Project Gutenberg's The Principles Of Secularism, by George Jacob Holyoake
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: The Principles Of Secularism
Author: George Jacob Holyoake
Release Date: July 20, 2011 [EBook #36797]
Last Updated: January 25, 2013
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PRINCIPLES OF SECULARISM ***
Produced by David Widger
THE PRINCIPLES OF SECULARISM
By George Jacob Holyoake
"Do the duty nearest hand,"—Goethe.
[third edition,
revised.]
LONDON: BOOK STORE, 282, STRAND;
Austin. &
Co., 17, Johnson's court, Fleet Street. 1871.
Contents
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY
"If you think it right to differ from the times, and to make
a stand for any valuable point of morals, do it, however
rustic, however antiquated, however pedantic it may appear;
do it, not for insolence, but seriously—as a man who wore a
soul of his own in his bosom, and did not wait till it was
breathed into him by the breath of fashion."—The Rev. Sidney
Smith, Canon of St Paul's.
IN a passage of characteristic sagacity, Dr. J. H. Newman has depicted the
partisan aimlessness more descriptive of the period when this little book
first appeared, sixteen years ago, than it is now. But it will be long
before its relevance and instruction have passed away. I therefore take
the liberty of still quoting his words:—
"When persons for the first time look upon the world of politics or
religion, all that they find there meets their mind's eye, as a landscape
addresses itself for the first time to a person who has just gained his
bodily sight. One thing is as far off as another; there is no perspective.
The connection of fact with fact, truth with truth, the bearing of fact
upon truth, and truth upon fact, what leads to what, what are points
primary and what secondary, all this they have yet to learn. It is all a
new science to them, and they do not even know their ignorance of it.
Moreover, the world of to-day has no connection in their minds with the
world of yesterday; time is not a stream, but stands before them round and
full, like the moon. They do not know what happened ten years ago, much
less the annals of a century: the past does not live to them in the
present; they do not understand the worth of contested points; names have
no associations for them, and persons kindle no recollections. They hear
of men, and things, and projects, and struggles, and principles; but
everything comes and goes like the wind; nothing makes an impression,
nothing penetrates, nothing has its place in their minds. They locate
nothing: they have no system. They hear and they forget; or they just
recollect what they have once heard, they cannot tell where. Thus they
have no consistency in their arguments; that is, they argue one way
to-day, and not exactly the other way to-morrow, but indirectly the other
way at random. Their lines of argument diverge; nothing comes to a point;
there is no one centre in which their mind sits, on which their judgment
of men and things proceeds. This is the state of many men all through
life; and miserable politicians or Churchmen they make, unless by good
luck they are in safe hands, and ruled by others, or are pledged to a
course. Else they are at the mercy of the wind and waves; and without
being Radical, Whig, Tory, or Conservative, High Church or Low Church,
they do Whig acts, Tory acts, Catholic acts, and Heretical acts, as the
fit takes them, or as events or parties drive them. And sometimes when
their self importance is hurt, they take refuge in the idea that all this
is a proof that they are unfettered, moderate, dispassionate, that they
observe the mean, that they are no 'party men;' when they are, in fact,
the most helpless of slaves; for our strength in this world is, to be the
subjects of the reason and our liberty, to be captives of the truth."*
How the organization of ideas has fared with higher class societies others
can tell: the working class have been left so much in want of initiative
direction that almost everything has to be done among them, and an
imperfect and brief attempt to direct those interested in Freethought may
meet with some acceptance. To clamour for objects without being able to
connect them with principles; to smart under contumely without knowing how
to protect themselves; to bear some lofty name without understanding the
manner in which character should correspond to profession—this is
the amount of the popular attainment.
* "Loss and Gain." ascribed to the Rev. Father Newman.
In this new Edition I find little to alter and less to add. In a passage
on page 27, the distinction between Secular instruction and Secularism is
explained, in these words:—"Secular education is by some confounded
with Secularism, whereas the distinction between them is very wide.
Secular education simply means imparting Secular knowledge separately—by
itself, without admixture of Theology with it. The advocate of Secular
education may be, and generally is, also an advocate of religion; but he
would teach religion at another time and treat it as a distinct subject,
too sacred for coercive admixture into the hard and vexatious routine of a
school. He would confine the inculcation of religion to fitting seasons
and chosen instruments. He holds also that one subject at a time is mental
economy in learning. Secular education is the policy of a school—Secularism
is the policy of life to those who do not accept Theology."
Very few persons admitted that these distinctions existed when this
passage was written in 1854. This year, 1870, they have been substantially
admitted by the Legislature in concession made in the National Education.
Bill. It only remains to add that the whole text has been revised and
re-arranged in an order which seems more consecutive. The portion on
Secular Organizations has been abridged, in part re-written, explaining
particulars as to the Secular Guild.
A distinctive summary of Secular principles may be read under the article
"Secularism," in Chambers's Cyclopaedia.
CHAPTER II. THE TERM SECULARISM.
"The adoption of the term Secularism is justified by its
including a large number of persons who are not Atheists,
and uniting them for action which has Secularism for its
object, and not Atheism. On this ground, and because, by the
adoption of a new term, a vast amount of impediment from
prejudice is got rid of, the use of the name Secularism is
found advantageous."—Harriet Martineau. Boston
Liberator.—Letter to Lloyd Garrison, November, 1853.
EVERY one observant of public controversy in England, is aware of its
improved tone of late years. This improved tone is part of a wider
progress, 'Increase of wealth has led to improvement of taste, and the
diffusion of knowledge to refinement of sentiment. The mass are better
dressed, better mannered, better spoken than formerly. A coffee-room
discussion, conducted by mechanics, is now a more decorous exhibition than
a debate in Parliament was in the days of Canning.* Boisterousness at the
tables of the rich, and insolence in the language of the poor, are fast
disappearing. "Good society" is now that society in which people practise
the art of being genial, without being familiar, and in which an evincible
courtesey of speech is no longer regarded as timidity or effeminacy, but
rather as proof of a disciplined spirit, which chooses to avoid all
offence, the better to maintain the right peremptorily punishing wanton
insult. Theologians, more inveterate in speech than politicians, now
observe a respectfulness to opponents before unknown. That diversity of
opinion once ascribed to "badness of heart" is now, with more
discrimination, referred to defect or diversity of understanding—a
change which, discarding invective, recognizes instruction as the agent of
uniformity.
* From whose lips the House of Commons cheered a reference
to a political adversary as "the revered and ruptured
Ogden."
