the gospel," unless he wishes to give the least logical and most frightful illustration? And if he does not argue from abuses and the inconsistencies in Christian conduct, and does not take the Book as the proper standard, what is the proper point of attack, since he repudiates both of these?

The editor regards one gentleman as beneath notice, "except, perhaps, in that hour when it is needful to quote him as a blot on his own gospel of professed charity and truth." (H., vol. xii., p. 302.) Now, if this gospel "professed charity and truth," and Mr. Holyoake possessed either, he would not quote this gentleman either to disparage him or the gospel, except to illustrate that "modern Christians are much better than Christianity."

Besides dirty streets, already found to be one of the immoral aspects of Christianity, the conscientious inquirer celebrates "a river steaming with malaria from the town" of Leicester, which we happen to know comes from scientific secular factories, and various manufacturing processes; but the Reasoner observes, "Yet these nuisances co-exist with churches and chapels numberless." (H., vol. xiii., 65.) It is a wonder that they "co-existed" with Mr. Holyoake, who, as sanitary commissioner, would order churches and chapels to be pulled down in order to sweeten rivers, and demonstrate the immoral aspects of "New Testament Christianity." These gentlemen, who can be consistent in nothing, who accuse churches and chapels of the nuisances they Coexist" with, in which we may include the development of infidelitythese enlightened critics never apply such measures and tests to anything they profess to favour. Thus, on "Methodism in the Provinces," Mr. Holyoake complains-"Travelling through Warwickshire and Staffordshire, and observing the gross and external signs of the sanitary condition of the people, I saw, with regret, the co-existence of much political intelligence and moral virtue, with what may be termed physical depravity." And "I found persons sensible enough to be active in demanding political reforms, yet enduring serious evils of a physical nature, quite easy of removal, and which any man of common intelligence could compel the removal of in a few hours." (H., vol. vii., p. 65.) Here our critic does not condemn "political intelligence," because it "co-existed" with "nuisances;" that is a process he reserves solely for Christianity. When "detestable streets" join with Christianity, he declares Christians are not particular in "moral respects," and inquires "When will Christianity grow moral?" Yet the same nuisances in connexion with "political intelligence" are not "moral evils," but "physical depravity;" "evils of a physical nature;" and the politicians are allowed to have "much moral virtue" with their physical nuisances, whilst Christians are denied morality for the very same reason; and further, their religion is accused of the defect, and implied to be immoral in the inquiry, "When will Christianity grow moral ?" This doubleprocedure gives us a better license to ask, "When will Infidelity grow moral ?" When will it unite intelligence with integrity in its "conscientious unbelief?" "It was" (observed Mr. Holyoake) "plain to me that there are a great number of people whom no political emancipation would do much to elevate;" however, he will not condemn

sided

politics on this account, he rather prefers to abuse Watts's Hymn Book not giving it the credit of the "political intelligence" and "moral virtue" with which it "co-exists," but charging upon it the "physical evils" which politics and virtue leave untouched. "The cause of this blindness and apathy, I found in many cases traceable to peculiar religious teaching. Some thought, with Dr. Watts, that diseases are the servants of the Lord, and not under human control. Some believed that as this life is but a transition to a better, it is not worth while to bestow much trouble on this. What Christian ever told Mr. Holyoake this, or ever believed it ?] Religious missionaries visit the houses of the poor, and deposit a Bible by the side of a cesspool, and leave an injunction about the dogma, but are silent about the drain." (H., vol. vii., p. 65.) This critic on Christianity might as well have declared that "the dogma" recommends the vicinity of "cesspools' remedy for the soul, by the infection of the body. If the other is "physical depravity," this infidel logic on religion is a case of "intellectual depravity."

Whenever Mr. Holyoake wishes to seem cool and be effective, he adopts this favourite phrase " Mr. Grubb has eminently the art of making Christianity disagreeable." (H., xiii., p. 66.) "The Rev. Mr. Gilbert belongs to the firm of Grubb, Woodman, and Co., in the art of making Christianity disagreeable." (H., p. 67.) This is the perpetual fallacy of this infidel leader and his class-making the tone of an opponent stand for the teachings of Christianity, whereby the conscientious sceptic transfers his naturally "disagreeable" feelings to the character of his opponents, and from them to the Bible, of which he declared-"I flee the Bible as a viper, and revolt at the touch of a Christian." (H., Trial.) Thus, of a Bolton clergyman, he observes-" If that is s sample of the tone and spirit in which a Christian minister can speak of a stranger, I bless that more courteous destiny which has saved me from the Christian faith." (H., vol. xiii., p. 196.) It has been said that Christianity is a thing of kindly spirit and gentle speech, animated by a charity that thinketh no evil;' let your Bolton clergyman correspond in your paper, he will undeceive the public on this head." (H., p. 196.) Which "head" does he mean? The teaching of the New Testament, or the style of the Bolton clergyman? In this way he argues from the gospel and epistles-a long way from them.

Some Stockport riots are put down to the credit of New Testament Christianity; as our editor observes-"There is no denying that these rioters were religious, for they fought for their religion." (H., vol. xiii., p. 82.) "It is difficult," a correspondent remarks, "to understand what is meant by the word 'religious' here," and he adds-“I have yet to learn that Christianity inculcates violence, murder, and all kinds of atrocity." "As G. J. Holyoake is evidently unacquainted with the doctrines of Christianity, I beg to inform him that one of its commands is to love one another.' (Vol. xiii., p. 300.) To this Mr. Holyoake replies by inquiring-" Is this the only command ?" (H., vol. xill p. 300.) He knows, and knew then, that it is "the only command" as to our social duties, or why did he not quote some other and contradictory command-to hate one another? It was safer to ask

a question, and give Stockport rioters as the embodiment of the New Testament.

