SECOLARISM.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5835, 22 November 1880, Page 3

SECOLARISM.

Sir, — As the utterances of a newspaper are not supposed to be made ex cathedra — dicta to be received without examination or discussion, and assimilated ■whether one likes their tenor and purport or no, I trust you will allow me to say a few words in reply to your article on 'f Secularism" in last Saturday's issue. I do not wish to criticise in any captious Bpirit — the subject is far too important for that — but, as you have slightiy mis* represented secularism, and misrepresented (unintentionally, I do not doubt) a great many who do not know or believe enough to be either secularists or supernaturalists, comment is forced upon one. The man who you said might bo reckoned the apostle of secularism, George Jacob Holyoake, once gave utterance to the following in my hearing, and I regarded him the better for saying it— " If yoxi are unable or unwilling to state the case of your opponent as favorably a 9 he would himself you are not worthy or competent to argue against him — you need not an opponent, but a teacher. " Sir, there is a sublime truth in that assertion ; and it would have been far better if, before writing against secularism, some trouble had been taken ; so that, instead of telling the public what some persons -havo thought about secularism, and what they think is the outcome of it, the principles of ths system might have been justly set forth, and the good or evil inherent in ib and them logically deduced. lam not a secularist ; but I have a tolerable acquaintance with their large and increasing literature, have intimately known and strictly watched the men who lead in the

movement, and am perfectly competent, in so fiir aa practical experience brings competence, to award praise to the good and £lamo to the evil -in their system. Nowj if you;, -sir, had bqen fully informed of and conversant with secularist teaohing, you would not, I think, have dragged in that very old scarcasm, cribbed, by-the-bye, from some very ancient heathen, by tho man .who is generally credited with having originated it : — " Let us eat, drink ; for to-morrow we die;" and given that as the end and teaching of Secnlarisra. No ; for although that society and system may not have got such a firm grip upon truth, and such a clear knowledge of the true ends of lifo as it boasts of, it is not quite the flimsy, despicable, uninformed thing its enemies (generally the people who know least about it) would make it to bo. In its ranks, as avowed and enrolled members, and without counting the great army of sceptical scientists, who are pushing on their researches towards a goal one knows not how far distant, are to be found Doctors in Law, in Philosophy, in Science, in Medicine, and a whole host of less distiuguished, but quite as earnest teachers and workers, who are striving, according to their light and the utmost of their power, to make the world a little better than they find it, and to remove somo of the all too prevalent misery that at pro- i sent makes the world no live on little better than a dungeon. It is not secularists who feel called upon to answer Mallock's enquiry, " Is life worth living V in the negative, although I for one should not wonder if they did ; but rather the nten who want an excuse for handing overTneir intellect and consciences to that nineteenth century anomaly, a priest. Secularists do not deny a f uture existence ; they would be just as pleased at a blissful immortality in the future as the most credulous. They hope for thia, some of them ; but do not believe they will get it ; for, as they say, to believe one must havo evidence ; and as there is not the slightest scrap of anything in the shapo of evidence procurable (except spiritualism, and that their theological opponents have demolished for them) they do not allow any aspiration in connection with a problematical future, to influence their efforts to better a positive and very real present. Yon are afraid, sir, that a general acceptance of secularism by the peoples of the world, would lead to (< tho weakest going to the wall, and the survival of tho fittest." Now. as a matter of fact, if the " weakest going to the wall" is not a desirable state of things (secularists, by-tho-bye, say it is not) how is it that the creeds have not and do not try to alter it, for instead of the thing you deprecate being something to fear in the future, if secularism obtains, it has been a very dreadful and grim reality for very many centuries. Secularists, ana a whole legion of dissentients for whom no " ism" or " ist" has yet been found, are now fighting in the van of an army (whose only raiso)i d'etre is the fact that the weak have been going to the wall too long and need protection) against abuses of all kinds ; and that they should find as their chief opponents tho theologians is the greater shame to those who say they follow Him who was heard gladly by the " common " people, and who passed his life in denouncing abuses and tyrannies of all kinds. Why, what is our so-called political economy but a formal statement of the laws which render " going to the wall" so easy an operation to the " weak" (and those of tender conscience) and a practical denial of all our so-called philanthropy? Compare "buy cheap and sell dear" with the New Testament and the terribly lax commercial morality which obtains {e.g. the Tay bridge and the Glasgow Bank, so as not'to bring the truth too near to our own doors) with the teaching of Him who taught that the pursuit of wealth was a disadvantage to a man, and that all men were brothers, and then ask if the secularists, who do not believe in battles and campaigns, nor preach "peace" and consecrate "flags" and bless and pray fox " armies " are not nearer the trath than the Churches 1 I, who have become a " nothiugarian " because of the gross infidelity and inconsistency of the churches, think they are ; and Dr Parker, of the City Temple, a good man, who is leaving theology and getting to Christianity, thinks so also. Here are his words — " My own impression is that there are thousands of Christians in England who have no connection with the sects, and who, strange as it may appear, are not aware of their own Christianity I do not hesitate to say that sectarian theology is the most mischievous influence of the age. Men who think carefully and broadly will never be united on this basis ; it is too narrow, too vague, and too controvertible.

. - . I make the broadest possible distinction between Christianity and theology. Whoever adopts and practises the principle of self-sacrifice for the good of others is, in my opinion, a living Christian, whatever he may think of any point in so-called dogmatic theology." These words have the true ring of the old " Good Tidings" about them ; the world is full of misery, fraud, disease, and oppression ; and any effort to make it better should not be maligned or sneered at, but lovingly encouraged and perse veringly put right. — I am, &c, TIRI TIRI.