Amid all this newness of conception it must be obvious that many old terms
of theological controversy are obsolete. The idea of an "Atheist" as one
warring against moral restraints—of an "Infidel" as one treacherous
to the truth—of a "Freethinker" as a "loose thinker,"* arose in the
darkness of past times, when men fought by the flickering light of their
hatreds—times which tradition has peopled with monsters of divinity
as well as of nature. But the glaring colours in which the party names
invented by past priests were dyed, no longer harmonize with the quieter
taste of the present day. The more sober spirit of modern controversy has,
therefore, need of new terms, and if the term "Secularism" was merely a
neutral substitute for "Freethinking," there would be reason for its
adoption. Dissenters might as well continue the designation of
"Schismatics," or Political Reformers that of "Anarchists," as that the
students of Positive Philosophy should continue the designation "Atheism,"
"Infidelism," or any similar term by which their opponents have contrived
to brand their opinions. It is as though a merchant vessel should consent
to carry a pirate flag. Freethinker is, however, getting an acceptable
term. Upon the platform, Christian disputants frequently claim it, and
resent the exclusive assumption of it by others. These new claimants say,
"We are as much Freethinkers as yourselves," so that it is necessary to
define Freethinking. It is fearless thinking, based upon impartial
inquiry, searching on both sides, not regarding doubt as a crime, or
opposite conclusions as a species of moral poison. Those who inquire with
sinister, pre-possessions will never inquire fairly. The Freethinker fears
not to follow a conclusion to the utmost limits of truth, whether it
coincides with the Bible or contradicts it. If therefore any pronounce the
term "Secularism" "a concealment or a disguise," they can do so
legitimately only after detecting some false meaning it is intended to
convey, and not on the mere ground of its being a change of name, since
nothing can more completely "conceal and disguise" the purposes of
Freethought than the old names imposed upon it by its adversaries, which
associate with guilt its conscientious conclusions and impute to it as
outrages, its acts of self-defence.
* As the Reverend Canon Kingsley has perversely rendered it.
Besides the term Secularism, there was another term which seemed to
promise also distinctiveness of meaning—namely, Cosmism, under which
adherents would have taken the designation of Cosmists. Rut this name
scientific men would have understood in a purely physical sense, after the
great example of Humboldt, and the public would not all have understood it—besides,
it was open to easy perversion in one of its declinations. Next to this,
as a name, stands that of Realism—intrinsically good. A Society of
Realists would have been intelligible, but many would have supposed it to
be some revival of the old Realists. Moralism, a sound name in itself, is
under Evangelical condemnation as "mere morality." Naturalism would seem
an obvious name, were it not that we should be confounded with
Naturalists, to say no more. Some name must be taken, as was the case with
the Theophilan-thropists of Paris. Many of them would rather not have
assumed any denomination, but they yielded to the reasonable argument,
that if they did not choose one for themselves, the public would bestow
upon them one which would be less to their liking. Those who took the name
of Philantropes found it exposed them to a pun, which greatly damaged
them: Philantropes was turned into filoux en troupe.
Historical characteristics, however, seemed to point to a term which
expressed the Secular element in life; a term deeply engrafted in
literature; of irreproachable associations; a term found and respected in
the dictionaries of opponents, and to which, therefore, they might dispute
our right, but which they could not damage. Instead, therefore, of finding
ourselves self-branded or caricatured by this designation, we have found
opponents claiming it, and disputing with us for its possession.
CHAPTER III. PRINCIPLES OF SECULARISM DEFINED
I.
SECULARISM is the study of promoting human welfare by material means;
measuring human welfare by the utilitarian rule, and making the service of
others a duty of life. Secularism relates to the present existence of man,
and to action, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this
life—having for its objects the development of the physical, moral,
and intellectual nature of man to the highest perceivable point, as the
immediate duty of society: inculcating the practical sufficiency of
natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism, or Christianity: engaging its
adherents in the promotion of human improvement by material means, and
making these agreements the ground of common unity for all who would
regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service. The Secular is sacred
in its influence on life, for by purity of material conditions the
loftiest natures are best sustained, and the lower the most surely
elevated. Secularism is a series of principles intended for the guidance
of those who find Theology indefinite, or inadequate, or deem it
unreliable. It replaces theology, which mainly regards life as a sinful
necessity, as a scene of tribulation through which we pass to a better
world. Secularism rejoices in this life, and regards it as the sphere of
those duties which educate men to fitness for any future and better life,
should such transpire.
II.
A Secularist guides himself by maxims of Positivism, seeking to discern
what is in Nature—what ought to be in morals—selecting
the affirmative in exposition, concerning himself with the real,
the right, and the constructive. Positive principles are principles which
are provable. "A positive precept," says Bishop Butler,﹃is a precept the
reason of which we see.﹄Positivism is policy of material progress.
III.
Science is the available Providence of life. The problem to be solved by a
science of Society, is to find that situation in which it shall be
impossible for a man to be depraved or poor. Mankind are saved by being
served. Spiritual sympathy is a lesser mercy than that forethought which
anticipates and extirpates the causes of suffering. Deliverance from
sorrow or injustice is before consolation—doing well is higher than
meaning well—work is worship to those who accept Theism, and duty to
those who do not.
IV.
Sincerity, though not errorless, involves the least chance of error, and
is without moral guilt. Sincerity is well-informed, conscientious
conviction, arrived at by intelligent examination, animating those who
possess that conviction to carry it into practice from a sense of duty.
Virtue in relation to opinion consists neither in conformity nor
non-conformity, but in sincere beliefs, and in living up to them.
V.
Conscience is higher than Consequence.*
*Vide Mr. Holdreth's Papers.
VI.
All pursuit of good objects with pure intent is religiousness in the best
sense in which this term appears to be used. A "good object" is an object
consistent with truth, honour, justice, love. A pure "intent" is the
intent of serving humanity. Immediate service of humanity is not intended
to mean instant gratification, but "immediate" in contradistinction to the
interest of another life. The distinctive peculiarity of the Secularist
is, that he seeks that good which is dictated by Nature, which is
attainable by material means, and which is of immediate service to
humanity—a religiousness to which the idea of God is not essential,
nor the denial of the idea necessary.
VII.
Nearly all inferior natures are susceptible of moral and physical
improvability; this improvability can be indefinitely secured by supplying
proper material conditions; these conditions may one day be supplied by a
system of wise and fraternal co-operation, which primarily entrenches
itself in common prudence, which enacts service according to industrial
capacity, and distributes wealth according to rational needs. Secular
principles involve for mankind a future, where there shall exist unity of
condition with infinite diversity of intellect, where the subsistence of
ignorance and selfishness shall leave men equal, and universal purity
enable all things—noble society, the treasures of art, and the
riches of the world—rto be had in common.
VIII.
Since it is not capable of demonstration whether the inequalties of human
condition will be compensated for in another life—it is the business
of intelligence to rectify them in this world. The speculative worship of
superior beings, who cannot need it, seems a lesser duty than the patient
service of known inferior natures, and the mitigation of harsh
destiny, so that the ignorant may be enlightened and the low elevated.
CHAPTER IV. LAWS OF SECULAR CONTROVERSY
I. Rights of Reason.
As a means of developing and establishing Secular principles, and as
security that the principles of Nature and the habit of reason may
prevail, Secularism uses itself, and maintains for others, as rights of
reason:—
The Free Search for Truth, without which its full attainment is
impossible.
The Free Utterance of the result, without which the increase of Truth is
limited.
The Free Criticism of alleged Truth, without which its identity must
remain uncertain.
The Fair Action of Conviction thus attained, without which conscience will
be impotent on practice.
