{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36797/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36797","id":"gutenberg_36797","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36797","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Secularism"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE PRINCIPLES OF SECULARISM\n\nBy George Jacob Holyoake\n\n\"Do the duty nearest hand,\"--Goethe.\n\n[third edition, revised.]\n\nLONDON: BOOK STORE, 282, STRAND;\n\nAustin. & Co., 17, Johnson's court, Fleet Street. 1871.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY\n\n     \"If you think it right to differ from the times, and to make\n     a stand for any valuable point of morals, do it, however\n     rustic, however antiquated, however pedantic it may appear;\n     do it, not for insolence, but seriously--as a man who wore a\n     soul of his own in his bosom, and did not wait till it was\n     breathed into him by the breath of fashion.\"--The Rev. Sidney\n     Smith, Canon of St Paul's.\n\nIN a passage of characteristic sagacity, Dr. J. H. Newman has depicted\nthe partisan aimlessness more descriptive of the period when this little\nbook first appeared, sixteen years ago, than it is now. But it will be\nlong before its relevance and instruction have passed away. I therefore\ntake the liberty of still quoting his words:--\n\n\"When persons for the first time look upon the world of politics\nor religion, all that they find there meets their mind's eye, as a\nlandscape addresses itself for the first time to a person who has just\ngained his bodily sight. One thing is as far off as another; there is\nno perspective. The connection of fact with fact, truth with truth, the\nbearing of fact upon truth, and truth upon fact, what leads to what,\nwhat are points primary and what secondary, all this they have yet to\nlearn. It is all a new science to them, and they do not even know their\nignorance of it. Moreover, the world of to-day has no connection in\ntheir minds with the world of yesterday; time is not a stream, but\nstands before them round and full, like the moon. They do not know what\nhappened ten years ago, much less the annals of a century: the past does\nnot live to them in the present; they do not understand the worth of\ncontested points; names have no associations for them, and persons\nkindle no recollections. They hear of men, and things, and projects, and\nstruggles, and principles; but everything comes and goes like the wind;\nnothing makes an impression, nothing penetrates, nothing has its place\nin their minds. They locate nothing: they have no system. They hear\nand they forget; or they just recollect what they have once heard, they\ncannot tell where. Thus they have no consistency in their arguments;\nthat is, they argue one way to-day, and not exactly the other way\nto-morrow, but indirectly the other way at random. Their lines of\nargument diverge; nothing comes to a point; there is no one centre\nin which their mind sits, on which their judgment of men and things\nproceeds. This is the state of many men all through life; and miserable\npoliticians or Churchmen they make, unless by good luck they are in safe\nhands, and ruled by others, or are pledged to a course. Else they are at\nthe mercy of the wind and waves; and without being Radical, Whig, Tory,\nor Conservative, High Church or Low Church, they do Whig acts, Tory\nacts, Catholic acts, and Heretical acts, as the fit takes them, or as\nevents or parties drive them. And sometimes when their self importance\nis hurt, they take refuge in the idea that all this is a proof that they\nare unfettered, moderate, dispassionate, that they observe the mean,\nthat they are no 'party men;' when they are, in fact, the most helpless\nof slaves; for our strength in this world is, to be the subjects of the\nreason and our liberty, to be captives of the truth.\"*\n\nHow the organization of ideas has fared with higher class societies\nothers can tell: the working class have been left so much in want of\ninitiative direction that almost everything has to be done among\nthem, and an imperfect and brief attempt to direct those interested\nin Freethought may meet with some acceptance. To clamour for objects\nwithout being able to connect them with principles; to smart under\ncontumely without knowing how to protect themselves; to bear some\nlofty name without understanding the manner in which character should\ncorrespond to profession--this is the amount of the popular attainment.\n\n    * \"Loss and Gain.\" ascribed to the Rev. Father Newman.\n\nIn this new Edition I find little to alter and less to add. In a passage\non page 27, the distinction between Secular instruction and Secularism\nis explained, in these words:--\"Secular education is by some confounded\nwith Secularism, whereas the distinction between them is very\nwide. Secular education simply means imparting Secular knowledge\nseparately--by itself, without admixture of Theology with it. The\nadvocate of Secular education may be, and generally is, also an advocate\nof religion; but he would teach religion at another time and treat it as\na distinct subject, too sacred for coercive admixture into the hard\nand vexatious routine of a school. He would confine the inculcation of\nreligion to fitting seasons and chosen instruments. He holds also that\none subject at a time is mental economy in learning. Secular education\nis the policy of a school--Secularism is the policy of life to those who\ndo not accept Theology.\"\n\nVery few persons admitted that these distinctions existed when\nthis passage was written in 1854. This year, 1870, they have been\nsubstantially admitted by the Legislature in concession made in the\nNational Education. Bill. It only remains to add that the whole text has\nbeen revised and re-arranged in an order which seems more consecutive.\nThe portion on Secular Organizations has been abridged, in part\nre-written, explaining particulars as to the Secular Guild.\n\nA distinctive summary of Secular principles may be read under the\narticle \"Secularism,\" in Chambers's Cyclopaedia.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. THE TERM SECULARISM.\n\n     \"The adoption of the term Secularism is justified by its\n     including a large number of persons who are not Atheists,\n     and uniting them for action which has Secularism for its\n     object, and not Atheism. On this ground, and because, by the\n     adoption of a new term, a vast amount of impediment from\n     prejudice is got rid of, the use of the name Secularism is\n     found advantageous.\"--Harriet Martineau. _Boston\n     Liberator_.--Letter to Lloyd Garrison, November, 1853.\n\nEVERY one observant of public controversy in England, is aware of its\nimproved tone of late years. This improved tone is part of a wider\nprogress, 'Increase of wealth has led to improvement of taste, and the\ndiffusion of knowledge to refinement of sentiment. The mass are better\ndressed, better mannered, better spoken than formerly. A coffee-room\ndiscussion, conducted by mechanics, is now a more decorous exhibition\nthan a debate in Parliament was in the days of Canning.* Boisterousness\nat the tables of the rich, and insolence in the language of the poor,\nare fast disappearing. \"Good society\" is now that society in which\npeople practise the art of being genial, without being familiar, and in\nwhich an evincible courtesey of speech is no longer regarded as timidity\nor effeminacy, but rather as proof of a disciplined spirit, which\nchooses to avoid all offence, the better to maintain the right\nperemptorily punishing wanton insult. Theologians, more inveterate\nin speech than politicians, now observe a respectfulness to opponents\nbefore unknown. That diversity of opinion once ascribed to \"badness of\nheart\" is now, with more discrimination, referred to defect or diversity\nof understanding--a change which, discarding invective, recognizes\ninstruction as the agent of uniformity.\n\n     * From whose lips the House of Commons cheered a   reference\n     to a political adversary as \"the revered and ruptured\n     Ogden.\"\n\nAmid all this newness of conception it must be obvious that many old\nterms of theological controversy are obsolete. The idea of an \"Atheist\"\nas one warring against moral restraints--of an \"Infidel\" as one\ntreacherous to the truth--of a \"Freethinker\" as a \"loose thinker,\"*\narose in the darkness of past times, when men fought by the flickering\nlight of their hatreds--times which tradition has peopled with monsters\nof divinity as well as of nature. But the glaring colours in which the\nparty names invented by past priests were dyed, no longer harmonize with\nthe quieter taste of the present day. The more sober spirit of\nmodern controversy has, therefore, need of new terms, and if the term\n\"Secularism\" was merely a neutral substitute for \"Freethinking,\" there\nwould be reason for its adoption. Dissenters might as well continue\nthe designation of \"Schismatics,\" or Political Reformers that of\n\"Anarchists,\" as that the students of Positive Philosophy should\ncontinue the designation \"Atheism,\" \"Infidelism,\" or any similar term by\nwhich their opponents have contrived to brand their opinions. It is\nas though a merchant vessel should consent to carry a pirate flag.\nFreethinker is, however, getting an acceptable term. Upon the platform,\nChristian disputants frequently claim it, and resent the exclusive\nassumption of it by others. These new claimants say, \"We are as\nmuch Freethinkers as yourselves,\" so that it is necessary to define\nFreethinking. It is fearless thinking, based upon impartial inquiry,\nsearching on both sides, not regarding doubt as a crime, or opposite\nconclusions as a species of moral poison. Those who inquire with\nsinister, pre-possessions will never inquire fairly. The Freethinker\nfears not to follow a conclusion to the utmost limits of truth,\nwhether it coincides with the Bible or contradicts it. If therefore any\npronounce the term \"Secularism\" \"a concealment or a disguise,\" they\ncan do so legitimately only after detecting some false meaning it is\nintended to convey, and not on the mere ground of its being a change\nof name, since nothing can more completely \"conceal and disguise\"\nthe purposes of Freethought than the old names imposed upon it by its\nadversaries, which associate with guilt its conscientious conclusions\nand impute to it as outrages, its acts of self-defence.\n\n     * As the Reverend Canon Kingsley has perversely rendered it.\n\nBesides the term Secularism, there was another term which seemed to\npromise also distinctiveness of meaning--namely, Cosmism, under which\nadherents would have taken the designation of Cosmists. Rut this name\nscientific men would have understood in a purely physical sense,\nafter the great example of Humboldt, and the public would not all have\nunderstood it--besides, it was open to easy perversion in one of\nits declinations. Next to this, as a name, stands that of\nRealism--intrinsically good. A Society of Realists would have been\nintelligible, but many would have supposed it to be some revival of the\nold Realists. Moralism, a sound name in itself, is under Evangelical\ncondemnation as \"mere morality.\" Naturalism would seem an obvious name,\nwere it not that we should be confounded with Naturalists, to say\nno more. Some name must be taken, as was the case with the\nTheophilan-thropists of Paris. Many of them would rather not have\nassumed any denomination, but they yielded to the reasonable argument,\nthat if they did not choose one for themselves, the public would bestow\nupon them one which would be less to their liking. Those who took the\nname of Philantropes found it exposed them to a pun, which greatly\ndamaged them: _Philantropes_ was turned into _filoux en troupe_.