SECULARISM.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5836, 23 November 1880, Page 3

SECULARISM.

Sir, — Will you allow me space for a few *S words in answer to your correspondent •r> a</jiri -Tin," in to-day's Herald. Your £' " c - readers, I presume, would at once be ! ""amused and surprised at the extraordinary jumble of opinion put forward as an answer to your very discriminating article on Secularism ; and, if I mistake not, they would be still more amused at the remarkable self-sufficieacy of your correspondent; .He taxes you with misrepresenting secularism, because you said it cared only for this present life ; and yet, what does your correspondent, with all his wide knowledge and experience of the system, say about it ? He proclaims that t( jtb.ey do not allow any aspiration in connection with a problematical future to influence their efforts to better a positive and very real present." Is not that wonderful, for a competent and selfassumed logician, as well as a man of large experience? There are a great many other things introduced into the letter with all the zeal and confidence of the

extreme dogmatist, which most men of any knowledge wonld refer to with con...^..siderable humility. But the quiet and 'assumption that the Christian faith ; ; :^,ia the cause, directly or indirectly, of all r.j; the shames and rogueries that are taking V place in, the world, like the Glasgow Bank and the Tay Bridge, is the most re->'■';-■-markable.' Might not the builders of the •"* ■'■ Tay Bridge be good nothingarians, and the managers of the Glasgow Bank also, under a cloak of hypocrisy, to serve their purpose, aa well as your correspondent 1 LI x Or'ih&ve vaen found, if they wanted a loos house bujlt of good materials and placed on ! a sound foundation, that they could better trust a nothingarian than a Christian ? 1 presume the vast masß of your readers will have very little difficulty in deciding. T« the last aspect of your correspondent's .1 assurance and logical judgment one can refer with wonder. He Bpeaka of the last manifesto of the celebrated Dr c . Parker, of London, in his letter to The ' Times, who has given many another before this, and, if spared for a few months, will doubtless add many more in a still advancing direction, aB he caters for the popular ear, as having " the true ring of the old good tidings." "Where does the nothingarian find room for any tidings being good? or by what test can he tell '■■ ■-' "thei' J ring of the good from the bad? Surely it will not be by that miserable work which cribs its choice sayings from i; "old heathens. Can a nothingarian accept . any part of such a book as that as good tidings ? Your correspondent should really go to school, and stay at it, until he has learned to conceive of things with Borne '~ " and to express them with u \ ' Borne consistency. ''■','.'■<': For the Bake of your other readers (for, • of course, your nothingarian* will have no respect for anything, which any order of any of the sects can state about it), allow me to clow ibis note with an extract

quoted by the Christian Age, from the Methodist, in reviewing Dr Parker's letter. "Where is, Dr Parker going?" One who has read his books and watched his course, -will not be surprised at this his latest stage of, ' advancement j* but what Srill the end be 1 Ste thinks f sectarian theology is the most mischievous influence of th« age,' and that ifc may do ,mi©re mischief than Atheism itself. Dr Parker is very much of a sect in himself ; aud his ' theology ' is in one sense very sectarian and also very 'bold.' Will it do good cv will it do 'mischief?' "What will be his next development ? He has found Christians who are unconscious of their Christianity. Perhaps he will soon find Christians who deny their own Christianity. Can he be conscious of the logic of his position 1 In my judgment cho is seeking to ;be at peace not only with some Christians, but also with other people who are enemies to Christ. What he proposes is no cure for the erils of the age. A greater teacher than Dr Parker has said, 'I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.'" — I am, &c, Enquirer.

Sir, — My attention has been drawn to your article on Secularism, and also to the letter of "Tiri Tiri " on the same subject, an 4 I crave space to say a fewwords on the same matter. Your article commences with the statement that "It is outside the recognised province of journalism to discuss questions of a purely religious nature.*' Its teachings cover far wider ground. Theology is by no itieanß the only subject under consideration by secularists ; they aim at improving the political and social conditions of existence as well. The objects ■which secularists have in view are clearly expressed in the rules of the " National Secular Society," as shown in the following extract from the rules : — " The National Secular Society haa been formed to maintain the principles and rights of freethought, and to direct their application to the secular improvement of this life. By the principle of freethought is meant the exercise of the understanding upon relevant facts, and independently of penal or priesriy intimidation. By the rights of freethought are meant the liberty of free criticism for the security of truth, and the liberty of free publicity for the extension of truth. Secularism declares that the promotion of human improvement and happiness is the highest duty, and that morality is to be tested by utility. That in order to promote effectually the. improvement and happiness of mankind, every individual of the human family ought to be well placed and well instructed, and that all who are of suitable age ought to be usefully employed for their own and the general good. That human improvement and happiness cannot be effectually promoted without civil and religiou3 liberty ; and that, therefore, it is the duty of every individual to actively attack all barriers to equal freedom of thought and utterance for all, upon political, theological, and social subjects."