II. Standard of Appeal.
"Secularism accepts no authority but that of Nature, adopts no methods but
those of science and philosophy, and respects in practice no rule but that
of the conscience, illustrated by the common sense of mankind. It values
the lessons of the past, and looks to tradition as presenting a storehouse
of raw materials to thought, and in many cases results of high wisdom for
our reverence; but it utterly disowns tradition as a ground of belief,
whether miracles and supernaturalism be claimed or not claimed on its
side. No sacred scripture or ancient church can be made a basis of belief,
for the obvious reason that their claims always need to be proved, and
cannot without absurdity be assumed. The association leaves to its
individual members to yield whatever respect their own good sense judges
to be due to the opinions of great men, living or dead, spoken or written,
as also to the practice of ancient communities, national or
ecclesiastical. But it disowns all appeal to such authorities as final
tests of truth."*
* "Programme of Freethought Societies," by F. W.
Newman. (Reasoner, No. 388.)
III. Sphere of Controversy.
Since the principles of Secularism rest on grounds apart from Theism,
Atheism, or Chris-tianism, it is not logically necessary for Secularists
to debate the truth of these subjects. In controversy, Secularism concerns
itself with the assertion and maintenance of its own affirmative
propositions, combating only views of Theology and Christianity so far as
they interfere with, discourage, or disparage Secular action, which may be
done without digressing into the discussion of the truth of Theism or
divine origin of the Bible.
IV. Personal Controversy.
A Secularist will avoid indiscriminate disparagement of bodies or
antagonism of persons, and will place before himself simply the
instruction and service of an opponent, whose sincerity he will not
question, whose motives he will not impugn, always holding that a man whom
it is not worth while confuting courteously, is not worth while confuting
at all. Such disparagements as are included in the explicit condemnation
of erroneous principles are, we believe, all that the public defence of
opinion requires, and are the only kind of disparagement a Secularist
proposes to employ.
V. Justification of Controversy.
The universal fair and open discussion of opinion is the highest guarantee
of public truth—only that theory which is submitted to that ordeal
is to be regarded, since only that which endures it can be trusted.
Secularism encourages men to trust reason throughout, and to trust nothing
that reason does not establish—to examine all things hopeful,
respect all things probable, but rely upon nothing without precaution
which does not come within the range of science and experience.
CHAPTER V. MAXIMS OF ASSOCIATION
I.
IT is the duty of every man to regulate his personal and family interests
so as to admit of some exertions for the improvement of society. It is
only by serving those beyond ourselves that we can secure for ourselves
protection, sympathy, or honour. The neglect of home for public affairs
endangers philanthropy, by making it the enemy of the household. To
suffer, on the other hand, the interests of the family to degenerate into
mere selfism, is a dangerous example to rulers.
II.
"No man or woman is accountable to others for any conduct by which others
are not injured or damaged."*
* D. in the LEADER, 1850, who, as a correspondent, first
expressed this aphorism thus.
III.
Social freedom consists in being subject to just rule and to none other.
IV.
Service and endurance are the chief personal duties of man.
V.
Secularism holds it to be the duty of every man to reserve a portion of
his means and energies for the public service, and so to cultivate and
cherish his powers, mental and physical, as to have them ever ready to
perform service, as efficient as possible, to the well-being of humanity.
No weakness, no passion, no wavering, should be found among those who are
battling for the cause of human welfare, which such errors may fatally
injure. Self-control, self-culture, self-sacrifice, are all essential to
those who would serve that cause, and would not bring discredit upon their
comrades in that service.*
* Mr. L. H. Holdreth, Religion of Duty.
VI.
To promote in good faith and good temper the immediate and material
welfare of humanity, in accordance with the laws of Nature, is the study
and duty of a Secularist, and this is the unity of principle which
prevails amid whatever diversity of opinion may subsist in a Secular
Society, the bond of union being the common convictions of the duty of
advancing the Secular good of this life, of the authority of natural
morality, and of the utility of material effort in the work of human
improvement. In other words, Secularist union implies the concerted action
of all who believe it right to promote the Secular good of this life, to
teach morality, founded upon the laws of Nature, and to seek human
improvement by material methods, irrespective of any other opinions held,
and irrespective of any diversity of reasons for holding these.
CHAPTER VI. THE SECULAR GUILD
SEVERAL expositors of Secular principles, able to act together, have for
many years endeavoured by counsel, by aid, and by publication to promote
Secular organization. At one time they conducted a Secular Institute in
Fleet Street, London—in 1854. The object was to form Secular
Societies for teaching the positive results of Freethought. In the first
edition of this work it was held to be desirable that there should be a
centre of reference for all inquirers upon Secular principles at home and
abroad. Attention should be guaranteed to distant correspondents and
visitors, so that means of communication and publication of all advanced
opinions in sociology, theology, and politics might exist, and be able to
command publicity, when expressed dispassionately, impersonally, and with
ordinary good taste.
It has been generally admitted that the operations at that time conducted,
helped to impart a new character to Free-thought advocacy, and many of its
recommendations have since been copied by associations subsequently
formed. The promoters of Secularism alluded to, have not ceased in the Reasoner
and other publications, by lectures, by statements, by articles, by
pamphlets to urge a definite and consistent representation of Secular and
Freethought principles: as many mistake merely mechanical association for
the organization of ideas.
The promoters in question have since adopted the form of action of a
Secular Guild, and continue the Reasoner (of which there is now
issued a "Review Series") as their organ. The objects of a Council of the
Guild is to promote, as far as means may permit, or counsel prevail,
organization of ideas:—
1.—To train Advocates of Secular principles,
2.—To advise an impersonal policy of advocacy, which seeking to
carry its ends by force of exposition, rather than of denunciation, shall
command the attention and respect of those who influence public affairs.
3.—To promote solution of political, social, and educational
questions on Secular and unsectarian grounds.
4.—To point out new Books of Secular relevance, and where possible,
to accredit Advocates of Secularism that the public may have some
guidance, and the party be no longer liable to be judged by whoever may
appear to write or speak on the subject.
5.—To assist in the protection and defence of those injured, or
attempted to be injured on account of Freethought or Secularist opinion.
6.—To provide for the administration of property bequeathed for
Secular purposes, of which so much has been lost through the injustice of
the law, and machinations of persons opposed to Liberal views.
7.—When a member has been honourably counted on the side of
Secularism, has been a Subscriber or a Worker for a term of years, the
Guild, keeping a record of such Service, proposes to give a Certificate of
it which among Friends of Freethought may be a passport to recognition and
esteem. To constitute some such Freemasonry in Freethought, may elevate
association in England. A certificate of Illuminism or of Carbonarism in
Italy was once handed down from father to son as an heirloom of honour,
while in England you have to supplicate men to join a society of
progression, instead of membership being a distinction which men shall
covet At present a man who has given the best years of his life to the
public service is liable (if from any necessity he ceases to act) to be
counted a renegade by men who have never rendered twelve months*
consecutive or costly service themselves. There ought to be a fixed term
of Service, which, if honourably and effectively rendered, should entitle
a man to be considered free, as a soldier after leaving the army, and his
certificate of having belonged to the Order of Secularism should entitle
him to distinction and to authority when his opinion was sought, and to
exemption from all but voluntary service. At present the soldiers of
Progress, when no longer able to serve, are dismissed from the public eye,
like the race-horse to the cab stand, to obscurity and neglect. This needs
correction before men can be counted upon in the battle of Truth. A man is
to be estimated according to the aims of the party to which he is allied.
