* Thus we read, Canto xv. stanza xviii., of Don Juan:--

Was it not so, great Locke? and greater Bacon?

Great Socrates? And thou Diviner still Whose lot it is by man to be mistaken, And thy pure creed made sanctions of all ill?

Redeeming world to be by bigots shaken, How was thy toil rewarded?

To this stanza Lord Byron adds this note:--

"As it is necessary in these times to avoid ambiguity, I say that I mean by "Diviner still" Christ.

If ever G.o.d was man--or man G.o.d--he was both.

I never arraigned his creed, but the use--or abuse--made of it."

The distrust of Prayer for temporal help was accompanied by trust in Science, and all saw in material effort an available deliverance from countless ills which the Church can merely deplore. Those who held that a future life was "unproven," taught that attention to this life was of primary importance, at least highly serviceable to humanity, even if a future sphere be certain. All strove for Free Inquiry--Rationalism owed its existence to it; all required Free Speech--Rationalism was diffused by it; all vindicated Free Criticism--Rationalism established itself with it; all demanded to act out their opinions--Rationalism was denuded of conscience without this right. In all its mutations, and aberrations, and conquests, Freethought has uniformly sought the truth, and shown the courage to trust the truth. Freethought uses no persecution, for it fears no opposition, for opposition is its opportunity. It is the cause of Enterprise and Progress, of Reason and Duty--and now seeking the definite and the practical, it selects for its guidance the principle that "human affairs should be regulated by considerations purely human."** These--the characteristics which the term Secularism was designed to express--are therefore not inventions, not a.s.sumptions, but the general agreements of the Freethought party, inherent, traditional, and historic. That which is new, and of the nature of a development, is the perception that the positivism of Freethought principles should be extended, should be clearly distinguished and made the subject of energetic a.s.sertion--that the Freethought party which has so loudly demanded toleration for itself, should be able to exercise it towards all earnest thinkers, and especially towards all coworkers--that those who have protested against the isolation of human effort by sectarian exclusiveness, should themselves set the example of offering, in good faith, practical conditions of unity, not for the glory of sects, or coteries, or schools, but for the immediate service of humanity.

** L. H. Holdreth.

XIII.

The Relation of Secularism to the future demands a few words. To seek after the purity and perfection of the Present Life neither disproves another Life beyond this, nor disqualifies man for it. "Nor is Secularism opposed to the Future so far as that Future belongs to the present world--to determine which we have definite science susceptible of trial and verification. The conditions of a future life being unknown, and there being no imaginable means of benefiting ourselves and others in it except by aiming after present goodness, we shall confessedly gain less towards the happiness of a future life by speculation than by simply devoting ourselves to the energetic improvement of this life."* Men have a right to look beyond this world, but not to overlook it. Men, if they can, may connect themselves with eternity, but they cannot disconnect themselves from humanity without sacrificing duty. Secular knowledge relates to this life. Religious knowledge to another life. Secular instruction teaches the duties to man. Religious instruction the duties to G.o.d apart from man. Religious knowledge relates to celestial creeds. Secular knowr-ledge relates to human duties to be performed. The religious teacher instructs us how to please G.o.d by creeds. The Secular teacher how to serve man by sympathy and science.

* F. W. Newman

Archbishop Whately tells the story of a lady at Bath, who, being afraid to cross a tottering bridge lest it should ghre way under her, fortunately bethought herself of the expedient of calling for a sedan chair, and was carried over in that conveyance. Some of our critics think that we shall resemble this ingenious lady. But those who fear to trust themselves to the ancient and tottering Biblical bridge, will hardly get into the sedan chair of obsolete orthodoxy, and add the weight of _that_ to the danger. They prefer going round by the way of reason and fearless private judgment.

XIV.

Secularism, we have said, concerns itself with four rights:--

1. The right to Think for one's self, which most Christians now admit, at least in theory.

2. The right to Differ, without which the right to think is nothing worth.

3. The right to a.s.sert difference of opinion, without which the right to differ is of no practical use.

4. The right to Debate all vital opinion, without which there is no intellectual equality--no defence against the errors of the state or the pulpit.