Is that the sorb of philosophy the adoption of which " would furnish a powerful impetus to the game of ' beggar my neighbor,' and impart a tenfold bitterness to the multitudes whose lot is a daily struggle for bread and shelter ?" Hardly. On the contrary, were the principles of secularism properly carried out, the greedy, grasping selfishness which you so aptly denominate the " game of beggar my neighbor " would receive a far more powerful check than any religion has yet supplied, and the " multitudes whose lot is a daily struggle for bread and shelter" would bo released from the crushing poverty and misery which now oppress them, and the "golden prizes" would no longer fall only " into the hands of the successful few."

You say : — " There is no law, either of reason or revelation, which forbids a proper attention to secular affairs." There is no law of reason, I grant, which forbids such attention ; but, if you assert the Bible to be a "law of revelation," I think you can hardly support the assertion that there is no law of revelation which forbids attention to secular affairs. How do you read these passages — "Take no thought for the morrow : what ye shall eat, what ye shall drink, or where withal ye shall be clothed .;" " Seek ye first the Kingdom of God — and all these things Bhall be added unto you 1" You also say that the fundamental vice of secularism is its quiet ignoring of the dual nature of man. Has man a dual nature 1 If so what is the meaning of the 19th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd verses of the third chapter of Ecclesiastes 1 Secularists are not accustomed to go to the Bible to find support to their opinions, but it seems to me that the author of Ecclesiastes must himself have been a secularist, though, of rather low moral character, no doubt.

Secularists are honest enough and brave enough to confess that they know nothing of any future state of existence ; and, therefore, they devote their energies to attempting to raise and benefit the human race, instead of wasting those energies in useless prayer, or in attempting to secure "a good place" in that problematical "future Jife." Is that "no higher ambition than to wriggle into the cosiest nest each one can make for himself ?" If the teachers and preachers of Christianity were animated with an ambition half as lofty, a purpose half as pure and noble, there would still be a chance for that religion to prosper, in Bpite of secularists.

Secularists, I may explain, do not absolutely aad dogmatically deny the existence of a future state; some, indeed, .firmly believe iv an existence after this, but they admit that there is no proof that there will be any such existence, and are content to leave it a matter of persoaal opinion, without presuming to dogmatise either way. On this account ib has boon urged against secularism that it is a " cold, cheerless, comfortless doctrine," but I think, if you examine it fairly, it is far less horrible than the Christian doctrine of eternal torture for a groat majority of the human race. Speaking personally, I must own that I could derive little comfort from a religion which teaches that all who do not believe must writhe for ever in a lake of fire ; which teaches that a believer may be perfectly happy in Heaven, while those who are nearest and dearest to him are suffering eternal torture — their only crime the inability to believe statements which their reason assures them must be false.

You imply, though you do not plainly state it, that secularism is dangerous, or inimical to the "social and civil welfare of communities." Why? Is honest endeavor to elevate humanity a dangerous thing ? Is promotion of the general happiness of the human race inimical to the welfare of any community 1 Rely upon it, an earnest, conscientious secularist is a much better, more useful, and more valuable member of a community than the average professing Christian, who trusts to a death-bed repentance, or regular attendance at Church, to Bet him right "for the other world," and menxnwhile selfishly sends the " weakest to the wall," by oppressing and defrauding his fellow men. Christianity, by teaching such doctrine as "If thine enemy smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also," and "If any man takeaway thy coat, forbid him not to take thy cloak also," has indirectly done much to encourage fraud and oppz-ession ; for, while there are people to submit tamely to injustice, there will always be others ready to take advantage of that submission, and consequently injustice triumphs. Secularism, on the other hand, teaches that it is the duty of every man to resist injustice, not only for his sake, but in the interests of all humanity.

" 'liri Tiri " quotes Dr Parker's opinion, that — ""Whoever adopts and practises the principle of self-sacrifice is a. living. Christian, whatever he may think of any point in so-called dogmatic theology." Now, I have no objectioa to "being called

a Christian, if ifc gives JDr Parker, or any one else, any pleasure so to call me ; but many secularists strongly object to the name, so I must venture to assert that Dr Parker is Wrong, To be a Christian one must believe in the divinity of Christ— which the majority of secularists most certainly do not. The principle of selfsacrifice is not a characteristic doctrine specially of Christianity, for ifc was taught hundreds of years before Christianity was founded. Tho Buddhist religion has it, the Brahmin faith teaches it, and Greek philosophers who lived between 300 and 400 B.C. also taught it. It is the product not of any so-called religion, but of the best feelings of human nature ; tho same broad spirit of humanity which secularists arc now upholding. " Tiri Tiri " has, in all else, ably stated the principles and practice of secularism ; though, if time aud. space permitted, I •hould like to go more fully into tha subject. But I feel that I have already trespassed sufficiently ou your valuable space, so content myself with this necessarily brief exhibition of the Secularist's side of the cjuestioii. — 1 am. &ci, Frank. W. SiDJfiy. [We quite agree with our correspondent that these lengthy letters do occupy too much of our space ; therefore this correspondence must close.- — Ed. H.U.H.]