He is to be esteemed in consequence of sacrifices of time, and discipline
of conduct, which he contributes to the service and reputation of his
cause.
* This has been done to some extent in the discussion of the
National Education question. The Proposer of the Guild
contributed what Ije could to this end by reading the paper
published in the proceedings of the Conference of the
Birmingham Education League, by letters like that to the
Daily News, commented upon by the Bishop of Peterborough,
at Leicester [see official publications of the Manchester
National Education Union,] by discussions as those with the
Revs. Pringle and Baldwin, at Norwich, and with Mr. Chas.
Bradlaugh, at the Old Street Hall of Science, London; and by
Lectures during the time the question of National Education
has been before Parliament
In foreign countries many persons reside interested in Secularism; in
Great Britain indeed many friends reside where no Secular Society is
formed; and in these cases membership of the Guild would be advantageous
to them, affording means of introduction to publicists of similar views:
and even in instances of towns where Secular Societies do exist, persons
in direct relation to the Secular Guild would be able to furnish Secular
direction where the tradition and usage of a Secular Society are unknown,
or unfamiliar.
CHAPTER VII. ORGANIZATION INDICATED.
As the aim of the Guild is not to fetter independent thought, but to
concert practical action, it is mainly required of each member that he
undertakes to perform, in good faith, the duties which he shall consent to
have assigned to him; and generally so to comport himself that his
principles shall not be likely to suffer, if judged by his conduct. He
will be expected to treat every colleague as equal with himself in
veracity, in honour, and in loyalty to his cause. And every form of speech
which casts a doubt upon the truth, or imputes, or assumes a want of
honour on the part of any member, will be deemed a breach of order. If any
member intends such an accusation of another, it must be made the matter
of a formal charge, after leave obtained to prefer it.
What it is desirable to know about new members is this:—
Do they, in their conception of Secularism, see in it that which seeks not
the sensual but the good, and a good which the conscience can be engaged
in pursuing and promoting; a Moralism in accordance with the laws of
Nature and capable of intrinsic proof: a Materialism which is definite
without dogmatism or grossness; and a unity on the ground of these common
agreements, for convictions which imply no apostolate are neither earnest
nor generous. No one ought to be encouraged to take sides with Secularism,
unless his conscience is satisfied of the moral rightfulness of its
principles and duties both for life and death.
It is not desirable to accept persons of that class who decry parties—who
boast of being of no party—who preach up isolation, and lament the
want of unity—who think party the madness of the many, for the gain
of the few. Seek rather the partisan who is wise enough to know that the
disparagement of party is the madness of the few, leading to the utter
impotence of the many. A party, in an associative and defensible sense, is
a class of persons taking sides upon some definite question, and acting
together for necessary ends, having principles, aims, policy, authority,
and discipline.*
* In a school there is usually teaching, training,
discipline, science, system, authorities, tradition, and
development.—Times, 1846.
With respect to proposed members, it may be well to ascertain whether
neglect, or rudeness, or insult, or unfairness from colleagues, or
overwork being imposed upon him, or incapacity of others, would divert him
from his duty. These accidents or necessities might occur: but if a
society is to be strong it must be able to count upon its members, and to
be able to count upon them it must be known what they will bear without
insubordination; and what they will bear will depend upon the frankness
and completeness of information they receive as to the social risks all
run who unite to carry out any course of duty or public service.
Always assuming that a candidate cares for the objects for which he
proposes to associate, and that it is worth while knowing whom it is with
whom you propose to work them out; answers to such inquiries as the
following would tend to impart a working knowledge and quality to the
society:—
Is he a person previously or recently acquainted with the principles he is
about to profess?
Does he understand what is meant by "taking sides" with a public party?
Would he be faithful to the special ideas of Secularism so long as he felt
them to be true? Would he make sacrifices to spread them and vindicate
them, or enable others to do so? Would he conceive of Secularism as a
cause to be served loyally, which he would support as well as he was able,
if unable to support it as well as he could wish?
Is he of decent, moral character, and tolerably reliable as to his future
conduct?
In presenting his views to others, would he be likely to render them in an
attractive spirit, or to make them disagreeable to others?
Is he of an impulsive nature, ardent for a time, and then apathetic or
reactionary—likely to antagonize to-morrow the persons he applauds
to-day?
Is he a person who would commit the fault of provoking persecution? Would
ridicule or persecution chill him if it occurred? Is he a man to stand by
an obscure and friendless cause—or are notoriety, success, applause,
and the company of others, indispensable to his fidelity?
Is he a man of any mark of esteem among his friends—a man whose
promise is sure, whose word has weight?
Is his idea of obedience, obedience simply to his own will? Would he
acquiesce in the authority of the laws of the Society, or the decision of
the Society where the laws were silent? Would he acknowledge in democracy
the despotism of principles self-consented to—or as an arena for the
assertion of Individualism before winning the consent of colleagues to the
discussion of special views?
The membership sought may be granted, provided the actual knowledge of
Secular principles be satisfactory, and evident earnestness to practise
them be apparent. The purport of the whole of the questions is to enable a
clear opinion to be formed as to what is to be expected of the new member—how
far he is likely to be reliable—how long he is likely to remain with
us—under what circumstances he is likely to fail us—what work
may be assigned him—what confidences he may be entrusted with, and
in what terms he should be introduced to colleagues, and spoken of to
others.
The Membership here described would and should be no restricted and
exclusive society, where only one pattern of efficiency prevails; but a
society where all diversities of capacity, energy, and worth, may be
found, so far as it is honest and trustworthy. A Society, like the State,
requires the existence of the people, as well as public officers—men
who* can act, as well as men who can think and direct Many men who lack
refinement, and even discretion, possess courage and energy, and will go
out on the inevitable "forlorn hopes" of progress; which the merely
prudent avoid, and from which the cultivated too often shrink. Our work
requires all orders of men, but efficiency requires that we know which is
which that none may be employed in the dark.
In every public organization there are persons who promote and aid
unconnected with the Society.
Active members are those who engage to perform specific duties; such as
reporting lectures, sermons, and public meetings, so far as they refer to
Secularism.*
* In reporting, each member should be careful to understate
rather than overstate facts, distinguishing carefully what
is matter of knowledge from rumour, conjecture, or opinion.
To give notice of meetings and sermons about to be held or delivered for
or against Secularism.
To note and report passages in books, newspapers, magazines, and reviews
referring to Secularism.
Each active member should possess some working efficiency, or be willing
to acquire it. To be able to explain his views by tongue or pen with
simple directness, to observe carefully, to report judiciously, to reason
dispassionately, to put the best construction on every act that needs
interpretation, are desirable accomplishments in a Propagandist.
In all public proceedings of the Society, written speeches should be
preferred from the young, because such speeches admit of preconsidered
brevity, consecutiveness, and purpose, and exist for reference. In the
deliberations and discussions of any Society, it might usefully be deemed
a qualification to make a contribution to the subject in speeches brief
and direct.
Non-reliableness in discharge of duties, or moral disqualification, shall
be a ground of annulling membership, which may be done after the member
objected to has had a fair opportunity of defending himself from the
specific disqualifications alleged against him and communicated to him,
and has failed therein.