\n\nHistorical characteristics, however, seemed to point to a term which\nexpressed the Secular element in life; a term deeply engrafted in\nliterature; of irreproachable associations; a term found and respected\nin the dictionaries of opponents, and to which, therefore, they might\ndispute our right, but which they could not damage. Instead, therefore,\nof finding ourselves self-branded or caricatured by this designation,\nwe have found opponents claiming it, and disputing with us for its\npossession.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. PRINCIPLES OF SECULARISM DEFINED\n\n\nI.\n\nSECULARISM is the study of promoting human welfare by material means;\nmeasuring human welfare by the utilitarian rule, and making the service\nof others a duty of life. Secularism relates to the present existence of\nman, and to action, the issues of which can be tested by the experience\nof this life--having for its objects the development of the physical,\nmoral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest perceivable point,\nas the immediate duty of society: inculcating the practical sufficiency\nof natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism, or Christianity:\nengaging its adherents in the promotion of human improvement by material\nmeans, and making these agreements the ground of common unity for all\nwho would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service. The Secular\nis sacred in its influence on life, for by purity of material conditions\nthe loftiest natures are best sustained, and the lower the most surely\nelevated. Secularism is a series of principles intended for the guidance\nof those who find Theology indefinite, or inadequate, or deem it\nunreliable. It replaces theology, which mainly regards life as a sinful\nnecessity, as a scene of tribulation through which we pass to a better\nworld. Secularism rejoices in this life, and regards it as the sphere\nof those duties which educate men to fitness for any future and better\nlife, should such transpire.\n\n\nII.\n\nA Secularist guides himself by maxims of Positivism, seeking to\ndiscern what is in Nature--what _ought_ to be in morals--selecting\nthe _affirmative_ in exposition, concerning himself with the real, the\nright, and the constructive. Positive principles are principles which\nare provable. \"A positive precept,\" says Bishop Butler, \"is a precept\nthe reason of which we see.\" Positivism is policy of material progress.\n\n\nIII.\n\nScience is the available Providence of life. The problem to be solved\nby a science of Society, is to find that situation in which it shall be\nimpossible for a man to be depraved or poor. Mankind are saved by being\nserved. Spiritual sympathy is a lesser mercy than that forethought which\nanticipates and extirpates the causes of suffering. Deliverance from\nsorrow or injustice is before consolation--doing well is higher than\nmeaning well--work is worship to those who accept Theism, and duty to\nthose who do not.\n\n\nIV.\n\nSincerity, though not errorless, involves the least chance of error,\nand is without moral guilt. Sincerity is well-informed, conscientious\nconviction, arrived at by intelligent examination, animating those who\npossess that conviction to carry it into practice from a sense of\nduty. Virtue in relation to opinion consists neither in conformity nor\nnon-conformity, but in sincere beliefs, and in living up to them.\n\n\nV.\n\nConscience is higher than Consequence.*\n\n     *Vide Mr. Holdreth's Papers.\n\n\nVI.\n\nAll pursuit of good objects with pure intent is religiousness in the\nbest sense in which this term appears to be used. A \"good object\" is an\nobject consistent with truth, honour, justice, love. A pure \"intent\"\nis the intent of serving humanity. Immediate service of humanity is\nnot intended to mean instant gratification, but \"immediate\" in\ncontradistinction to the interest of another life. The distinctive\npeculiarity of the Secularist is, that he seeks that good which is\ndictated by Nature, which is attainable by material means, and which is\nof immediate service to humanity--a religiousness to which the idea of\nGod is not essential, nor the denial of the idea necessary.\n\n\nVII.\n\nNearly all inferior natures are susceptible of moral and physical\nimprovability; this improvability can be indefinitely secured by\nsupplying proper material conditions; these conditions may one day be\nsupplied by a system of wise and fraternal co-operation, which primarily\nentrenches itself in common prudence, which enacts service according to\nindustrial capacity, and distributes wealth according to rational needs.\nSecular principles involve for mankind a future, where there shall\nexist unity of condition with infinite diversity of intellect, where\nthe subsistence of ignorance and selfishness shall leave men equal, and\nuniversal purity enable all things--noble society, the treasures of art,\nand the riches of the world--rto be had in common.\n\n\nVIII.\n\nSince it is not capable of demonstration whether the inequalties of\nhuman condition will be compensated for in another life--it is the\nbusiness of intelligence to rectify them in this world. The speculative\nworship of superior beings, who cannot need it, seems a lesser duty than\nthe patient service of known _inferior_ natures, and the mitigation\nof harsh destiny, so that the ignorant may be enlightened and the low\nelevated.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. LAWS OF SECULAR CONTROVERSY\n\n\nI. Rights of Reason.\n\nAs a means of developing and establishing Secular principles, and as\nsecurity that the principles of Nature and the habit of reason may\nprevail, Secularism uses itself, and maintains for others, as rights of\nreason:--\n\nThe Free Search for Truth, without which its full attainment is\nimpossible.\n\nThe Free Utterance of the result, without which the increase of Truth is\nlimited.\n\nThe Free Criticism of alleged Truth, without which its identity must\nremain uncertain.\n\nThe Fair Action of Conviction thus attained, without which conscience\nwill be impotent on practice.\n\n\nII. Standard of Appeal.\n\n\"Secularism accepts no authority but that of Nature, adopts no methods\nbut those of science and philosophy, and respects in practice no rule\nbut that of the conscience, illustrated by the common sense of mankind.\nIt values the lessons of the past, and looks to tradition as presenting\na storehouse of raw materials to thought, and in many cases results of\nhigh wisdom for our reverence; but it utterly disowns tradition as a\nground of belief, whether miracles and supernaturalism be claimed or not\nclaimed on its side. No sacred scripture or ancient church can be made a\nbasis of belief, for the obvious reason that their claims always need\nto be proved, and cannot without absurdity be assumed. The association\nleaves to its individual members to yield whatever respect their own\ngood sense judges to be due to the opinions of great men, living or\ndead, spoken or written, as also to the practice of ancient communities,\nnational or ecclesiastical. But it disowns all appeal to such\nauthorities as final tests of truth.\"*\n\n     * \"Programme   of Freethought   Societies,\"   by   F.   W.\n     Newman. (Reasoner, No. 388.)\n\n\nIII. Sphere of Controversy.\n\nSince the principles of Secularism rest on grounds apart from Theism,\nAtheism, or Chris-tianism, it is not logically necessary for Secularists\nto debate the truth of these subjects. In controversy, Secularism\nconcerns itself with the assertion and maintenance of its own\naffirmative propositions, combating only views of Theology and\nChristianity so far as they interfere with, discourage, or disparage\nSecular action, which may be done without digressing into the discussion\nof the truth of Theism or divine origin of the Bible.\n\n\nIV. Personal Controversy.\n\nA Secularist will avoid indiscriminate disparagement of bodies or\nantagonism of persons, and will place before himself simply the\ninstruction and service of an opponent, whose sincerity he will not\nquestion, whose motives he will not impugn, always holding that a man\nwhom it is not worth while confuting courteously, is not worth while\nconfuting at all. Such disparagements as are included in the explicit\ncondemnation of erroneous principles are, we believe, all that\nthe public defence of opinion requires, and are the only kind of\ndisparagement a Secularist proposes to employ.\n\n\nV. Justification of Controversy.\n\nThe universal fair and open discussion of opinion is the highest\nguarantee of public truth--only that theory which is submitted to\nthat ordeal is to be regarded, since only that which endures it can be\ntrusted. Secularism encourages men to trust reason throughout, and to\ntrust nothing that reason does not establish--to examine all things\nhopeful, respect all things probable, but rely upon nothing without\nprecaution which does not come within the range of science and\nexperience.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. MAXIMS OF ASSOCIATION\n\n\nI.\n\nIT is the duty of every man to regulate his personal and family\ninterests so as to admit of some exertions for the improvement of\nsociety. It is only by serving those beyond ourselves that we can secure\nfor ourselves protection, sympathy, or honour. The neglect of home for\npublic affairs endangers philanthropy, by making it the enemy of the\nhousehold. To suffer, on the other hand, the interests of the family to\ndegenerate into mere selfism, is a dangerous example to rulers.\n\n\nII.\n\n\"No man or woman is accountable to others for any conduct by which\nothers are not injured or damaged.\"*\n\n     * D.   in the LEADER,  1850, who, as a correspondent, first\n     expressed this aphorism thus.\n\n\nIII.\n\nSocial freedom consists in being subject to just rule and to none other.\n\n\nIV.\n\nService and endurance are the chief personal duties of man.\n\n\nV.\n\nSecularism holds it to be the duty of every man to reserve a portion of\nhis means and energies for the public service, and so to cultivate and\ncherish his powers, mental and physical, as to have them ever ready\nto perform service, as efficient as possible, to the well-being of\nhumanity. No weakness, no passion, no wavering, should be found among\nthose who are battling for the cause of human welfare, which such errors\nmay fatally injure. Self-control, self-culture, self-sacrifice, are\nall essential to those who would serve that cause, and would not bring\ndiscredit upon their comrades in that service.*\n\n     * Mr. L. H. Holdreth, Religion of Duty.\n\n\nVI.\n\nTo promote in good faith and good temper the immediate and material\nwelfare of humanity, in accordance with the laws of Nature, is the\nstudy and duty of a Secularist, and this is the unity of principle which\nprevails amid whatever diversity of opinion may subsist in a Secular\nSociety, the bond of union being the common convictions of the duty of\nadvancing the Secular good of this life, of the authority of natural\nmorality, and of the utility of material effort in the work of human\nimprovement. In other words, Secularist union implies the concerted\naction of all who believe it right to promote the Secular good of this\nlife, to teach morality, founded upon the laws of Nature, and to\nseek human improvement by material methods, irrespective of any other\nopinions held, and irrespective of any diversity of reasons for holding\nthese.