It is of no use that the Protestant concedes the right to think unless he concedes the right to differ. We may as well be Catholic unless we are free to dissent. Rome will concede our right to think for ourselves, provided we agree with the Church when we have done; and when Protestantism affects to award us the right of private judgment, and requires us to agree with the thirty-nine Articles in the end--or when Evangelical Ministers tell us we are free to think for ourselves, but must believe in the Bible nevertheless, both parties reason on the Papist principle; both mock us with a show of freedom, and impose the reality of mental slavery upon us. It is mere irony to say "Search the Scriptures," when the meaning is--you must accept the Scriptures whether they seem true or not. Of the temper in which theological opinions ought to be formed, we have the instruction of one as eminent as he was capable. Jefferson remarks, "In considering this subject, divest yourself of all bias, shake off all fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds crouch: fix reason in her seat firmly; question with boldness, even the existence of G.o.d; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Read the Bible as you would Tacitus or Livy. Those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of Nature must be examined with care. The New Testament is the history of a person called Jesus. Keep in your eye what is related. They say he was begotten by G.o.d, but born of a virgin (how reconcile this?); that he was crucified to death, and buried; that he rose and ascended bodily into heaven: thus reversing the laws of Nature.

Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear, and if it ends in a belief that the story is not true, or that there is not a G.o.d, you will find other incitements to virtue and goodness. In fine, lay aside all prejudices on both sides, neither believe nor reject anything because others have rejected or disbelieved it Your reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but for the uprightness of your opinion; and never mind evangelists, or pseudo-evangelists, who pretend to inspiration."* It is in vain the Christian quotes the Pauline injunction, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good," if we are to hold fast to his good, which may be evil to us. For a man to prove all things needful, and hold fast to that which he considers good, is the true maxim of freedom and progress.

Secularism, therefore, proclaims and justifies the right to Differ, and the right to a.s.sert conscientious difference on the platform, through the press, in civil inst.i.tutions, in Parliament, in courts of law, where it demands that the affirmation of those who reject Christianity shall be as valid as the oath of those who accept it.

* "Jefferson: Memoirs." Vol. II. Quoted by Sir G. c.o.c.kburn, in his "Confessions of Faith, by a Philosopher," pages 4 and 5.

XV.

Yet some opponents have professed that Secular cannot be distinguished from Christian rights. Is this so? The right to think for ourselves has been emphatically and reiteratedly declared to be a Christian right:*

it "belongs essentially to Christianity." Now Christianity has no such right. It has the right to think the Bible true, and nothing else.

* "Six Chapters on Secularism," by Dr. Parker, Cavendish Pulpit, Manchester.

The Christian has no right to think Christianity untrue, however untrue it may appear. He dare not think it false. He dare no more think it false than the Catholic dare differ from the dictum of the Church, or the Mahomedan differ from the text of the Koran, or the Hindoo differ from the precepts of the Brahmin. Therefore, the Christian's right to think for himself is simply a compulsion to believe. A right implies relative freedom of action; but the Christian has no freedom. He has no choice but to believe, or perish everlastingly. The Christian right to think for himself is, therefore, not the same as the Secular right. We mean by the right to think, what the term right always implies--freedom and independence, and absence of all crime, or danger of penalty through the honest exercise of thought and maintenance of honest conclusions, whether in favour of or against Christianity. Our a.s.sertion is that "Private judgment is free and guiltless." The Christian is good enough to say, we have "a right to think, provided we think rightly." But what does he mean by "rightly?" He means that we should think as he thinks.

This is his interpretation of "rightly." Whoever does not fall in with his views, is generally, in his vocabulary, a dishonest perverter of scripture. Now, if we really have the right to differ, we have the right to differ from the Minister or from the Bible, if we see good reason to do so, without being exposed to the censure of our neighbours, or disapprobation of G.o.d. The question is not--does man give us the right to think for ourselves? but, does G.o.d give it to us? If we must come to a given opinion, our private judgment is unnecessary. Let us know at once what we are to believe, that we may believe it at once, and secure safety. If possible disbelief in Christianity will lead to eternal perdition, the right of private judgment is a snare. We had better be without that perilous privilege, and we come to regard the Roman Catholic as penetrative when he paints private judgment as the suggestion of Satan, and the Roman Catholic no less merciful than consistent when he proscribes it altogether. We must feel astonishment at him who declares the Secular right to be essentially a Christian right, when it is quite a different thing, is understood in an entirely different sense, and has an application unknown and unadmitted by Christianity. This is not merely loose thinking, it is reckless thinking.