The duties assigned to each member should be such as are within his means,
as respects power and opportunity; such, indeed, as interfere neither with
his social nor civil obligations; the intention being that the membership
of the Society shall not as a rule be incompatible with the preservation
of health, and the primary service due to family and the State.*
* As a general rule, it will be found that any one who
sacrifices more than one-fifth of his time and means will
become before long reactionary, and not only do nothing
himself, but discourage others.
Any persons acquainted with the "Principles of Secularism" here given, who
shall generally agree therein, and associate under any name to promote
such objects, and to act in concert with all who seek similar objects, and
will receive and take into official consideration the instructions of the
Guild, and to make one subscription yearly among its members and friends
on behalf of its Propagandist Funds, shall be recognized as a Branch of
it.
CHAPTER VIII. THE PLACE OF SECULARISM
"We do not, however, deny that, false as the whole theory
[of Secularism] appears to us, it is capable of attracting
the belief of large numbers of people, and of exercising
considerable influence over their conduct; and we should
admit that the influence so exercised is considerably better
than no influence at all."—Saturday Review, July 2, 1859.
THIS first step is to win, from public opinion, a standing place for
Secularism. So long as people believe Secularism not to be wanted, indeed
impossible to be wanted—that it is error, wickedness, and
unmitigated evil, it will receive no attention, no respect, and make no
way. But show that it occupies a vacant place, supplies a want, is a
direction where no other party supplies any—and it at once appears
indispensable. It is proved to be a service to somebody, and from that
moment it is tolerated if not respected. It may be like war, or medicine,
or work, or law, disagreeable or unpalatable, but when seen to be
necessary, it will have recognition and support. We are sure this case can
be made out for Secularism. It is not only true, but it is known; it is
not only known, but it is notorious, that there are thousands and tens of
thousands of persons in every district of this and most European
countries, who are without the pale of Christianity. They reject it, they
disprove it, they dislike it, or they do not understand it. Some have
vices and passions which Christianity, as preached around them, condemns.
As Devils are said to do, they "believe and tremble," and so disown what
they have not the virtue to practise. Faith does not touch them, and
reason is not tried—indeed reason is decried by the evangelically
religious, so that not being converted in one way, no other way is open to
them. Others are absorbed or insensate; they are busy, or stupid, or
defiant, and regard Christianity as a waste of time, or as monotonous or
offensive. It bores them or threatens them. They are already dull,
therefore it does not attract them—they have some rude sense of
independence and some feeling of courage, and they object either to be
snubbed into conformity or kicked into heaven. Another and a yearly
increasing portion of the people have, after patiently and painfully
thinking over Christianity, come to believe it to be untrue; unfounded
historically; wrong morally, and a discreditable imputation upon God. It
outrages their affections, it baffles their understandings. It is double
tongued. Its expounders are always multiplying, and the more they increase
the less they agree, and hence sceptics the more abound. Disbelievers
therefore exist; they augment: they can neither be convinced, converted,
nor conciliated, because they will yield no allegiance to a system which
has no hold on their conscience. It is, we repeat, more than known, it is
notorious that these persons live and die in scepticism. These facts are
the cry of the pulpit, the theme of the platform, the burden of the
religious tract. Now, is nothing to be done with these people? You cannot
exterminate them, the Church cannot direct them. The Bible is no authority
to them—the "will of God," as the clergy call it, in their eyes is
mere arbitrary, capricious, dog-matical assumption; sometimes, indeed,
wise precept, but oftener a cloak for knavery or a pretext for despotism.
To open the eyes of such persons to the omnipresent teachings of Nature,
to make reason an authority with them, to inspire them with precepts which
experience can verify—to connect conscience with intelligence, right
with interest, duty with self-respect, and goodness with love, must surely
be useful. If Secularism accomplishes some such work, where Christianity
confessedly accomplishes nothing, it certainly has a place of its own. It
is no answer to it to claim that Christianity is higher, vnore complete,
better. The advocates of every old religion, say the same. Christianity
may be higher, more complete, better—for somebody else. But nothing
can be high, complete, or good, for those who do not see it, accept it,
want it, or act upon it. That is first which is fit—that is supreme
which is most productive of practical virtue. No comparison (which would
be as irrelevant as offensive) between Secularism and Christianity is set
up here. The question is—is Secularism useful, or may it be useful
to anybody? The question is not—does it contain all truth?
but does it contain as much as may be serviceable to many minds, otherwise
uninfluenced for good? Arithmetic is useful though Algebra is more
compendious. Mensuration performs good offices in hands ignorant of
Euclid. There may be logic without Whately, and melody without Beethoven;
and there may be Secular ethics which shall be useful without the
pretension of Christianity.
CHAPTER IX. CHARACTERISTICS OF SECULARISM.
I.
SECULARISM means the moral duty of man in this life deduced from
considerations which pertain to this life alone. Secular education is by
some confounded with Secularism, whereas the distinction between them is
very wide. Secular education simply means imparting Secular knowledge
separately—by itself, without admixture of Theology with it. The
advocate of Secular education may be, and generally is, also an advocate
of religion; but he would teach religion at another time and treat it as a
distinct subject, too sacred for coercive admixture into the hard and
vexatious routine of a school. He would confine the inculcation of
religion to fitting seasons and chosen instruments. He holds also that one
subject at a time is mental economy in learning. Secular education is the
policy of a school—Secularism is a policy of life to those who do
not accept Theology. Secularity draws the line of separation between the
things of time and the things of eternity. That is Secular which pertains
to this world. The distinction may be seen in the fact that the cardinal
propositions of Theology are provable only in the next life, and not in
this. If I believe in a given creed it may turn out to be the true one;
but one must die to find that out. On this side of the grave all is doubt;
the truth of Biblical creeds is an affair of hope and anxiety, while the
truth of things Secular becomes apparent in time. The advantages arising
from the practice of veracity, justice, and temperance can be ascertained
from human experience. If we are told to﹃fear God and keep His
commandments,﹄lest His judgments overtake us, the indirect action of this
doctrine on human character may make a vicious timid man better in this
life, supposing the interpretation of the will of God, and the
commandments selected to be enforced, are moral; but such teaching is not
Secular, because its main object is to fit men for eternity. Pure Secular
principles have for their object to fit men for time, making the
fulfilment of human duty here the standard of fitness for any accruing
future. Secularism purposes to regulate human affairs by considerations
purely human. Its principles are founded upon Nature, and its object
is to render man as perfect as possible in this life. Its problem is this:
Supposing no other life to be before us, what is the wisest use of this?
As the Rev. Thomas Binney puts it,﹃I believe * * that even * * if there
were really no God over him, no heaven above, or eternity in prospect,
things are so constituted that man may turn the materials of his little
life poem, if not always into a grand epic, mostly into something of
interest and beauty; and it is worth his while doing so, even if there
should be no sequel to the piece.﹄Chalmers, Archbishop Whately, and
earlier distinguished divines of the Church of England, the most
conspicuous of whom is Bishop Butler, have admitted the independent
existence of morality, but we here cite Mr. Binney's words because among
Dissenters this truth is less readily admitted. A true Secular life does
not exclude any from supplementary speculations. Not until we have
fulfilled our duty to man, as far as we can ascertain that duty, can we
consistently pretend to comprehend the more difficult relations of man to
God. Our duties to humanity, understood and discharged to the best of our
ability, will in no way unfit us to "reverently meditate on things far
beyond us, on Power unlimited, on space unfathomed, on time uncounted, on
'whence' we came, and 'whither' we go."** The leading ideas of Secularism
are humanism, moralism, materialism, utilitarian unity; Humanism, the
physical perfection of this life—Moralism, founded on the laws of
Nature, as the guidance of this life—Materialism, as the means of
Nature for the Secular improvement of this life—Unity of thought and
action upon these practical grounds. Secularism teaches that the good of
the present life is the immediate concern of man, and that it should be
his first endeavour to raise it. Secularism inculcates a Morality founded
independently upon the laws of Nature. It seeks human improvement through
purity and suitableness of material conditions as being a method at once
moral, practical, universal, and sure.