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. THE SECULAR GUILD\n\nSEVERAL expositors of Secular principles, able to act together, have for\nmany years endeavoured by counsel, by aid, and by publication to promote\nSecular organization. At one time they conducted a Secular Institute in\nFleet Street, London--in 1854. The object was to form Secular Societies\nfor teaching the positive results of Freethought. In the first edition\nof this work it was held to be desirable that there should be a centre\nof reference for all inquirers upon Secular principles at home and\nabroad. Attention should be guaranteed to distant correspondents and\nvisitors, so that means of communication and publication of all advanced\nopinions in sociology, theology, and politics might exist, and be able\nto command publicity, when expressed dispassionately, impersonally, and\nwith ordinary good taste.\n\nIt has been generally admitted that the operations at that time\nconducted, helped to impart a new character to Free-thought advocacy,\nand many of its recommendations have since been copied by associations\nsubsequently formed. The promoters of Secularism alluded to, have\nnot ceased in the _Reasoner_ and other publications, by lectures, by\nstatements, by articles, by pamphlets to urge a definite and consistent\nrepresentation of Secular and Freethought principles: as many mistake\nmerely mechanical association for the organization of ideas.\n\nThe promoters in question have since adopted the form of action of a\nSecular Guild, and continue the _Reasoner_ (of which there is now issued\na \"Review Series\") as their organ. The objects of a Council of the\nGuild is to promote, as far as means may permit, or counsel prevail,\norganization of ideas:--\n\n1.--To train Advocates of Secular principles,\n\n2.--To advise an impersonal policy of advocacy, which seeking to carry\nits ends by force of exposition, rather than of denunciation, shall\ncommand the attention and respect of those who influence public affairs.\n\n3.--To promote solution of political, social, and educational questions\non Secular and unsectarian grounds.\n\n4.--To point out new Books of Secular relevance, and where possible, to\naccredit Advocates of Secularism that the public may have some guidance,\nand the party be no longer liable to be judged by whoever may appear to\nwrite or speak on the subject.\n\n5.--To assist in the protection and defence of those injured, or\nattempted to be injured on account of Freethought or Secularist opinion.\n\n\n6.--To provide for the administration of property bequeathed for Secular\npurposes, of which so much has been lost through the injustice of the\nlaw, and machinations of persons opposed to Liberal views.\n\n7.--When a member has been honourably counted on the side of Secularism,\nhas been a Subscriber or a Worker for a term of years, the Guild,\nkeeping a record of such Service, proposes to give a Certificate of it\nwhich among Friends of Freethought may be a passport to recognition and\nesteem. To constitute some such Freemasonry in Freethought, may elevate\nassociation in England. A certificate of Illuminism or of Carbonarism in\nItaly was once handed down from father to son as an heirloom of honour,\nwhile in England you have to supplicate men to join a society of\nprogression, instead of membership being a distinction which men shall\ncovet At present a man who has given the best years of his life to the\npublic service is liable (if from any necessity he ceases to act) to\nbe counted a renegade by men who have never rendered twelve months*\nconsecutive or costly service themselves. There ought to be a fixed\nterm of Service, which, if honourably and effectively rendered, should\nentitle a man to be considered free, as a soldier after leaving the\narmy, and his certificate of having belonged to the Order of Secularism\nshould entitle him to distinction and to authority when his opinion was\nsought, and to exemption from all but voluntary service. At present the\nsoldiers of Progress, when no longer able to serve, are dismissed from\nthe public eye, like the race-horse to the cab stand, to obscurity and\nneglect. This needs correction before men can be counted upon in the\nbattle of Truth. A man is to be estimated according to the aims of the\nparty to which he is allied. He is to be esteemed in consequence of\nsacrifices of time, and discipline of conduct, which he contributes to\nthe service and reputation of his cause.\n\n     * This has been done to some extent in the discussion of the\n     National Education question. The Proposer of the Guild\n     contributed what Ije could to this end by reading the paper\n     published in the proceedings of the Conference of the\n     Birmingham Education League, by letters like that to the\n     _Daily News_, commented upon by the Bishop of Peterborough,\n     at Leicester [see official publications of the Manchester\n     National Education Union,] by discussions as those with the\n     Revs. Pringle and Baldwin, at Norwich, and with Mr. Chas.\n     Bradlaugh, at the Old Street Hall of Science, London; and by\n     Lectures during the time the question of National Education\n     has been before Parliament\n\nIn foreign countries many persons reside interested in Secularism; in\nGreat Britain indeed many friends reside where no Secular Society is\nformed; and in these cases membership of the Guild would be advantageous\nto them, affording means of introduction to publicists of similar views:\nand even in instances of towns where Secular Societies do exist, persons\nin direct relation to the Secular Guild would be able to furnish\nSecular direction where the tradition and usage of a Secular Society are\nunknown, or unfamiliar.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. ORGANIZATION INDICATED.\n\nAs the aim of the Guild is not to fetter independent thought, but to\nconcert practical action, it is mainly required of each member that he\nundertakes to perform, in good faith, the duties which he shall consent\nto have assigned to him; and generally so to comport himself that his\nprinciples shall not be likely to suffer, if judged by his conduct.\nHe will be expected to treat every colleague as equal with himself in\nveracity, in honour, and in loyalty to his cause. And every form of\nspeech which casts a doubt upon the truth, or imputes, or assumes a want\nof honour on the part of any member, will be deemed a breach of order.\nIf any member intends such an accusation of another, it must be made the\nmatter of a formal charge, after leave obtained to prefer it.\n\nWhat it is desirable to know about new members is this:--\n\nDo they, in their conception of Secularism, see in it that which seeks\nnot the sensual but the good, and a good which the conscience can be\nengaged in pursuing and promoting; a Moralism in accordance with the\nlaws of Nature and capable of intrinsic proof: a Materialism which is\ndefinite without dogmatism or grossness; and a unity on the ground of\nthese common agreements, for convictions which imply no apostolate are\nneither earnest nor generous. No one ought to be encouraged to take\nsides with Secularism, unless his conscience is satisfied of the moral\nrightfulness of its principles and duties both for life and death.\n\nIt is not desirable to accept persons of that class who decry\nparties--who boast of being of no party--who preach up isolation, and\nlament the want of unity--who think party the madness of the many, for\nthe gain of the few. Seek rather the partisan who is wise enough to know\nthat the disparagement of party is the madness of the few, leading\nto the utter impotence of the many. A party, in an associative and\ndefensible sense, is a class of persons taking sides upon some definite\nquestion, and acting together for necessary ends, having principles,\naims, policy, authority, and discipline.*\n\n     * In a school there is usually teaching, training,\n     discipline, science, system, authorities, tradition, and\n     development.--Times, 1846.\n\nWith respect to proposed members, it may be well to ascertain whether\nneglect, or rudeness, or insult, or unfairness from colleagues, or\noverwork being imposed upon him, or incapacity of others, would divert\nhim from his duty. These accidents or necessities might occur: but if a\nsociety is to be strong it must be able to count upon its members,\nand to be able to count upon them it must be known what they will bear\nwithout insubordination; and what they will bear will depend upon the\nfrankness and completeness of information they receive as to the social\nrisks all run who unite to carry out any course of duty or public\nservice.\n\nAlways assuming that a candidate cares for the objects for which he\nproposes to associate, and that it is worth while knowing whom it is\nwith whom you propose to work them out; answers to such inquiries as the\nfollowing would tend to impart a working knowledge and quality to the\nsociety:--\n\nIs he a person previously or recently acquainted with the principles he\nis about to profess?\n\nDoes he understand what is meant by \"taking sides\" with a public party?\nWould he be faithful to the special ideas of Secularism so long as\nhe felt them to be true? Would he make sacrifices to spread them\nand vindicate them, or enable others to do so? Would he conceive of\nSecularism as a cause to be served loyally, which he would support as\nwell as he was able, if unable to support it as well as he could wish?\n\nIs he of decent, moral character, and tolerably reliable as to his\nfuture conduct?\n\nIn presenting his views to others, would he be likely to render them in\nan attractive spirit, or to make them disagreeable to others?\n\nIs he of an impulsive nature, ardent for a time, and then apathetic\nor reactionary--likely to antagonize to-morrow the persons he applauds\nto-day?\n\nIs he a person who would commit the fault of provoking persecution?\nWould ridicule or persecution chill him if it occurred? Is he a man to\nstand by an obscure and friendless cause--or are notoriety, success,\napplause, and the company of others, indispensable to his fidelity?\n\nIs he a man of any mark of esteem among his friends--a man whose promise\nis sure, whose word has weight?\n\nIs his idea of obedience, obedience simply to his own will? Would he\nacquiesce in the authority of the laws of the Society, or the decision\nof the Society where the laws were silent? Would he acknowledge in\ndemocracy the despotism of principles self-consented to--or as an\narena for the assertion of Individualism before winning the consent of\ncolleagues to the discussion of special views?\n\nThe membership sought may be granted, provided the actual knowledge of\nSecular principles be satisfactory, and evident earnestness to practise\nthem be apparent. The purport of the whole of the questions is to enable\na clear opinion to be formed as to what is to be expected of the new\nmember--how far he is likely to be reliable--how long he is likely to\nremain with us--under what circumstances he is likely to fail us--what\nwork may be assigned him--what confidences he may be entrusted with, and\nin what terms he should be introduced to colleagues, and spoken of to\nothers.\n\nThe Membership here described would and should be no restricted and\nexclusive society, where only one pattern of efficiency prevails; but\na society where all diversities of capacity, energy, and worth, may\nbe found, so far as it is honest and trustworthy. A Society, like\nthe State, requires the existence of the people, as well as public\nofficers--men who* can act, as well as men who can think and direct\nMany men who lack refinement, and even discretion, possess courage and\nenergy, and will go out on the inevitable \"forlorn hopes\" of progress;\nwhich the merely prudent avoid, and from which the cultivated too often\nshrink. Our work requires all orders of men, but efficiency requires\nthat we know which is which that none may be employed in the dark.