XVI.

It has been a.s.serted that the second right, "the right to differ," is also a Christian right. "Christianity recognizes the claim to difference of opinion. Christians are not careful to maintain uniformity at the expense of private judgment." This is omitting a part of the truth.

Christians often permit difference of opinion upon details, but not upon essentials, and this is the suppression made. The Christian may differ on points of church discipline, but if he differ upon the essential articles of his creed, the minister at once warns him that he is in "danger of the judgment." Let any minister try it himself, and his congregation will soon warn him to depart, and also warn him of that higher Power, who will bid him depart "into outer darkness, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." With respect to the third right, "the right of a.s.serting difference of opinion," this is declared to be not peculiar to Secularism; that "Christian churches, chapels, literature and services, are so many confirmations of the statement that Christians claim the right of speaking what they think, whether it be affirmative or negative." Yes, so long as what they speak agrees with the Bible. This is the Christian limit; yet this is the limit which Secularism expressly pa.s.ses and discards. It is the unfettered right which makes Secularism to differ from Christianity, and to excel it.

XVII.

The right of private judgment, always in set terms conceded to us, means nothing, unless it leads to a new understanding as to the terms in which we are to be addressed. In the "Bible and the People," it is described as "an insolence to ignore Christianity."* We do not understand this language. It would be insolence to Deity to ignore a message which we can recognize as coming from Him, but it may rather imply reverence for G.o.d to reject the reports of many who speak in His name. Were we to require Christians to read our books or think as we think, they would resent the requirement as an impertinence; and we have yet to learn "that it is less an impertinence when Christians make these demands of us." If Christians are under no obligation to hold our opinions, neither are we under obligation to hold theirs.

* No. I. Vol. I., p. 8. Edited by the Rev. Brewin Grant.

By our own act, or at their solicitation, we may study "sacred"

writings, but at dictation, never! So long as Secularists obey the laws enacted for the common security, so long as they perform the duties of good citizens, it is nothing to Christians what opinions they hold.

We neither seek their counsel nor desire their sentiments--except they concede them on terms of equality. The light by which we walk is sufficient for us; and as at the last day, of which Christians speak, we shall there have, according to their own showing, to answer for ourselves, we prefer to think for ourselves; and since they do not propose to take our responsibility, we decline to take their doctrines.

Where we are to be responsible, we will be free; and no man shall dictate to us the opinions we shall hold. We shall probably know as well as any Christian how to live with freedom and to die without fear. It is in vain for Christians to tell us that Newton and Locke differed from us. What is that to us unless Newton and Locke will answer for us? The world may differ from a man, but what is the world to him, unless it will take his place at the judgment-day? Who is Paul or Apollos, or Matthew or Mark, that we should venture our eternal salvation on his word, any more than on that of a Mahomedan prophet, or a Buddhist priest? Where the danger is our own, the faith shall be our own.

Secularism is not an act conceived in the spirit of pride, or vanity, or self-will, or eccentricity, or singularity, or stiff-neckedness. It is simply well-understood self-defence. If men have the right of private judgment, that right has set them free; and we own no law but reason, no limits but the truth, and have no fear but that of guilt. We may say we believe in honour, which is respecting the truth--in morality, which is acting the truth--in love, which is serving the truth--and in independence, which is defending the truth.

XVIII.

Confucius declared that the foundation of all religion was reverence and obedience.* The Religious sentiment is the intentional reverence of G.o.d. The Christian is ever persuaded that there is only one way of doing this, and he arrogantly a.s.sumes that he has that way. Whereas the ways are as diverse as human genius. Let those who deny that Secular Truth meets the emotional part of their nature, settle what is the nature of the emotions they desiderate. The miser wants money--the sensualist wants the cook--the scholar wants knowledge--and the mother desires the life, growth, and happiness of her child. But what can man want in a rational sense which Nature and humanity may not supply? Do we not meet the demand of the many when we show that Secularism is sufficient for progress; that it is moral, and therefore sufficient for trust; that it builds only upon the known, and is therefore reliable? It is the highest and most unpresumptuous form of unconscious worship. It is practical reverence without the arrogance of theoretical homage. We at least feel confident of this, that the future, if it come, will not be miserable.