* "How to make the best of both worlds," p. 11.
** F. W. Newman.
II.
The province of Positivism is not speculation upon the origin, but study
of the laws of Nature—its policy is to destroy error by superseding
it. Auguste Comte quotes, as a cardinal maxim of scientific progress, the
words "nothing is destroyed until it is replaced," a proverbial form of a
wise saying of M. Necker that in political progress﹃nothing is destroyed
for which we do not find a substitute.﹄Negations, useful in their place,
are iconoclastic—not constructive. Unless substitution succeeds
destruction—there can be no sustained progress. The Secularist is
known by setting up and maintaining affirmative propositions. He replaces
negations by affirmations, and substitutes demonstration for denunciation.
He asserts truths of Nature and humanity, and reverses the position of the
priest who appears as the sceptic, the denier, the disbeliever in Nature
and humanity. Statesmen, not otherwise eager for improvement, will regard
affirmative proposals. Lord Palmerston could say—"Show me a good and
I will realize it—not an abuse to correct."
III.
"All science," says M. Comte,﹃has prevision for its end, an axiom which
separates science from erudition, which relates to events of the past
without any regard to the future. No accumulation of facts can effect
prevision until the facts are made the basis of reasonings. A knowledge of
phenomena leads to prevision, and prevision to action;﹄or, in other
words, when we can foresee what will happen under given circumstances, we
can provide against it. It by no means follows that every Secularist will
be scientific, but to discern the value of science, to appreciate and
promote it, may be possible to most. Science requires high qualities of
accurate observation, close attention, careful experiment, caution,
patience, labour. Its value to mankind is inestimable. One physician will
do more to alleviate human suffering than ten priests. One physical
discovery will do more to advance civilization than a generation of
prayer-makers. "To get acquaintance with the usual course of Nature (which
Science alone can teach us), is a kind of knowledge which pays very good
interest."*
* Athenæum, No. 1,637, March 12, 1850.
The value of this knowledge becomes more apparent the longer we live.
There may be a general superintending Providence—there may be a
Special Providence, but the first does not interfere in human affairs, and
the interpositions of the second are no longer to be counted upon. The age
of Prayer for temporal deliverance has confessedly passed away. But
without disputing these points, it is clear that the only help available
to man, the sole dependence upon which he can calculate, is that of
Science. Nothing can be more impotent than the fate of that man who seeks
social elevation by mere Faith. All human affairs are a process, and he
alone who acts upon this knowledge can hope to control results. Loyola
foresaw the necessity of men acting for human purposes, as though there
were no God. "Let us pray," said he,﹃as if we had no help in ourselves;
let us labour as if there was no help for us in heaven.﹄Society is
a blunder, not a science, until it ensures good sense and competence for
the many. Why this process is tardy, is that creedists get credit for
hoping and meaning well. Creedists of good intent, who make no improvement
and attempt none, are very much in the way of human betterance. The
spiritualist regards the world theoretically as a gross element, which he
is rather to struggle against than to work with. This makes human service
a mortification instead of pure passion. We would not deify the world,
that is, set up the sensualism of the body, as spiritualism is set up as
the sensualism of the soul. Secularism seeks the material purity of the
present life, which is at once the means and end of Secular
endeavour. The most reliable means of progress is the improvement of
material condition, and "purity" implies "improvement," for there can
be no improvement without it. The aim of all improvement is higher purity.
All power, art, civilization and progress are summed up in the result—purer
life. Strength, intellect, love are measured by it. Duty, study,
temperance, patience are but ministers to this. "There is that," says
Ruskin, "to be seen in every street and lane of every city, that to be
found and felt in every human heart and countenance, that to be loved in
every road-side weed and moss-grown wall, which, in the hands of faithful
men, may convey emotions of glory and sublimity continual and exalted."
IV.
It is necessary to point out that Sincerity does not imply infallibility.
"There is a truth, which could it be stamped on every human mind, would
exterminate all bigotry and persecution. I mean the truth, that worth of
character and true integrity, and, consequently, God's acceptance, are not
necessarily connected with any particular set of opinions."* If you admit
that Mark and Paul were honest, most Christians take that to be an
admission of the truth of all related under their names. Yet if a man in
defending his opinions, affirm his own sincerity, Christians quickly see
that is no proof of their truth, and proceed to disprove them. Sincerity
may account for a man holding his opinions, but it does not account for
the opinions themselves. Nothing is more common than uninformed,
misinformed, mistaken, or self-deluded honesty. But sincere error, though
dangerous enough, has not the attribute of crime about it—personal
intention of mischief. "Because human nature is frail and fallible, the
ground of our acceptance with God, under the Gospel, is sincerity.
A sincere desire to know and do the will of God, is the only condition of
obtaining the Christian salvation. Every honest man will be saved."** But
Sincerity, if the reader recurs to our definition of it, includes a short
intellectual and moral education with respect to it. Those worthy of the
high descriptive "sincere," are those who have thought, inquired,
examined, are in earnest, have a sense of duty with regard to their
conviction, which is only satisfied by acting upon it. These processes may
not bring a man to the truth, but they bring him near to it. The chances
of error are reduced hereby as far as human care can reduce them.
Secularism holds that the Protestant right of private judgment includes
the moral innocency of that judgment, when conscientiously formed, whether
for or against received opinion; that though all sincere opinion is not
equally true, nor equally useful, it is yet equally without sin; that
it is not sameness of belief but sincerity of belief which justifies
conduct, whether regard be had to the esteem of men or the approval of
God. Sincerity, we repeat, is not infallibility. The conscientious are
often as mischievous as the false, but he who acts according to the best
of his belief is free from criminal intention. The sincerity commended by
the fortuitous, insipid, apathetic, inherited consent, which so often
passes for honesty, because too indolent or too cowardly to inquire, and
too stupid to doubt. The man who holds merely ready-made opinions is not
to be placed on the same level with him whose convictions are derived from
experience. True sincerity is an educated and earnest sentiment.
Secularist is an active sentiment seeking the truth and acting upon it.
* Dr. Price.
** John Foster's Tracts on Heresy,
V.