\n\nIn every public organization there are persons who promote and aid\nunconnected with the Society.\n\nActive members are those who engage to perform specific duties; such as\nreporting lectures, sermons, and public meetings, so far as they refer\nto Secularism.*\n\n     * In reporting, each member should be careful to understate\n     rather than overstate facts, distinguishing carefully what\n     is matter of knowledge from rumour, conjecture, or opinion.\n\nTo give notice of meetings and sermons about to be held or delivered for\nor against Secularism.\n\nTo note and report passages in books, newspapers, magazines, and reviews\nreferring to Secularism.\n\nEach active member should possess some working efficiency, or be willing\nto acquire it. To be able to explain his views by tongue or pen with\nsimple directness, to observe carefully, to report judiciously, to\nreason dispassionately, to put the best construction on every act that\nneeds interpretation, are desirable accomplishments in a Propagandist.\n\nIn all public proceedings of the Society, written speeches should be\npreferred from the young, because such speeches admit of preconsidered\nbrevity, consecutiveness, and purpose, and exist for reference. In\nthe deliberations and discussions of any Society, it might usefully be\ndeemed a qualification to make a contribution to the subject in speeches\nbrief and direct.\n\nNon-reliableness in discharge of duties, or moral disqualification,\nshall be a ground of annulling membership, which may be done after the\nmember objected to has had a fair opportunity of defending himself from\nthe specific disqualifications alleged against him and communicated to\nhim, and has failed therein.\n\nThe duties assigned to each member should be such as are within his\nmeans, as respects power and opportunity; such, indeed, as interfere\nneither with his social nor civil obligations; the intention being that\nthe membership of the Society shall not as a rule be incompatible with\nthe preservation of health, and the primary service due to family and\nthe State.*\n\n     * As a general rule, it will be found that any one who\n     sacrifices more than one-fifth of his time and means will\n     become before long reactionary, and not only do nothing\n     himself, but discourage others.\n\nAny persons acquainted with the \"Principles of Secularism\" here given,\nwho shall generally agree therein, and associate under any name to\npromote such objects, and to act in concert with all who seek similar\nobjects, and will receive and take into official consideration the\ninstructions of the Guild, and to make one subscription yearly among\nits members and friends on behalf of its Propagandist Funds, shall be\nrecognized as a Branch of it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. THE PLACE OF SECULARISM\n\n     \"We do not, however, deny that, false as the whole theory\n     [of Secularism] appears to us, it is capable of attracting\n     the belief of large numbers of people, and of exercising\n     considerable influence over their conduct; and we should\n     admit that the influence so exercised is considerably better\n     than no influence at all.\"--_Saturday Review_, July 2, 1859.\n\nTHIS first step is to win, from public opinion, a standing place for\nSecularism. So long as people believe Secularism not to be wanted,\nindeed impossible to be wanted--that it is error, wickedness, and\nunmitigated evil, it will receive no attention, no respect, and make\nno way. But show that it occupies a vacant place, supplies a want, is\na direction where no other party supplies any--and it at once appears\nindispensable. It is proved to be a service to somebody, and from\nthat moment it is tolerated if not respected. It may be like war, or\nmedicine, or work, or law, disagreeable or unpalatable, but when seen\nto be necessary, it will have recognition and support. We are sure this\ncase can be made out for Secularism. It is not only true, but it\nis known; it is not only known, but it is notorious, that there are\nthousands and tens of thousands of persons in every district of this and\nmost European countries, who are without the pale of Christianity. They\nreject it, they disprove it, they dislike it, or they do not understand\nit. Some have vices and passions which Christianity, as preached around\nthem, condemns. As Devils are said to do, they \"believe and tremble,\"\nand so disown what they have not the virtue to practise. Faith does not\ntouch them, and reason is not tried--indeed reason is decried by the\nevangelically religious, so that not being converted in one way, no\nother way is open to them. Others are absorbed or insensate; they are\nbusy, or stupid, or defiant, and regard Christianity as a waste of time,\nor as monotonous or offensive. It bores them or threatens them. They are\nalready dull, therefore it does not attract them--they have some rude\nsense of independence and some feeling of courage, and they object\neither to be snubbed into conformity or kicked into heaven. Another\nand a yearly increasing portion of the people have, after patiently and\npainfully thinking over Christianity, come to believe it to be untrue;\nunfounded historically; wrong morally, and a discreditable imputation\nupon God. It outrages their affections, it baffles their understandings.\nIt is double tongued. Its expounders are always multiplying, and the\nmore they increase the less they agree, and hence sceptics the more\nabound. Disbelievers therefore exist; they augment: they can neither\nbe convinced, converted, nor conciliated, because they will yield no\nallegiance to a system which has no hold on their conscience. It is, we\nrepeat, more than known, it is notorious that these persons live and die\nin scepticism. These facts are the cry of the pulpit, the theme of the\nplatform, the burden of the religious tract. Now, is nothing to be done\nwith these people? You cannot exterminate them, the Church cannot direct\nthem. The Bible is no authority to them--the \"will of God,\" as the\nclergy call it, in their eyes is mere arbitrary, capricious, dog-matical\nassumption; sometimes, indeed, wise precept, but oftener a cloak for\nknavery or a pretext for despotism. To open the eyes of such persons to\nthe omnipresent teachings of Nature, to make reason an authority with\nthem, to inspire them with precepts which experience can verify--to\nconnect conscience with intelligence, right with interest, duty\nwith self-respect, and goodness with love, must surely be useful. If\nSecularism accomplishes some such work, where Christianity confessedly\naccomplishes nothing, it certainly has a place of its own. It is no\nanswer to it to claim that Christianity is higher, vnore complete,\nbetter. The advocates of every old religion, say the same. Christianity\nmay be higher, more complete, better--for somebody else. But nothing can\nbe high, complete, or good, for those who do not see it, accept it, want\nit, or act upon it. That is first which is fit--that is supreme which\nis most productive of practical virtue. No comparison (which would be as\nirrelevant as offensive) between Secularism and Christianity is set\nup here. The question is--is Secularism useful, or may it be useful to\nanybody? The question is not--does it contain _all_ truth? but does\nit contain as much as may be serviceable to many minds, otherwise\nuninfluenced for good? Arithmetic is useful though Algebra is more\ncompendious. Mensuration performs good offices in hands ignorant\nof Euclid. There may be logic without Whately, and melody without\nBeethoven; and there may be Secular ethics which shall be useful without\nthe pretension of Christianity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. CHARACTERISTICS OF SECULARISM.\n\n\nI.\n\nSECULARISM means the moral duty of man in this life deduced from\nconsiderations which pertain to this life alone. Secular education is by\nsome confounded with Secularism, whereas the distinction between them\nis very wide. Secular education simply means imparting Secular knowledge\nseparately--by itself, without admixture of Theology with it. The\nadvocate of Secular education may be, and generally is, also an advocate\nof religion; but he would teach religion at another time and treat it as\na distinct subject, too sacred for coercive admixture into the hard\nand vexatious routine of a school. He would confine the inculcation of\nreligion to fitting seasons and chosen instruments. He holds also that\none subject at a time is mental economy in learning. Secular education\nis the policy of a school--Secularism is a policy of life to those who\ndo not accept Theology. Secularity draws the line of separation between\nthe things of time and the things of eternity. That is Secular which\npertains to this world. The distinction may be seen in the fact that the\ncardinal propositions of Theology are provable only in the next life,\nand not in this. If I believe in a given creed it may turn out to be the\ntrue one; but one must die to find that out. On this side of the grave\nall is doubt; the truth of Biblical creeds is an affair of hope and\nanxiety, while the truth of things Secular becomes apparent in time.\nThe advantages arising from the practice of veracity, justice, and\ntemperance can be ascertained from human experience. If we are told to\n\"fear God and keep His commandments,\" lest His judgments overtake us,\nthe indirect action of this doctrine on human character may make a\nvicious timid man better in this life, supposing the interpretation\nof the will of God, and the commandments selected to be enforced, are\nmoral; but such teaching is not Secular, because its main object is to\nfit men for eternity. Pure Secular principles have for their object to\nfit men for time, making the fulfilment of human duty here the standard\nof fitness for any accruing future. _Secularism purposes to regulate\nhuman affairs by considerations purely human_. Its principles are\nfounded upon Nature, and its object is to render man as perfect as\npossible in this life. Its problem is this: Supposing no other life to\nbe before us, what is the wisest use of this? As the Rev. Thomas Binney\nputs it, \"I believe * * that even * * if there were really no God over\nhim, no heaven above, or eternity in prospect, things are so constituted\nthat man may turn the materials of his little life poem, if not always\ninto a grand epic, mostly into something of interest and beauty; and it\nis worth his while doing so, even if there should be no sequel to the\npiece.\" Chalmers, Archbishop Whately, and earlier distinguished divines\nof the Church of England, the most conspicuous of whom is Bishop Butler,\nhave admitted the independent existence of morality, but we here cite\nMr. Binney's words because among Dissenters this truth is less readily\nadmitted. A true Secular life does not exclude any from supplementary\nspeculations. Not until we have fulfilled our duty to man, as far as we\ncan ascertain that duty, can we consistently pretend to comprehend\nthe more difficult relations of man to God. Our duties to humanity,\nunderstood and discharged to the best of our ability, will in no way\nunfit us to \"reverently meditate on things far beyond us, on Power\nunlimited, on space unfathomed, on time uncounted, on 'whence' we came,\nand 'whither' we go.\"** The leading ideas of Secularism are humanism,\nmoralism, materialism, utilitarian unity; Humanism, the physical\nperfection of this life--Moralism, founded on the laws of Nature, as\nthe guidance of this life--Materialism, as the means of Nature for the\nSecular improvement of this life--Unity of thought and action upon these\npractical grounds. Secularism teaches that the good of the present\nlife is the immediate concern of man, and that it should be his\nfirst endeavour to raise it. Secularism inculcates a Morality founded\nindependently upon the laws of Nature. It seeks human improvement\nthrough purity and suitableness of material conditions as being a method\nat once moral, practical, universal, and sure.