English Secularism Part 4

Third Principle: _Of goodness as fitness for this world or another_.--Goodness is the service of others with a view to their advantage. There is no higher human merit. Human welfare is the sanction of morality. The measure of a good action is its conducive-ness to progress. The utilitarian test of generous rightness in motive may be open to objection,--there is no test which is not,--but the utilitarian rule is one comprehensible by every mind. It is the only rule which makes knowledge necessary, and becomes more luminous as knowledge increases. A fool may be a believer,* but not a utilitarian who seeks his ground of action in the largest field of relevant facts his mind is able to survey.

* The Guardian told as about 1887 that the Bishop of Exeter confirmed five idiots.

Utility in morals is measuring the good of one by its agreement with the good of many. Large ideas are when a man measures the good of his parish by the good of the town, the good of the town by the good of the county, the good of the county by the good of the country, the good of the country by the good of the continent, the good of the continent by the cosmopolitanism of the world.

Truth and solicitude for the social welfare of others are the proper concern of a soul worth saving. Only minds with goodness in them have the desert of future existence. Minds without veracity and generosity die. The elements of death are in the selfish already. They could not live in a better world if they were admitted.

In a n.o.ble pa.s.sage in his sermon on "Citizenship" the Rev. Stopford Brooks said: "There are thousands of my fellow-citizens, men, and women, and children, who are living in conditions in which they have no true means of becoming healthy in body, trained in mind, or comforted by beauty. Life is as hard for them as it is easy for me. I cannot help them by giving them money, one by one, but I can help them by making the condition of their life easier by a good government of the city in which they live. And even if the charge on my property for this purpose increases for a time, year by year, till the work is done, that charge I will gladly pay. It shall be my ethics, _my religion_, my patriotism, my citizenship to do it."* The great preacher whose words are here cited, like Theodore Parker, the Jupiter of the pulpit in his day, as Wendell Phillips described him to me, is not a Secularist; but he expresses here the religion of the Secularist, if such a person can be supposed to have a religion.

* Preached in reference to the London County Council election, March, 1892.

A theological creed which the base may hold, and usually do, has none of the merit of deeds of service to humanity, which only the good intentionally perform. Conscience is the sense of right with regard to others, it is a sense of duty towards others which tells us that we should do justice to them; and if not able to do it individually, to endeavor to get it done by others. At St. Peter's Gate there can be no pa.s.sport so safe as this. He was not far wrong who, when asked where heaven lay, answered: "On the other side of a good action."

If, as Dr. James Martineau says, "there is a thought of G.o.d in the thing that is true, and a will of G.o.d in that which is right," Secularism, caring for truth and duty, cannot be far wrong. Thus, it has a reasonable regard for the contingencies of another life should it supervene. Reasoned opinions rely for justification upon intelligent conviction, and a well informed sincerity.

The Secularist, is without presumption of an infallible creed, is without the timorous indefiniteness of a creedless believer. He does not disown a creed because theologians have promulgated Jew bound, unalterable articles of faith. The Secularist has a creed as definite as science, and as flexible as progress, increasing as the horizon of truth is enlarged. His creed is a confession of his belief. There is more unity of opinion among self-thinkers than is supposed. They all maintain the necessity of independent opinion, for they all exercise it. They all believe in the moral rightfulness of independent thought, or they are guilty for propagating it. They all agree as to the right of publishing well-considered thought, otherwise thinking would be of little use. They all approve of free criticism, for there could be no reliance on thought which did not use, or could not bear that. All agree as to the equal action of opinion, without which opinion would be fruitless and action a monopoly. All agree that truth is the object of free thought, for many have died to gain it. All agree that scrutiny is the pathway to truth, for they have all pa.s.sed along it. They all attach importance to the good of this life, teaching this as the first service to humanity. All are of one opinion as to the efficacy of material means in promoting human improvement, for they alone are distinguished by vindicating their use. All hold that morals are effectively commended by reason, for all self-thinkers have taught so. All believe that G.o.d, if he exists, is the G.o.d of the honest, and that he respects conscience more than creeds, for all free thinkers have died in this faith. Independent thinkers from Socrates to Herbert Spencer and Huxley* have all agreed:

* See Biographical Dictionary of Free Thinkers of all Ages and Nations, by J. M. Wheeler, and Four Hundred Years of Free Thought from Columbus to Ingersoll, by Samuel Porter Putnam, containing upwards of 1,000 biographies.

In the necessity of free thought.

In the rightfulness of it.

In the adequacy of it.

In the considerate publicity of it.

In the fair criticism of it.

In the equal action of conviction.

In the recognition of this life, and

In the material control of it.

The Secularist, like Karpos the gardener, may say of his creed, "Its points are few and simple. They are: to be a good citizen, a good husband, a good father, and a good workman. I go no further," said Karpos, "but pray G.o.d to take it all in good part and have mercy on my soul."*

* Dialogue between Karpos the gardener and Bashiew Tucton, by Voltaire.

CHAPTER IX. HOW SECULARISM AROSE

"We must neither lead nor leave men to mistake falsehood for truth. Not to undeceive is to deceive."