In the formation and judgment of opinions we must take into account the
consequences to mankind involved in their adoption. But when an opinion
seems true in itself and beneficial to society, the consequences in the
way of inconvenience to ourselves is not sufficient reason for refusing to
act upon it. If a particular time of enforcing it seem to be one when it
will be disregarded, or misunderstood, or put back, and the sacrifice of
ourselves on its behalf produce no adequate advantage to society, it may
be lawful to seek a better opportunity. We must, however, take care that
this view of the matter is not made a pretext of cowardice or evasion of
duty. And in no case is it justifiable to belie conscience or profess a
belief the contrary of that which we believe to be true. There may in
extreme cases be neutrality with regard to truth, but in no case should
there be complicity in falsehood. So much with respect to this life. With
respect to Deity or another life, we may in all cases rely upon this, that
in truth alone is safety. With God, conscience can have no penal
consequences. Conscience is the voice of honesty, and honesty, with all
its errors, a God of Truth will regard. "We have," says Blanco White, "no
revealed rule which will ascertain, with moral certainty, which doctrines
are right and which are wrong—that is, as they are known to God."—"Salvation,
therefore, cannot depend on orthodoxy; it cannot consist in abstract
doctrines, about which men of equal abilities, virtue, and sincerity are,
and always have been, divided."—"No error on abstract doctrines can
be heresy, in the sense of a wrong belief which endangers the soul." "The
Father of the Universe accommodates not His judgments to the wretched
wranglings of pedantic theologians, but every one who seeks truth, whether
he findeth it or not, and worketh righteousness, will be accepted of
Him."*
* Bishop Watson's Theological Tracts. Introductory.
Thomas Carlyle was the first English writer, having the ear of the public,
who declared in England that "sincere doubt is as much entitled to
respect as sincere belief."
VI.
Going to a distant town to mitigate some calamity there, will illustrate
the principle of action prescribed by Secularism. One man will go on this
errand from pure sympathy with the unfortunate; this is goodness. Another
goes because his priest bids him; this is obedience. Another goes because
the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew tells him that all such persons will
pass to the right hand of the Father; this is calculation. Another goes
because he believes God commands him; this is piety. Another goes because
he believes that the neglect of suffering will not answer; this is
utilitarianism. But another goes on the errand of mercy, because it is an
errand of mercy, because it is an immediate service to humanity; and he
goes to attempt material amelioration rather than spiritual consolation;
this is Secularism, which teaches that goodness is sanctity, that Nature
is guidance, that reason is authority, that service is duty, and that
Materialism is help.
VII.
The policy of Secular controversy is to distinguish and assert its own
affirmative propositions. It is the policy of Secularism not so much to
say to error "It is false," as to say of truth "This is true." Thus,
instead of leaving to the popular theology the prestige of exclusive
affirmation accorded to it by the world, although it is solely employed in
the incessant re-assertion of error, Secularism causes it to own and
publish its denial of positive principle; when the popular theology proves
itself to be but an organized negation of the moral guidance of nature and
its tendencies to progress. A Secularist sees clearly upon what he relies
as a Secularist. To him the teaching of Nature is as clear as the teaching
of the Bible: and since, if God exists, Nature is certainly His work,
While it is not so clear that the Bible is—the teaching of Nature
will be preferred and followed where the teaching of the Bible appears to
conflict with it. A Secular Society, contemplating intellectual and moral
progress, must provide for the freest expression of opinion on all
subjects which its members may deem conducive to their common objects.
Christianism, Theism, Materialism, and Atheism will be regarded as open
questions, subject to unreserved discussion. But these occasions will be
the opportunity of the members, not the business of the society. All
public proceedings accredited by the society should relate to topics
consistent with the common principles of Secularism. "In necessary things,
unity: in doubtful things, liberty: in all things, charity."* The
destruction of religious servitude may be attempted in two ways. It may be
denounced, which will irritate it, or it may be superseded by the
servitude of humanity. Attacking it by denunciation, generally inflames
and precipitates the persecution of the many upon the few; when the weak
are liable to be scattered, the cowardly to recant, and the brave to
perish.
VIII.
The essential rule upon which personal association can be permanent, or
controversy be maintained in the spirit in which truth can be evolved, is
that of never imputing evil motives nor putting the worst construction on
any act. Free Inquiry has no limits but truth, Free Speech no limits but
exactness, Policy (here the law of speech) no limits but usefulness.
Unfettered and uncompromising are they who pursue free inquiry throughout—measured
and impassable may those become, who hold to a generous veracity. Far both
from outrage or servility—too proud to court and too strong to hate—are
those who learn to discard all arts but that of the austere service of
others, exacting no thanks and pausing at no curse. Wise words of counsel
to Theological controversialists have been addressed in a powerful quarter
of public opinion: "Religious controversy has already lost much of its
bitterness. Open abuse and exchange of foul names are exploded, and even
the indirect imputation of unworthy motives is falling-into disuse.
Another step will be made when theologians have learnt to extend their
intellectual as well as their moral sympathies, to feel that most truths
are double edged, and not to wage an unnecessary war against opinion
which, strange, incongruous, and unlovely as they may at first appear, are
built, perhaps, on as firm a foundation, and are held with equal sincerity
and good faith, as their own."** This is advice which both sides should
remember.
* Maxim (much unused) of the Roman Catholic Church.
** Times Leader of November 8, 1855.
IX.
﹃No society can be in a healthy state in which eccentricity is a matter of
reproach.﹄Conventionality is the tyranny of the average man, and a
despicable tyranny it is. The tyranny of genius is hard to be borne—that
of mediocrity is humiliating. That idea of freedom which consists in the
absence of all government is either mere lawlessness, or refers to the
distant period when each man having attained perfection will be a law unto
himself. Just rule is indispensable rule, and none other. The fewer laws
consistent with the public preservation the better—there is, then,
as Mr. Mill has shown in his "Liberty," the more room for that
ever-recurring originality which keeps intellect alive in the world.
Towards law kept within the limits of reason, obedience is the first of
virtues. "Order and Progress," says Comte, which we should express thus:—Order,
without which Progress is impossible; Progress, without which Order, is
Tyranny. The world is clogged with men of dead principles. Principles that
cannot be acted upon are probably either obsolete or false. One certain
way to improvement is to exact consistency between profession and
practice; and the way to bring this about is to teach that the highest
merit consists in having earnest views and in endeavouring to realize them—and
this whether the convictions be contained within or without accredited
creeds. There will be no progress except within the stereotyped limits of
creeds, unless means are found to justify independent convictions to the
conscience. To the philosopher you have merely to show that a thing is
true, to the statesman, that it is useful, but to a Christian, that it is
safe. The grace of service lies in its patience. To promote the welfare of
others, irrespective of their gratitude or claims, is to reach the nature
of the Gods. It is a higher sentiment than is ascribed to the Deity of the
Bible. The abiding disposition to serve others is the end of all
philosophy. The vow of principle is always one of poverty and obedience,
and few are they who take it—and fewer who keep it. If hate obscure
for a period the path of duty, let us remember nothing should shake our
attachment to that supreme thought, which at once stills human anger and
educates human endeavour—the perception that "the sufferings and
errors of mankind arise out of want of knowledge rather than defect of
goodness."
X.
