to be
endured by those who hold unpopular views. Bigotry is a char
acteristic of humanity which all the religions in the world have
failed to eradicate. A Secularist should not only avoid bigotry
himself, but should also point out its error at every favourable
opportunity.
The mode of advocacy adopted is also of very great importance.
While we claim for ourselves the right to think and speak freely,
we must concede the same ungrudgingly to others. We may deem
their views erroneous, but we should never forget that they prob
ably look upon ours in the same light. Injudicious advocacy has
often done more harm to a good cause than open antagonism.
Gentleness is one of the greatest of virtues, and to advocate our
views in what is conventionally, but very appropriately, termed a
gentlemanly manner is to give them the stamp of amiability. Rash
and reckless speaking is a most objectionable feature in the pro
mulgation of principles. To make extreme statements and wild
assertions is to play into an opponent’s hands. It avails nothing
to say that our antagonists do the same. Doubtless they do; and
it injures their cause as the same conduct on our part would injure
ours. Destructive work must, of course, be done; but a man need
not put himself into a passion to do it, and, especially, he should not
do it in that wild manner which, whilst being deficient of method
and tact, strikes at random, and wastes his forces. We want to
make Secularism a great power, and this is only to be done by
placing our views in an attractive light, and showing ourselves
superior to our opponents, by avoiding the errors into which they
have fallen.
[The End]
���Official Organ of the Canadian Secular Union.
A Journal of Liberal Thought.
Published Weekly.
CHARLES WATTS, Editor.
. SECULAR THOUGHT does not assail the Truth found in any religion •
it aims only at destroying the influence of errors born of priestcraft, dogmatism
and perpetuated prejudice.
Terms—$2 per year. Single copies 5 cts, Office 31 Adelaide St. East, Toronto
I am greatly pleased with Secular Thought-—with its form, arrangement
and contents-above all, with its spirit. It is splendid. I don’t see how it
could be better. I read it with the greatest of pleasure.”—Robt. G. Ingersoll.
I heartily congratulate our Canadian friends upon the fact that they are
represented by Secular Thought, a paper of which they can be justly proud,
and which they need never hesitate to hand to their most delicate-minded
friends, however religious they maybe.”—Helen H. Gardener.
“ Mr. Watts publishes a solid paper ; it is the best liberal paper that now
comes to me,”—JB. F. Underwood.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifijiiifiiinii
Pamphlets by Charles Watts, 24 pages in Cover. Price
Ten Cents each.
That judicial oaths should
Secularism; Destructive and affirmation established in be abolished, and
their stead. All
Constructive. 22 pages in cover.
Contents—What i s Secularism ? Biblical
Idolatry—The Secularist’s Bible. Natural
Depravity. Theological Supremacy. The
alleged Fall of Man and his supposed re
demption through Christ. Beason and ex
perience the true guide in human ac ions.
Why supreme attention should be given to
the duties of this life. Science more trust
worthy than reliance upon any suppose 1
supernatural power. Morality is of natural
growth, having no necessary connection with
theology. The consistent carrying out of
Secular teaching in every-day life the best
preparation for any future existence.
The American Secular Union;
its Necessity, and the Justice of its Nine
Demands. (Dedicated to Colonel Robert
Ingersoll.) 32 pages in cover.
Contents.—The necessity of the Union.
The twofold nature of its advocacy. The
Catholicity of its Nine Demands. An expo
sition and defencs of thope Dem inds. The
inj nstice of Churches, etc., being exempt from
taxation. Why chaplains in Congress, in the
navy and militia and in prisonsand asylums
should not be supported by puolic money.
That the Bible should not be used in public
schools. That the official appoin+ment of
religious festivals and fasts should cease.
laws enforcing the observance of Sunday and
the Sabbath should be repealed; reasons
given why this should be done. A plea for
mental liberty; and the necessity of Secular
organization demonstrated.
“ The Glory of Unbelief.”
Contents —Wherein does the Glory of Un
beliefconsist? Unbelief wide-spread amongst
all classes. What is uDbelief ? Its true na
ture defined. Can it be dispensed with ? The
Advantages of Unbelief. What it has done
for the World.
Saints and Sinners—Which ?
Contents.—The orthodox division of man
kind into only two classes an error. Who are
the Saints ? Catholic and Protestant Saints.
Pre-ordained and Free-will Saints. The
Melancholy and Zealous Saints. The Oily
and Half-and-Half Saints. Who are the Sin
ners, and What is Sin ? The relative value
of the service rendered to the world by Saints
and Sinners.
Bible Morality: its Teachings
shown to be contradictory and defective
as an Ethical Guide.
Contents—Bible Morality. Bible Teachmgs. The Christian’s Theory of the Bible
The Bible as a Guide.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
English
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The teachings of secularism compared with orthodox Christianity
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 95 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The teachings of secularism compared with orthodox Christianity), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA825
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Secularism