\n\n     * \"How to make the best of both worlds,\" p. 11.\n\n     **  F. W. Newman.\n\n\nII.\n\nThe province of Positivism is not speculation upon the origin, but study\nof the laws of Nature--its policy is to destroy error by superseding it.\nAuguste Comte quotes, as a cardinal maxim of scientific progress, the\nwords \"nothing is destroyed until it is replaced,\" a proverbial form\nof a wise saying of M. Necker that in political progress \"nothing is\ndestroyed for which we do not find a substitute.\" Negations, useful in\ntheir place, are iconoclastic--not constructive. Unless substitution\nsucceeds destruction--there can be no sustained progress. The Secularist\nis known by setting up and maintaining affirmative propositions. He\nreplaces negations by affirmations, and substitutes demonstration for\ndenunciation. He asserts truths of Nature and humanity, and reverses\nthe position of the priest who appears as the sceptic, the denier, the\ndisbeliever in Nature and humanity. Statesmen, not otherwise eager for\nimprovement, will regard affirmative proposals. Lord Palmerston could\nsay--\"Show me a good and I will realize it--not an abuse to correct.\"\n\n\nIII.\n\n\"All science,\" says M. Comte, \"has prevision for its end, an axiom which\nseparates science from erudition, which relates to events of the past\nwithout any regard to the future. No accumulation of facts can effect\nprevision until the facts are made the basis of reasonings. A knowledge\nof phenomena leads to prevision, and prevision to action;\" or, in other\nwords, when we can foresee what will happen under given circumstances,\nwe can provide against it. It by no means follows that every Secularist\nwill be scientific, but to discern the value of science, to appreciate\nand promote it, may be possible to most. Science requires high qualities\nof accurate observation, close attention, careful experiment, caution,\npatience, labour. Its value to mankind is inestimable. One physician\nwill do more to alleviate human suffering than ten priests. One physical\ndiscovery will do more to advance civilization than a generation of\nprayer-makers. \"To get acquaintance with the usual course of Nature\n(which Science alone can teach us), is a kind of knowledge which pays\nvery good interest.\"*\n\n     * Athenaeum, No. 1,637, March 12, 1850.\n\nThe value of this knowledge becomes more apparent the longer we live.\nThere may be a general superintending Providence--there may be a Special\nProvidence, but the first does not interfere in human affairs, and the\ninterpositions of the second are no longer to be counted upon. The age\nof Prayer for temporal deliverance has confessedly passed away.\nBut without disputing these points, it is clear that the only help\n_available_ to man, the sole dependence upon which he can _calculate_,\nis that of Science. Nothing can be more impotent than the fate of that\nman who seeks social elevation by mere Faith. All human affairs are a\nprocess, and he alone who acts upon this knowledge can hope to control\nresults. Loyola foresaw the necessity of men acting for human purposes,\nas though there were no God. \"Let us pray,\" said he, \"as if we had no\nhelp in ourselves; _let us labour as if there was no help for us in\nheaven_.\" Society is a blunder, not a science, until it ensures good\nsense and competence for the many. Why this process is tardy, is that\ncreedists get credit for hoping and meaning well. Creedists of good\nintent, who make no improvement and attempt none, are very much in\nthe way of human betterance. The spiritualist regards the world\ntheoretically as a gross element, which he is rather to struggle against\nthan to work with. This makes human service a mortification instead\nof pure passion. We would not deify the world, that is, set up the\nsensualism of the body, as spiritualism is set up as the sensualism\nof the soul. Secularism seeks the material purity of the present life,\nwhich is at once the _means_ and _end_ of Secular endeavour. The most\nreliable means of progress is the _improvement of material condition_,\nand \"purity\" implies \"improvement,\" for there can be no improvement\nwithout it. The aim of all improvement is higher purity. All power,\nart, civilization and progress are summed up in the result--purer life.\nStrength, intellect, love are measured by it. Duty, study, temperance,\npatience are but ministers to this. \"There is that,\" says Ruskin, \"to be\nseen in every street and lane of every city, that to be found and\nfelt in every human heart and countenance, that to be loved in every\nroad-side weed and moss-grown wall, which, in the hands of faithful men,\nmay convey emotions of glory and sublimity continual and exalted.\"\n\n\nIV.\n\nIt is necessary to point out that Sincerity does not imply\ninfallibility. \"There is a truth, which could it be stamped on every\nhuman mind, would exterminate all bigotry and persecution. I mean the\ntruth, that worth of character and true integrity, and, consequently,\nGod's acceptance, are not necessarily connected with any particular\nset of opinions.\"* If you admit that Mark and Paul were honest, most\nChristians take that to be an admission of the truth of all related\nunder their names. Yet if a man in defending his opinions, affirm his\nown sincerity, Christians quickly see that is no proof of their truth,\nand proceed to disprove them. Sincerity may account for a man holding\nhis opinions, but it does not account for the opinions themselves.\nNothing is more common than uninformed, misinformed, mistaken, or\nself-deluded honesty. But sincere error, though dangerous enough, has\nnot the attribute of crime about it--personal intention of mischief.\n\"Because human nature is frail and fallible, the ground of our\nacceptance with God, under the Gospel, is _sincerity_. A sincere desire\nto know and do the will of God, is the only condition of obtaining the\nChristian salvation. Every honest man will be saved.\"** But Sincerity,\nif the reader recurs to our definition of it, includes a short\nintellectual and moral education with respect to it. Those worthy of\nthe high descriptive \"sincere,\" are those who have thought, inquired,\nexamined, are in earnest, have a sense of duty with regard to their\nconviction, which is only satisfied by acting upon it. These processes\nmay not bring a man to the truth, but they bring him near to it. The\nchances of error are reduced hereby as far as human care can reduce\nthem. Secularism holds that the Protestant right of private judgment\nincludes the moral innocency of that judgment, when conscientiously\nformed, whether for or against received opinion; that though _all\nsincere opinion is not equally true, nor equally useful, it is yet\nequally without sin_; that it is not sameness of belief but sincerity of\nbelief which justifies conduct, whether regard be had to the esteem of\nmen or the approval of God. Sincerity, we repeat, is not infallibility.\nThe conscientious are often as mischievous as the false, but he who acts\naccording to the best of his belief is free from criminal intention.\nThe sincerity commended by the fortuitous, insipid, apathetic, inherited\nconsent, which so often passes for honesty, because too indolent or too\ncowardly to inquire, and too stupid to doubt. The man who holds merely\nready-made opinions is not to be placed on the same level with him whose\nconvictions are derived from experience. True sincerity is an educated\nand earnest sentiment. Secularist is an active sentiment seeking the\ntruth and acting upon it.\n\n     * Dr. Price.\n\n     ** John Foster's Tracts on Heresy,\n\n\nV.\n\nIn the formation and judgment of opinions we must take into account the\nconsequences to mankind involved in their adoption. But when an opinion\nseems true in itself and beneficial to society, the consequences in the\nway of inconvenience to ourselves is not sufficient reason for refusing\nto act upon it. If a particular time of enforcing it seem to be one when\nit will be disregarded, or misunderstood, or put back, and the sacrifice\nof ourselves on its behalf produce no adequate advantage to society, it\nmay be lawful to seek a better opportunity. We must, however, take\ncare that this view of the matter is not made a pretext of cowardice or\nevasion of duty. And in no case is it justifiable to belie conscience or\nprofess a belief the contrary of that which we believe to be true. There\nmay in extreme cases be neutrality with regard to truth, but in no case\nshould there be complicity in falsehood. So much with respect to this\nlife. With respect to Deity or another life, we may in all cases rely\nupon this, that in truth alone is safety. With God, conscience can have\nno penal consequences. Conscience is the voice of honesty, and honesty,\nwith all its errors, a God of Truth will regard. \"We have,\" says Blanco\nWhite, \"no revealed rule which will ascertain, with moral certainty,\nwhich doctrines are right and which are wrong--that is, as they are\nknown to God.\"--\"Salvation, therefore, cannot depend on orthodoxy;\nit cannot consist in abstract doctrines, about which men of\nequal abilities, virtue, and sincerity are, and always have been,\ndivided.\"--\"No error on abstract doctrines can be heresy, in the sense\nof a wrong belief which endangers the soul.\" \"The Father of the Universe\naccommodates not His judgments to the wretched wranglings of pedantic\ntheologians, but every one who seeks truth, _whether he findeth it or\nnot_, and worketh righteousness, will be accepted of Him.\"*\n\n     * Bishop Watson's Theological Tracts.   Introductory.\n\nThomas Carlyle was the first English writer, having the ear of the\npublic, who declared in England that \"sincere _doubt_ is as much\nentitled to respect as sincere _belief_.\"\n\n\nVI.\n\nGoing to a distant town to mitigate some calamity there, will illustrate\nthe principle of action prescribed by Secularism. One man will go on\nthis errand from pure sympathy with the unfortunate; this is goodness.\nAnother goes because his priest bids him; this is obedience. Another\ngoes because the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew tells him that all such\npersons will pass to the right hand of the Father; this is calculation.\nAnother goes because he believes God commands him; this is piety.\nAnother goes because he believes that the neglect of suffering will not\nanswer; this is utilitarianism. But another goes on the errand of mercy,\nbecause it is an errand of mercy, because it is an immediate service\nto humanity; and he goes to attempt material amelioration rather than\nspiritual consolation; this is Secularism, which teaches that goodness\nis sanctity, that Nature is guidance, that reason is authority, that\nservice is duty, and that Materialism is help.\n\n\nVII.\n\nThe policy of Secular controversy is to distinguish and assert its own\naffirmative propositions. It is the policy of Secularism not so much\nto say to error \"It is false,\" as to say of truth \"This is true.