A leading object of Secularism is the promotion of the material purity of
the present life—"material purity," which includes personal as well
as external condition. The question of Spiritualism (without employing it
and without disparaging it) it regards as a distinct question, and hence
the methods by which Secularists attempt "improvement" will be "material"
as being the most reliable. The tacit or expressed aim of all
Freethinking, has ever been true thinking and pure thinking. It has been a
continued protest against the errors Theology has introduced, and the
vicious relations it has conserved and sanctified. It is necessary to mark
this, and it can be done by insisting and keeping distinctly evident that
the aim of Secularism is the purity of material influences. This precludes
the possibility of Secularism being charged either with conscious
grossness or intentional sin. Secularism concerns itself with the work of
to-day. "It is always yesterday or to-morrow, and never to-day,"* is a
fair description of life according to theologies. Secularism, on the
contrary, concerns itself with the things of "to-day."
To know
That which before us lies in daily life
Is the prime wisdom.
* Story of Boots, by Dickens.
The cardinal idea of the "popular Theology" is the necessity of
Revelation. It believes that the light of Nature is darkness, that Reason
affords no guidance, that the Scriptures are the true chart, the sole
chart, and the sufficient chart of man, and it regards all attempts to
delineate a chart of Nature as impious, as impracticable, and as a covert
attack upon the Biblical chart in possession of the churches. Knowing no
other guidance than that of the Bible, and disbelieving the possibility of
any other, theology denounces Doubt, which inspires it with a sense of
insecurity—it fears Inquiry, which may invalidate its trust—and
deprecates Criticism, which may expose it, if deficient. Having nothing to
gain, it is reluctant to incur risk—having all to lose, it dreads to
be disturbed-having no strength but in Faith, it fears those who Reason—and
less from ill-will than from the tenderness of its position, it persecutes
in self-defence. Such are the restrictions and the logic of Theology.
XI.
On the other hand, Rationalism (which is the logic of Nature) is in
attitude and spirit quite the reverse. It observes that numbers are
unconvinced of the fact of Revelation, and feel the insufficiency, for
their guidance, of that offered to them. To them the pages of Nature seem
clearer than those of the Apostles. Reason, which existed before all
Religions and decides upon all—else the false can never be
distinguished from the true—seems self-dependent and capable of
furnishing personal direction. Hence Rationalism instructed by facts,
winning secrets by experiments, establishing principles by reflection, is
assured of a morality founded upon the laws of Nature. Without the
advantage of inductive science to assist discoveries, or the printing
press to record corroborations of them, the Pre-Christian world created
ethics, and Socrates and Epictetus, and Zoroaster and Confucius, delivered
precepts, to which this age accords a high place. Modern Rationalists
therefore sought, with their new advantages, to augment and systematize
these conquests. They tested the claims of the Church by the truths of
Nature. That Freethought which had won these truths applied them to
creeds, and criticism became its weapon of Propagandism. Its consciousness
of new truth stimulated its aggression on old error. The pretensions of
reason being denied as false, and rationalists themselves persecuted as
dangerous, they had no alternative but to criticise in order to vindicate
their own principles, and weaken the credit and power of their opponents.
To attack the misleading dogmas of Theology was to the early Freethinkers
well understood self-defence. In some hands and under the provocations of
vindictive bigotry, this work, no doubt, became wholly antagonistic, but
the main aspiration of the majority was the determination of teaching the
people "to be a law unto themselves." They found prevailing a religion of
unreasoning faith. They sought to create a religion of intelligent
conviction, whose uniformity consisted in sincerity. Its believers did not
all hold the same tenets, but they all sought the same truth and pursued
it with the same earnestness. It was this inspiration which sustained
Vanini, Hamont, Lewes, Kett, Legate, and Wightman at the stake, and which
armed Servetus to prefer the fires of Calvin to the creed of Calvin, which
supported Annet in the pillory, and Woolston and Carlile in their
imprisonments. It was no capricious taste for negations which dictated
these deliberate sacrifices, but a sentiment purer than interest and
stronger than self-love—it was the generous passion for unfriended
truth.
XII.
The intellectual, no less than the heroic characteristics of Freethought
have presented features of obvious unity. Tindal, Shaftesbury, Voltaire,
Paine, aad Bentham, all vindicated principles of Natural Morality. Shelley
struggled that a pure and lofty ideal of life should prevail, and Byron
had passionate words of reverence for the human character of Christ.*
* 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 God was man—or man God—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 assumptions, 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 assertion—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 God 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 God 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 Assert 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 God; 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 God, 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 God, 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 assert conscientious difference on
the platform, through the press, in civil institutions, 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. Cockburn,
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 assertion 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 God. The
question is not—does man give us the right to think for ourselves?
but, does God 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 asserted 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 asserting
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 passes 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 God 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 God.
The Christian is ever persuaded that there is only one way of doing this,
and he arrogantly assumes 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
assurance 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 class, 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 assertion 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 constitute 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 mass. 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.
We believe there is sufficient soundness in Secular principles to make way
in the world. All that is wanted is that advocates of them shall have
clear notions of the value of method in their work. To the novice in
advocacy policy seems a crime—at least, many so describe it. Unable
himself to see his way, the tyro fights at everything and everybody
equally; and too vain to own his failure, he declares that the right way.
Not knowing that progress is an art, and an art requiring the union of
many qualities, he denies all art, cries down policy, and erects
blundering into a virtue. Compare the way which Havelock reached Lucknow,
and the way in which Sir Colin Campbell performed the same feat, and you
see the difference between courage without, and courage with strategy. It
was because magnitudes existed, which were inaccessible and incapable of
direct measurement, that mathematics arose. Finding direct measurement so
often impossible, men were compelled to find means of ascertaining
magnitude and distance indirectly. Hence mathematics became a scientific
policy. Mathematics is but policy of measurement—grammar but the
policy of speech—logic but the policy of reason—arithmetic but
the policy of calculation—temperance but the policy of health—trigonometry
but the policy of navigation—roads but the policy of transit—music
but the policy of controlling sound—art but the policy of beauty—law
but the policy of protection—discipline but the policy of strength—love
but the policy of affection. An enemy may object to our having a policy,
because it suits his purpose that we should be without one; but that a
friend should object to our having a policy is one of those incredible
infatuations which converts partisans into unconscious traitors. The
policy adopted may be a bad policy, and no policy at all is idiotcy. If a
policy be bad, criticise and amend it; but to denounce all policy is to
commit your cause to the providence of Bedlam. If, therefore, throughout
all intelligent control of Nature and humanity, policy is the one supreme
mark of wisdom, why should it be dishonourable to study the policy of
opinion? He who consistently objects to policy, would build railway
engines without safety valves, and dismiss them from stations without
drivers; he would abolish turnpike roads and streets, and leave us to find
our way at random; he would recommend that vessels be made without helms,
and sail without captains, that armies fight without discipline, and
artillery-men should fire before loading, and when pointing their guns,
should aim at nothing. In fine, a man without policy, honestly and
intelligently opposed to policy, would build his house with the roof
downwards, and plant his trees with their roots in the air; he would kick
his friend and hug his enemy; he would pay wages to servants who would not
work, govern without rule, speak without thought, think without reason,
act without purpose, be a knave by accident, and a fool by design.
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Principles Of Secularism, by
George Jacob Holyoake
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PRINCIPLES OF SECULARISM ***
***** This file should be named 36797-h.htm or 36797-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/3/6/7/9/36797/
Produced by David Widger
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase『Project
Gutenberg』is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the『Right
of Replacement or Refund』described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
http://www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.