--Archbishop Whately.

BEING one of the social missionaries in the propaganda of Robert Owen, I was, like H. Viewssiew, a writer of those days, a "student of realities." It soon became clear to me, as to others, that men are much influenced for good or evil, by their environments. The word was unused then, "circ.u.mstances" was the term employed. Then as now there were numerous persons everywhere to be met with who explained everything on supernatural principles with all the confidence of infinite knowledge.

Not having this advantage, I profited as well as I could by such observation as was in my power to make. I could see that material laws counted for something in the world. This led me to the conclusion that the duty of watching the ways of nature was inc.u.mbent on all who would find true conditions of human betterment, or new reasons for morality--both very much needed. To this end the name of Secularism was given to certain principles which had for their object human improvement by material means, regarding science as the providence of man and justifying morality by considerations which pertain to this life alone.

The rise and development (if I may use so fine a term) of these views may be traced in the following records.

1. "Materialism will be advanced as the only sound basis of rational thought and practice." (Prospectus of the _Movement_, 1843, written by me.)

2. Five prizes awarded to me, for lectures to the Manchester Order of Odd-fellows. These Degree Addresses (1846) were written on the principle that morality, apart from theology, could be based on human reason and experience.

3. The _Reasoner_ restricts itself to the known, to the present, and seeks to realise the life that is. (Preface to the _Reasoner_, 1846.)

4. A series of papers was commenced in the _Reasoner_ ent.i.tled "The Moral Remains of the Bible," one object of which was to show that those who no longer held the Bible as an infallible book, might still value it wherein it was ethically excellent. (_Reasoner_, Vol. V., No. 106, p.

17, 1848.)

5. "To teach men to see that the sum of all knowledge and duty is _Secular_ and that it pertains to this world alone." (_Reasoner_, Nov.

19, 1851. Article, "Truths to Teach," p. 1.)

This was the first time the word "Secular" was applied as a general test of principles of conduct apart from spiritual considerations.

6. "Giving an account of ourselves in the whole extent of opinion, we should use the word _Secularist_ as best indicating that province of human duty which belongs to this life." (_Reasoner_, Dec. 3, 1851, p.

34.)

This was the first time the word "Secularist" appeared in literature as descriptive of a new way of thinking.

7. "Mr. Holyoake, editor of the _Reasoner_, will lay before the meeting [then proposed] the present position of Secularism in the provinces."

(_Reasoner_, Dec. 10, 1851, p. 62.)

This was the first time the word "Secularism" appeared in the press.

The meeting above mentioned was held December 29, 1851, at which the statement made might be taken as an epitome of this book. (See _Reasoner_, No. 294, Vol. 12, p. 129. 1852.)

8. A letter on the "Future of Secularism" appeared in the _Reasoner_, (_Reasoner_, Feb. 4, 1852, p. 187.)

This was the first time Secularism was written upon as a movement. The term was the heading of a letter by Charles Frederick Nicholls.

9. "One public purpose is to obtain the repeal of all acts of Parliament which interfere with Secular practice." (Article, "Nature of Secular Societies," (Reasoner), No. 325, p. 146, Aug. 18, 1852.)

This is exactly the att.i.tude Secularism takes with regard to the Bible and to Christianity. It rejects such parts of the Scriptures, or of Christianism, or Acts of Parliament, as conflict with or obstruct ethical truth. We do not seek the repeal of all Acts of Parliament, but only of such as interfere with Secular progress.

10. "The friends of 'Secular Education' [the Manchester a.s.sociation was then so known] are not Secularists. They do not pretend to be so, they do not even wish to be so regarded, they merely use the word Secular as an adjective, as applied to a mode of instruction. We apply it to the _nature_ of all knowledge." We use the noun Secularism. No one else has done it. With others the term Secular is merely a descriptive; with us the term is used as a subject. With others it is a branch of knowledge; with us it is the primary business of life,--the name of the province of speculation to which we confine ourselves.* When so used in these pages the word "Secularism" or "Secularist" is employed to mark the distinction.

* See article "The Seculars--the Propriety of Their Name,"

by G.J. Holyoake. Reasoner, p. 177, Sep. 1, 1852.

A Bolton clergyman reported in the _Bolton Guardian_ that Mr. Holyoake had announced as the first subject of his Lectures, "Why do the Clergy Avoid Discussion and the Secularists Seek it?" (_Reasoner_, No. 328, p.

294, Vol. 12, 1852.)

These citations from my own writings are sufficient to show the origin and nature of Secularism. Such views were widely accepted by liberal thinkers of the day, as an improvement and extension of free thought advocacy. Societies were formed, halls were given a Secular name, and conferences were held to organise adherents of the new opinion. The first was held in the Secular Inst.i.tute, Manchester (Oct. 3, 1852).

Delegates were sent from Societies in Ashton-under-Lyne, Bolton, Blackburn, Bradford, Burnley, Bury, Glasgow, Keighley, Leigh, London, Manchester, Miles Platting, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Oldham, Over Darwen, Owen's Journal, Paisley, Preston, Rochdale, Stafford, Sheffield, Stockport, Todmorden.