\" Thus,\ninstead of leaving to the popular theology the prestige of exclusive\naffirmation accorded to it by the world, although it is solely employed\nin the incessant re-assertion of error, Secularism causes it to own\nand publish its denial of positive principle; when the popular theology\nproves itself to be but an organized negation of the moral guidance of\nnature and its tendencies to progress. A Secularist sees clearly upon\nwhat he relies as a Secularist. To him the teaching of Nature is as\nclear as the teaching of the Bible: and since, if God exists, Nature\nis certainly His work, While it is not so clear that the Bible is--the\nteaching of Nature will be preferred and followed where the teaching of\nthe Bible appears to conflict with it. A Secular Society, contemplating\nintellectual and moral progress, must provide for the freest expression\nof opinion on all subjects which its members may deem conducive to their\ncommon objects. Christianism, Theism, Materialism, and Atheism will be\nregarded as open questions, subject to unreserved discussion. But these\noccasions will be the opportunity of the members, not the business of\nthe society. All public proceedings accredited by the society should\nrelate to topics consistent with the common principles of Secularism.\n\"In necessary things, unity: in doubtful things, liberty: in all things,\ncharity.\"* The destruction of religious servitude may be attempted in\ntwo ways. It may be denounced, which will irritate it, or it may be\nsuperseded by the servitude of humanity. Attacking it by denunciation,\ngenerally inflames and precipitates the persecution of the many upon the\nfew; when the weak are liable to be scattered, the cowardly to recant,\nand the brave to perish.\n\n\nVIII.\n\nThe essential rule upon which personal association can be permanent, or\ncontroversy be maintained in the spirit in which truth can be\nevolved, is that of never imputing evil motives nor putting the worst\nconstruction on any act. Free Inquiry has no limits but truth, Free\nSpeech no limits but exactness, Policy (here the law of speech) no\nlimits but usefulness. Unfettered and uncompromising are they who pursue\nfree inquiry throughout--measured and impassable may those become, who\nhold to a generous veracity. Far both from outrage or servility--too\nproud to court and too strong to hate--are those who learn to discard\nall arts but that of the austere service of others, exacting no\nthanks and pausing at no curse. Wise words of counsel to Theological\ncontroversialists have been addressed in a powerful quarter of public\nopinion: \"Religious controversy has already lost much of its bitterness.\nOpen abuse and exchange of foul names are exploded, and even the\nindirect imputation of unworthy motives is falling-into disuse.\nAnother step will be made when theologians have learnt to extend their\nintellectual as well as their moral sympathies, to feel that most truths\nare double edged, and not to wage an unnecessary war against opinion\nwhich, strange, incongruous, and unlovely as they may at first appear,\nare built, perhaps, on as firm a foundation, and are held with equal\nsincerity and good faith, as their own.\"** This is advice which both\nsides should remember.\n\n     * Maxim (much unused) of the Roman Catholic Church.\n\n     ** Times Leader of November 8, 1855.\n\n\nIX.\n\n\"No society can be in a healthy state in which eccentricity is a matter\nof reproach.\" Conventionality is the tyranny of the average man, and\na despicable tyranny it is. The tyranny of genius is hard to be\nborne--that of mediocrity is humiliating. That idea of freedom which\nconsists in the absence of all government is either mere lawlessness,\nor refers to the distant period when each man having attained perfection\nwill be a law unto himself. Just rule is indispensable rule, and none\nother. The fewer laws consistent with the public preservation the\nbetter--there is, then, as Mr. Mill has shown in his \"Liberty,\" the more\nroom for that ever-recurring originality which keeps intellect alive in\nthe world. Towards law kept within the limits of reason, obedience is\nthe first of virtues. \"Order and Progress,\" says Comte, which we should\nexpress thus:--Order, without which Progress is impossible; Progress,\nwithout which Order, is Tyranny. The world is clogged with men of dead\nprinciples. Principles that cannot be acted upon are probably\neither obsolete or false. One certain way to improvement is to exact\nconsistency between profession and practice; and the way to bring this\nabout is to teach that the highest merit consists in having earnest\nviews and in endeavouring to realize them--and this whether the\nconvictions be contained within or without accredited creeds. There will\nbe no progress except within the stereotyped limits of creeds, unless\nmeans are found to justify independent convictions to the conscience.\nTo the philosopher you have merely to show that a thing is true, to the\nstatesman, that it is useful, but to a Christian, that it is safe. The\ngrace of service lies in its patience. To promote the welfare of others,\nirrespective of their gratitude or claims, is to reach the nature of\nthe Gods. It is a higher sentiment than is ascribed to the Deity of\nthe Bible. The abiding disposition to serve others is the end of all\nphilosophy. The vow of principle is always one of poverty and obedience,\nand few are they who take it--and fewer who keep it. If hate obscure\nfor a period the path of duty, let us remember nothing should shake our\nattachment to that supreme thought, which at once stills human anger and\neducates human endeavour--the perception that \"the sufferings and\nerrors of mankind arise out of want of knowledge rather than defect of\ngoodness.\"\n\n\nX.\n\nA leading object of Secularism is the promotion of the material purity\nof the present life--\"material purity,\" which includes personal as well\nas external condition. The question of Spiritualism (without employing\nit and without disparaging it) it regards as a distinct question, and\nhence the methods by which Secularists attempt \"improvement\" will be\n\"material\" as being the most reliable. The tacit or expressed aim of all\nFreethinking, has ever been true thinking and pure thinking. It has been\na continued protest against the errors Theology has introduced, and the\nvicious relations it has conserved and sanctified. It is necessary\nto mark this, and it can be done by insisting and keeping distinctly\nevident that the aim of Secularism is the purity of material influences.\nThis precludes the possibility of Secularism being charged either with\nconscious grossness or intentional sin. Secularism concerns itself with\nthe work of to-day. \"It is always yesterday or to-morrow, and never\nto-day,\"* is a fair description of life according to theologies.\nSecularism, on the contrary, concerns itself with the things of\n\"to-day.\"\n\n     To  know\n     That which before us lies in daily life\n     Is the prime wisdom.\n\n          * Story of Boots, by Dickens.\n\nThe cardinal idea of the \"popular Theology\" is the necessity of\nRevelation. It believes that the light of Nature is darkness, that\nReason affords no guidance, that the Scriptures are the true chart, the\nsole chart, and the sufficient chart of man, and it regards all attempts\nto delineate a chart of Nature as impious, as impracticable, and as a\ncovert attack upon the Biblical chart in possession of the churches.\nKnowing no other guidance than that of the Bible, and disbelieving the\npossibility of any other, theology denounces Doubt, which inspires it\nwith a sense of insecurity--it fears Inquiry, which may invalidate its\ntrust--and deprecates Criticism, which may expose it, if deficient.\nHaving nothing to gain, it is reluctant to incur risk--having all to\nlose, it dreads to be disturbed-having no strength but in Faith, it\nfears those who Reason--and less from ill-will than from the\ntenderness of its position, it persecutes in self-defence. Such are the\nrestrictions and the logic of Theology.\n\n\nXI.\n\nOn the other hand, Rationalism (which is the logic of Nature) is in\nattitude and spirit quite the reverse. It observes that numbers are\nunconvinced of the fact of Revelation, and feel the insufficiency, for\ntheir guidance, of that offered to them. To them the pages of Nature\nseem clearer than those of the Apostles. Reason, which existed before\nall Religions and decides upon all--else the false can never be\ndistinguished from the true--seems self-dependent and capable of\nfurnishing personal direction. Hence Rationalism instructed by facts,\nwinning secrets by experiments, establishing principles by reflection,\nis assured of a morality founded upon the laws of Nature. Without the\nadvantage of inductive science to assist discoveries, or the printing\npress to record corroborations of them, the Pre-Christian world created\nethics, and Socrates and Epictetus, and Zoroaster and Confucius,\ndelivered precepts, to which this age accords a high place. Modern\nRationalists therefore sought, with their new advantages, to augment and\nsystematize these conquests. They tested the claims of the Church by the\ntruths of Nature. That Freethought which had won these truths applied\nthem to creeds, and criticism became its weapon of Propagandism. Its\nconsciousness of new truth stimulated its aggression on old error. The\npretensions of reason being denied as false, and rationalists themselves\npersecuted as dangerous, they had no alternative but to criticise in\norder to vindicate their own principles, and weaken the credit and power\nof their opponents. To attack the misleading dogmas of Theology was to\nthe early Freethinkers well understood self-defence. In some hands\nand under the provocations of vindictive bigotry, this work, no doubt,\nbecame wholly antagonistic, but the main aspiration of the majority was\nthe determination of teaching the people \"to be a law unto themselves.\"\nThey found prevailing a religion of unreasoning faith. They sought to\ncreate a religion of intelligent conviction, whose uniformity consisted\nin sincerity. Its believers did not all hold the same tenets, but they\nall sought the same truth and pursued it with the same earnestness.\nIt was this inspiration which sustained Vanini, Hamont, Lewes, Kett,\nLegate, and Wightman at the stake, and which armed Servetus to prefer\nthe fires of Calvin to the creed of Calvin, which supported Annet in\nthe pillory, and Woolston and Carlile in their imprisonments. It was\nno capricious taste for negations which dictated these deliberate\nsacrifices, but a sentiment purer than interest and stronger than\nself-love--it was the generous passion for unfriended truth.\n\n\nXII.\n\nThe intellectual, no less than the heroic characteristics of Freethought\nhave presented features of obvious unity. Tindal, Shaftesbury, Voltaire,\nPaine, aad Bentham, all vindicated principles of Natural Morality.\nShelley struggled that a pure and lofty ideal of life should prevail,\nand Byron had passionate words of reverence for the human character of\nChrist.*\n\n     * Thus we read, Canto xv. stanza xviii., of Don Juan:--\n\n          Was it not so, great Locke? and greater Bacon?\n          Great Socrates? And thou Diviner still\n          Whose lot it is by man to be mistaken,\n          And thy pure creed made sanctions of all ill?\n          Redeeming world to be by bigots shaken,\n          How was thy toil rewarded?\n\n     To this stanza Lord Byron adds this note:--\n\n          \"As it is necessary in these times to avoid ambiguity,\n          I say that I mean by \"Diviner still\" Christ.\n          If ever God was man--or man God--he was both.\n          I never arraigned his creed, but the use--or abuse--made of it.