There _may_ be a future--this remains to awaken interest and perennial curiosity. If Nature be conscious, it will still design the happiness of man, which it now permits--this a.s.surance remains, stilling fear and teaching trust.

* Sir John Bowring.

XIX.

In surveying the position of Christianism in Great Britain there is found to exist a large outlying cla.s.s, daily increasing, who for conscientious reasons reject its cardinal tenets. Hence arises the question:--Are good citizenship and virtuous life on Secular principles, possible to these persons? Secularism answers, Yes. To these, excluded by the letter of scripture, by the narrowness of churches, by the intrinsic error and moral repulsiveness of doctrine, Secularism addresses itself; to these it is the word of Recognition, of Concert and Morality. It points them to an educated conscience as a security of morals, to the study of Nature as a source of help, and seeks to win the indifferent by appeals to the inherent goodness of human Nature and the authority of reason, which Christianism cannot use and dare not trust.

If, however, the Secularist elects to walk by the light of Nature, will he be able to see? Is the light of Nature a fitful lamp, or a brief torch, which accident may upset, or a gust extinguish? On the contrary, the light of Nature may burn steady, clear, and full, over the entire field of human life. On this point we have the testimony of an adversary, who was understood to address us, a testimony as remarkable for its quality as for its felicity of expression:--"There is the ethical mind, calm, level, and clear; chiefly intent on the good ordering of this life; judging all things by their tendency to this end, and impatient of every oscillation of our nature that swings beyond it. There is nothing low or unworthy in the attachment which keeps this spirit close to the present world, and watchful for*its affairs. It is not a selfish feeling, but often one intensely social and humane, not any mean fascination with mere material interests, but a devotion to justice and right, and an a.s.sertion of the sacred authority of human duties and affections. A man thus tempered deals chiefly with this visible life and his comrades in it, because, as nearest to him, they are better known. He plants his standard on the present, as on a vantage ground, where he can survey his field, and manoeuvre all his force, and compute the battle he is to fight. Whatever his bearings fervours towards beyond his range, he has no insensibility to the claims that fall within his acknowledged province, and that appeal to him in the native speech of his humanity. He so reverences veracity, honour, and good faith, as to expect them like the daylight, and hears of their violation with a flush of scorn. His word is a rock, and he expects that yours will not be a quicksand. If you are lax, you cannot hope for his trust; but if you are in trouble, you easily move his pity. And the sight of a real oppression, though the sufferer be no ornamental hero, but black, unsightly, and disreputable, suffices perhaps to set him to work for life, that he may expunge the disgrace from the records of mankind. Such men as he const.i.tute for our world its moral centre of gravity; and whoever would compute the path of improvement that has brought it thus far on its way, or trace its sweep into a brighter future, must take account of their steady ma.s.s. The effect of this style of thought and taste on the religion of its possessor, is not difficult to trace. It may, no doubt, stop short of avowed and conscious religion altogether; its basis being simply moral, and its scene temporal, its conditions may be imagined as complete, without any acknowledgment of higher relations."*

* Professor Martineau, in Octagon Chapel, Norwich, 1856.

XX.

Nature is. That which is, is the primary subject of study. The study of Nature reveals the laws of Nature. The laws of Nature furnish safe guidance to humanity. Safe guidance is to help available in daily life--to happiness, self-contained--to service, which knows how "to labour and to wait." For authority, Nature refers us to Experience and to Reason. For help, to Science, the nearest available help of man.

Science implies disciplined powers on the part of the people, and concert in their use, to realize the security and sufficiency necessary to happiness. Happiness depends on moral, no less than on physical conditions. The moral condition is the full and fearless discharge of Duty. Duty is devotion to the Right. Right is that which is morally expedient. That is morally expedient which is conducive to the happiness of the greatest numbers. The service of others is the practical form of duty; and endurance in the service of others, the highest form of happiness. It is pleasure, peace, security, and desert.

XXI.