\"\n\nThe distrust of Prayer for temporal help was accompanied by trust in\nScience, and all saw in material effort an available deliverance from\ncountless ills which the Church can merely deplore. Those who held that\na future life was \"unproven,\" taught that attention to this life was of\nprimary importance, at least highly serviceable to humanity, even if a\nfuture sphere be certain. All strove for Free Inquiry--Rationalism owed\nits existence to it; all required Free Speech--Rationalism was diffused\nby it; all vindicated Free Criticism--Rationalism established itself\nwith it; all demanded to act out their opinions--Rationalism was denuded\nof conscience without this right. In all its mutations, and aberrations,\nand conquests, Freethought has uniformly sought the truth, and shown\nthe courage to trust the truth. Freethought uses no persecution, for it\nfears no opposition, for opposition is its opportunity. It is the cause\nof Enterprise and Progress, of Reason and Duty--and now seeking the\ndefinite and the practical, it selects for its guidance the principle\nthat \"human affairs should be regulated by considerations purely\nhuman.\"** These--the characteristics which the term Secularism was\ndesigned to express--are therefore not inventions, not assumptions, but\nthe general agreements of the Freethought party, inherent, traditional,\nand historic. That which is new, and of the nature of a development, is\nthe perception that the positivism of Freethought principles should\nbe extended, should be clearly distinguished and made the subject of\nenergetic assertion--that the Freethought party which has so loudly\ndemanded toleration for itself, should be able to exercise it towards\nall earnest thinkers, and especially towards all coworkers--that those\nwho have protested against the isolation of human effort by sectarian\nexclusiveness, should themselves set the example of offering, in good\nfaith, practical conditions of unity, not for the glory of sects, or\ncoteries, or schools, but for the immediate service of humanity.\n\n     ** L. H. Holdreth.\n\n\nXIII.\n\nThe Relation of Secularism to the future demands a few words. To seek\nafter the purity and perfection of the Present Life neither disproves\nanother Life beyond this, nor disqualifies man for it. \"Nor is\nSecularism opposed to the Future so far as that Future belongs to the\npresent world--to determine which we have definite science susceptible\nof trial and verification. The conditions of a future life being\nunknown, and there being no imaginable means of benefiting ourselves\nand others in it except by aiming after present goodness, we shall\nconfessedly gain less towards the happiness of a future life by\nspeculation than by simply devoting ourselves to the energetic\nimprovement of this life.\"* Men have a right to look beyond this world,\nbut not to overlook it. Men, if they can, may connect themselves with\neternity, but they cannot disconnect themselves from humanity without\nsacrificing duty. Secular knowledge relates to this life. Religious\nknowledge to another life. Secular instruction teaches the duties to\nman. Religious instruction the duties to God apart from man. Religious\nknowledge relates to celestial creeds. Secular knowr-ledge relates to\nhuman duties to be performed. The religious teacher instructs us how to\nplease God by creeds. The Secular teacher how to serve man by sympathy\nand science.\n\n     * F. W. Newman\n\nArchbishop Whately tells the story of a lady at Bath, who, being\nafraid to cross a tottering bridge lest it should ghre way under her,\nfortunately bethought herself of the expedient of calling for a sedan\nchair, and was carried over in that conveyance. Some of our critics\nthink that we shall resemble this ingenious lady. But those who fear\nto trust themselves to the ancient and tottering Biblical bridge, will\nhardly get into the sedan chair of obsolete orthodoxy, and add the\nweight of _that_ to the danger. They prefer going round by the way of\nreason and fearless private judgment.\n\n\nXIV.\n\nSecularism, we have said, concerns itself with four rights:--\n\n1. The right to Think for one's self, which most Christians now admit,\nat least in theory.\n\n2. The right to Differ, without which the right to think is nothing\nworth.\n\n3. The right to Assert difference of opinion, without which the right to\ndiffer is of no practical use.\n\n4. The right to Debate all vital opinion, without which there is no\nintellectual equality--no defence against the errors of the state or the\npulpit.\n\nIt is of no use that the Protestant concedes the right to think unless\nhe concedes the right to differ. We may as well be Catholic unless we\nare free to dissent. Rome will concede our right to think for\nourselves, provided we agree with the Church when we have done; and when\nProtestantism affects to award us the right of private judgment, and\nrequires us to agree with the thirty-nine Articles in the end--or when\nEvangelical Ministers tell us we are free to think for ourselves, but\nmust believe in the Bible nevertheless, both parties reason on the\nPapist principle; both mock us with a show of freedom, and impose the\nreality of mental slavery upon us. It is mere irony to say \"Search the\nScriptures,\" when the meaning is--you must accept the Scriptures whether\nthey seem true or not. Of the temper in which theological opinions\nought to be formed, we have the instruction of one as eminent as he\nwas capable. Jefferson remarks, \"In considering this subject, divest\nyourself of all bias, shake off all fears and servile prejudices, under\nwhich weak minds crouch: fix reason in her seat firmly; question with\nboldness, even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must\napprove the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Read\nthe Bible as you would Tacitus or Livy. Those facts in the Bible which\ncontradict the laws of Nature must be examined with care. The New\nTestament is the history of a person called Jesus. Keep in your eye what\nis related. They say he was begotten by God, but born of a virgin (how\nreconcile this?); that he was crucified to death, and buried; that he\nrose and ascended bodily into heaven: thus reversing the laws of Nature.\nDo not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear, and if it ends in a\nbelief that the story is not true, or that there is not a God, you will\nfind other incitements to virtue and goodness. In fine, lay aside all\nprejudices on both sides, neither believe nor reject anything because\nothers have rejected or disbelieved it Your reason is the only oracle\ngiven you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness,\nbut for the uprightness of your opinion; and never mind evangelists,\nor pseudo-evangelists, who pretend to inspiration.\"* It is in vain the\nChristian quotes the Pauline injunction, \"Prove all things; hold fast\nthat which is good,\" if we are to hold fast to his good, which may be\nevil to us. For a man to prove all things needful, and hold fast to\nthat which he considers good, is the true maxim of freedom and progress.\nSecularism, therefore, proclaims and justifies the right to Differ, and\nthe right to assert conscientious difference on the platform, through\nthe press, in civil institutions, in Parliament, in courts of law, where\nit demands that the affirmation of those who reject Christianity shall\nbe as valid as the oath of those who accept it.\n\n     * \"Jefferson: Memoirs.\" Vol. II. Quoted by Sir G. Cockburn,\n     in his \"Confessions of Faith, by a Philosopher,\" pages 4 and\n     5.\n\n\nXV.\n\nYet some opponents have professed that Secular cannot be distinguished\nfrom Christian rights. Is this so? The right to think for ourselves has\nbeen emphatically and reiteratedly declared to be a Christian right:*\nit \"belongs essentially to Christianity.\" Now Christianity has no such\nright. It has the right to think the Bible true, and nothing else.\n\n     * \"Six Chapters on Secularism,\" by Dr. Parker, Cavendish\n     Pulpit, Manchester.\n\nThe Christian has no right to think Christianity untrue, however untrue\nit may appear. He dare not think it false. He dare no more think it\nfalse than the Catholic dare differ from the dictum of the Church, or\nthe Mahomedan differ from the text of the Koran, or the Hindoo differ\nfrom the precepts of the Brahmin. Therefore, the Christian's right to\nthink for himself is simply a compulsion to believe. A right implies\nrelative freedom of action; but the Christian has no freedom. He has no\nchoice but to believe, or perish everlastingly. The Christian right to\nthink for himself is, therefore, not the same as the Secular right. We\nmean by the right to think, what the term right always implies--freedom\nand independence, and absence of all crime, or danger of penalty through\nthe honest exercise of thought and maintenance of honest conclusions,\nwhether in favour of or against Christianity. Our assertion is that\n\"Private judgment is free and guiltless.\" The Christian is good enough\nto say, we have \"a right to think, provided we think rightly.\" But what\ndoes he mean by \"rightly?\" He means that we should think as he thinks.\nThis is his interpretation of \"rightly.\" Whoever does not fall in with\nhis views, is generally, in his vocabulary, a dishonest perverter of\nscripture. Now, if we really have the right to differ, we have the right\nto differ from the Minister or from the Bible, if we see good reason\nto do so, without being exposed to the censure of our neighbours, or\ndisapprobation of God. The question is not--does man give us the right\nto think for ourselves? but, does God give it to us? If we must come\nto a given opinion, our private judgment is unnecessary. Let us know at\nonce what we are to believe, that we may believe it at once, and secure\nsafety. If possible disbelief in Christianity will lead to eternal\nperdition, the right of private judgment is a snare. We had better\nbe without that perilous privilege, and we come to regard the Roman\nCatholic as penetrative when he paints private judgment as the\nsuggestion of Satan, and the Roman Catholic no less merciful than\nconsistent when he proscribes it altogether. We must feel astonishment\nat him who declares the Secular right to be essentially a Christian\nright, when it is quite a different thing, is understood in an entirely\ndifferent sense, and has an application unknown and unadmitted by\nChristianity. This is not merely loose thinking, it is reckless\nthinking.\n\n\nXVI.\n\nIt has been asserted that the second right, \"the right to differ,\" is\nalso a Christian right. \"Christianity recognizes the claim to difference\nof opinion. Christians are not careful to maintain uniformity at the\nexpense of private judgment.\" This is omitting a part of the truth.\nChristians often permit difference of opinion upon details, but not upon\nessentials, and this is the suppression made. The Christian may differ\non points of church discipline, but if he differ upon the essential\narticles of his creed, the minister at once warns him that he is in\n\"danger of the judgment.\" Let any minister try it himself, and his\ncongregation will soon warn him to depart, and also warn him of that\nhigher Power, who will bid him depart \"into outer darkness, where there\nwill be wailing and gnashing of teeth.\" With respect to the third right,\n\"the right of asserting difference of opinion,\" this is declared to\nbe not peculiar to Secularism; that \"Christian churches, chapels,\nliterature and services, are so many confirmations of the statement that\nChristians claim the right of speaking what they think, whether it be\naffirmative or negative.\" Yes, so long as what they speak agrees with\nthe Bible. This is the Christian limit; yet this is the limit which\nSecularism expressly passes and discards. It is the unfettered right\nwhich makes Secularism to differ from Christianity, and to excel it.\n\n\nXVII.\n\nThe right of private judgment, always in set terms conceded to us, means\nnothing, unless it leads to a new understanding as to the terms in which\nwe are to be addressed. In the \"Bible and the People,\" it is described\nas \"an insolence to ignore Christianity.\"* We do not understand this\nlanguage. It would be insolence to Deity to ignore a message which we\ncan recognize as coming from Him, but it may rather imply reverence\nfor God to reject the reports of many who speak in His name. Were we to\nrequire Christians to read our books or think as we think, they would\nresent the requirement as an impertinence; and we have yet to learn\n\"that it is less an impertinence when Christians make these demands of\nus.\" If Christians are under no obligation to hold our opinions, neither\nare we under obligation to hold theirs.\n\n     * No. I. Vol. I., p. 8. Edited by the Rev. Brewin Grant.\n\nBy our own act, or at their solicitation, we may study \"sacred\"\nwritings, but at dictation, never! So long as Secularists obey the laws\nenacted for the common security, so long as they perform the duties of\ngood citizens, it is nothing to Christians what opinions they hold.\nWe neither seek their counsel nor desire their sentiments--except\nthey concede them on terms of equality. The light by which we walk is\nsufficient for us; and as at the last day, of which Christians speak,\nwe shall there have, according to their own showing, to answer for\nourselves, we prefer to think for ourselves; and since they do not\npropose to take our responsibility, we decline to take their doctrines.\nWhere we are to be responsible, we will be free; and no man shall\ndictate to us the opinions we shall hold. We shall probably know as well\nas any Christian how to live with freedom and to die without fear. It\nis in vain for Christians to tell us that Newton and Locke differed from\nus. What is that to us unless Newton and Locke will answer for us? The\nworld may differ from a man, but what is the world to him, unless it\nwill take his place at the judgment-day? Who is Paul or Apollos, or\nMatthew or Mark, that we should venture our eternal salvation on his\nword, any more than on that of a Mahomedan prophet, or a Buddhist\npriest? Where the danger is our own, the faith shall be our own.\nSecularism is not an act conceived in the spirit of pride, or vanity, or\nself-will, or eccentricity, or singularity, or stiff-neckedness. It is\nsimply well-understood self-defence. If men have the right of private\njudgment, that right has set them free; and we own no law but reason, no\nlimits but the truth, and have no fear but that of guilt. We may say we\nbelieve in honour, which is respecting the truth--in morality, which\nis acting the truth--in love, which is serving the truth--and in\nindependence, which is defending the truth.\n\n\nXVIII.\n\n\n\nConfucius declared that the foundation of all religion was reverence and\nobedience.* The Religious sentiment is the intentional reverence of\nGod. The Christian is ever persuaded that there is only one way of doing\nthis, and he arrogantly assumes that he has that way. Whereas the ways\nare as diverse as human genius. Let those who deny that Secular Truth\nmeets the emotional part of their nature, settle what is the nature\nof the emotions they desiderate. The miser wants money--the sensualist\nwants the cook--the scholar wants knowledge--and the mother desires the\nlife, growth, and happiness of her child. But what can man want in a\nrational sense which Nature and humanity may not supply? Do we not meet\nthe demand of the many when we show that Secularism is sufficient for\nprogress; that it is moral, and therefore sufficient for trust; that it\nbuilds only upon the known, and is therefore reliable? It is the highest\nand most unpresumptuous form of unconscious worship. It is practical\nreverence without the arrogance of theoretical homage. We at least feel\nconfident of this, that the future, if it come, will not be miserable.\nThere _may_ be a future--this remains to awaken interest and perennial\ncuriosity. If Nature be conscious, it will still design the happiness\nof man, which it now permits--this assurance remains, stilling fear and\nteaching trust.\n\n     * Sir John Bowring.\n\n\nXIX.\n\nIn surveying the position of Christianism in Great Britain there\nis found to exist a large outlying class, daily increasing, who for\nconscientious reasons reject its cardinal tenets. Hence arises the\nquestion:--Are good citizenship and virtuous life on Secular principles,\npossible to these persons? Secularism answers, Yes. To these, excluded\nby the letter of scripture, by the narrowness of churches, by the\nintrinsic error and moral repulsiveness of doctrine, Secularism\naddresses itself; to these it is the word of Recognition, of Concert\nand Morality. It points them to an educated conscience as a security of\nmorals, to the study of Nature as a source of help, and seeks to win the\nindifferent by appeals to the inherent goodness of human Nature and the\nauthority of reason, which Christianism cannot use and dare not trust.\nIf, however, the Secularist elects to walk by the light of Nature,\nwill he be able to see? Is the light of Nature a fitful lamp, or a brief\ntorch, which accident may upset, or a gust extinguish? On the contrary,\nthe light of Nature may burn steady, clear, and full, over the\nentire field of human life. On this point we have the testimony of an\nadversary, who was understood to address us, a testimony as remarkable\nfor its quality as for its felicity of expression:--\"There is the\nethical mind, calm, level, and clear; chiefly intent on the good\nordering of this life; judging all things by their tendency to this end,\nand impatient of every oscillation of our nature that swings beyond\nit. There is nothing low or unworthy in the attachment which keeps this\nspirit close to the present world, and watchful for*its affairs. It is\nnot a selfish feeling, but often one intensely social and humane, not\nany mean fascination with mere material interests, but a devotion to\njustice and right, and an assertion of the sacred authority of human\nduties and affections. A man thus tempered deals chiefly with this\nvisible life and his comrades in it, because, as nearest to him, they\nare better known. He plants his standard on the present, as on a vantage\nground, where he can survey his field, and manoeuvre all his force,\nand compute the battle he is to fight. Whatever his bearings fervours\ntowards beyond his range, he has no insensibility to the claims that\nfall within his acknowledged province, and that appeal to him in the\nnative speech of his humanity. He so reverences veracity, honour, and\ngood faith, as to expect them like the daylight, and hears of their\nviolation with a flush of scorn. His word is a rock, and he expects that\nyours will not be a quicksand. If you are lax, you cannot hope for his\ntrust; but if you are in trouble, you easily move his pity. And the\nsight of a real oppression, though the sufferer be no ornamental hero,\nbut black, unsightly, and disreputable, suffices perhaps to set him\nto work for life, that he may expunge the disgrace from the records of\nmankind. Such men as he constitute for our world its moral centre of\ngravity; and whoever would compute the path of improvement that has\nbrought it thus far on its way, or trace its sweep into a brighter\nfuture, must take account of their steady mass. The effect of this style\nof thought and taste on the religion of its possessor, is not difficult\nto trace. It may, no doubt, stop short of avowed and conscious religion\naltogether; its basis being simply moral, and its scene temporal, its\nconditions may be imagined as complete, without any acknowledgment of\nhigher relations.\"*\n\n     * Professor Martineau, in Octagon Chapel, Norwich, 1856.\n\n\nXX.\n\nNature is. That which is, is the primary subject of study. The study\nof Nature reveals the laws of Nature. The laws of Nature furnish safe\nguidance to humanity. Safe guidance is to help available in daily\nlife--to happiness, self-contained--to service, which knows how \"to\nlabour and to wait.\" For authority, Nature refers us to Experience and\nto Reason. For help, to Science, the nearest available help of man.\nScience implies disciplined powers on the part of the people, and\nconcert in their use, to realize the security and sufficiency necessary\nto happiness. Happiness depends on moral, no less than on physical\nconditions. The moral condition is the full and fearless discharge of\nDuty. Duty is devotion to the Right. Right is that which is morally\nexpedient. That is morally expedient which is conducive to the happiness\nof the greatest numbers. The service of others is the practical form\nof duty; and endurance in the service of others, the highest form of\nhappiness. It is pleasure, peace, security, and desert.\n\n\nXXI.\n\nWe believe there is sufficient soundness in Secular principles to make\nway in the world. All that is wanted is that advocates of them shall\nhave clear notions of the value of method in their work. To the novice\nin advocacy policy seems a crime--at least, many so describe it. Unable\nhimself to see his way, the tyro fights at everything and everybody\nequally; and too vain to own his failure, he declares that the right\nway. Not knowing that progress is an art, and an art requiring the union\nof many qualities, he denies all art, cries down policy, and erects\nblundering into a virtue. Compare the way which Havelock reached\nLucknow, and the way in which Sir Colin Campbell performed the same\nfeat, and you see the difference between courage without, and\ncourage with strategy. It was because magnitudes existed, which were\ninaccessible and incapable of direct measurement, that mathematics\narose. Finding direct measurement so often impossible, men were\ncompelled to find means of ascertaining magnitude and distance\nindirectly. Hence mathematics became a scientific policy. Mathematics is\nbut policy of measurement--grammar but the policy of speech--logic\nbut the policy of reason--arithmetic but the policy of\ncalculation--temperance but the policy of health--trigonometry but the\npolicy of navigation--roads but the policy of transit--music but the\npolicy of controlling sound--art but the policy of beauty--law but the\npolicy of protection--discipline but the policy of strength--love but\nthe policy of affection. An enemy may object to our having a policy,\nbecause it suits his purpose that we should be without one; but that a\nfriend should object to our having a policy is one of those incredible\ninfatuations which converts partisans into unconscious traitors. The\npolicy adopted may be a bad policy, and no policy at all is idiotcy. If\na policy be bad, criticise and amend it; but to denounce all policy\nis to commit your cause to the providence of Bedlam. If, therefore,\nthroughout all intelligent control of Nature and humanity, policy is the\none supreme mark of wisdom, why should it be dishonourable to study the\npolicy of opinion? He who consistently objects to policy, would build\nrailway engines without safety valves, and dismiss them from stations\nwithout drivers; he would abolish turnpike roads and streets, and leave\nus to find our way at random; he would recommend that vessels be made\nwithout helms, and sail without captains, that armies fight without\ndiscipline, and artillery-men should fire before loading, and when\npointing their guns, should aim at nothing. In fine, a man without\npolicy, honestly and intelligently opposed to policy, would build his\nhouse with the roof downwards, and plant his trees with their roots in\nthe air; he would kick his friend and hug his enemy; he would pay wages\nto servants who would not work, govern without rule, speak without\nthought, think without reason, act without purpose, be a knave by\naccident, and a fool by design.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Principles of Secularism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":15240}