From these-and we could give innumerable other specimens-it is evident they are just as honest to Christianity as they are to their own professions of judging it by its own nature and real merits: they make a scarecrow, and then pelt at it, and this, which they call "free inquiry," is freedom from inquiry; or, in their own typical dialect, "the negative side of free thought." Mr. Holyoake affirms that "there is great unhappiness in the philosophy of the New Testament, as respects political economy." "The parable of Dives, which makes it appear a sin to be rich, and the further parable which pictures heaven as the needle's eye, through which the cable or camel of wealth cannot pass (as if anybody wanted to "pass through" heaven], made riches fearful, when it would have been wiser to have taught men to regard them as minor providences, capable of dispensing blessings through the land. Industry has to win rich men to its aid, the New Testament makes them hateful, and repels us from them." (H., i. 114.) Every one of these statements is a manifest untruth: the parable of Dives does not "make it a sin to be rich," but a sin to be selfish, and to allow poor Lazarus to lie neglected at the gate; and a sin for the rich not to be "minor providences," scattering blessings through the land: a doctrine which, instead of being "wiser" than the New Testament, Mr. Holyoake knows is contained in the New Testament. The infidelity or unfaithfulness of his comment is twofold, describing the Gospel as if opposing what it teaches; and implying that the infidel party respects the rich, and seeks to "win them to the aid of industry." A child cannot help knowing that what is said of the parables is false; every one who reads infidel books knows that what is implied about them is equally false. For this editor, who cares for the rich as much as Judas cared for the poor, was at that very time the advocate of Socialism, which is the enemy of property; though in one place he says— (H., vi. 227)—he is not hostile to wealth, he only seeks its "distribution," -a new turn to "the appropriation clause."

and

To the question, "Will any man say that Christianity is inimical to life and property ?-will any man in this place undertake to say that, if the people were all Christians, they would destroy life and property?" Mr. Holyoake, who was on the platform, answered-"I will.” `(H., ii. 259.) Thus, his infidel dogma is, that "Christianity is inimical to life and property;" in other words, that it includes robbery and murder. Still, from the teachings of the book, he professes to have believed Christianity's professions of "love and gentle speech." How could he have trusted this, if Christianity allows murder and robbery? In Cowper Street, he descanted on "a minister of the religion of charity" being uncharitable. Now, if the religion is "charity," it is not “inimical to life and property ;" and, if it is not charitable, the minister in question was consistent, even if properly described by one who says he never questions motives.

Mr. HOLYOAKE.-An audience so numerous and so competent as this, I have never had the honour to address before, and the natural diffidence incident to such a position is augmented by the reflection.

that my cause is one of infantine and unfriended opinion, while my opponent's is one of full-grown and popular prepossession. He can hardly ever say that which you will deem wrong, while I can scarcely hope to say anything which you will think right. The course Mr. Grant is taking is one which he has well worn. He is again proceeding on the assumption, that what we ask is confidence in ourselves as publicists, whereas all we seek is attention for our views. Our object is not to set up ourselves, but our principles. We labour to bring about that state of public intelligence in which ideas will rule-not persons. Just men, we hope, will ever be reverenced, but principles will govern. Leadership will no longer be based upon authority, but upon service. Usefulness will be the sole influence, and some small share of usefulness is the limit of our ambition. Perhaps I cannot more instructively answer the caricature just delivered to us, than by showing in what manner we understand Secularism.

In the outlying world are two classes of persons-the Bible-ists and the Utopians-one dragging us back to the past, as though progress was a fault; another plunging us into the future, as though the present was a crime. The secularist belongs to neither of these classes. He believes in the present, and seeks to realize it. He deems the wise use of the present to be the just profit of the past, and the most reasonable preparation for the future. As one of our manifestoes said-" The civilization of our time has isolated the working classes, and Secularism is the voice of their self-dependence. They are said to have no right to land, no right to capital, no right to labour, and no right to food, except on pauperic conditions. The church is mute in the presence of poverty and serfdom. Eloquent on spiritualism, it raises no voice against political equality, it conducts no advocacy of social rights. Hence, an intelligent man does not turn from the church through scepticism alone, but from the instinct of self-preservation. It is in vain that the preacher offers arguments-the people want help. The church has but one lesson-to teach men how to die. Secularism anticipates that lesson in the previous one of teaching men how to live, and to conquer the conditions of independence and development. Earnest as conviction, yet Secularism seeks to avoid rudeness as a crime against freedom. If we have a right to our private judgment, so has our brother citizen a right to his private judgment, and we will not make the exercise of that right an offence to him. Therefore, we will respect the minister at the altar as well as the lecturer on the platform. The intellectual right includes also the moral right of private judgment, and, consequently, its exercise can bring no guilt. We, therefore, are bold to avow the sentiments we are free to hold; and the sentiments we are free to hold we desire to spread, for it shall never be said of us, that having escaped ourselves, we extend no hand to those still upon the wreck."

Christianity has had its eighteen centuries of propagandism, with the advantage of an infallible book to guide, and the prayers of all the churches to aid, and has not yet conquered half the earth. Pure Christianity, whatever that may mean, is adopted by only the minority of the human race. ... Our view of life is as independent as our duty. The universe seems to us self-existent, self-acting, eternal,

.....

infinite, and material. What exists beyond or within, what controls or animates Nature, we cannot predicate. What we find to be first in certainty, are the sphere we occupy, and the life with which we are endowed; we therefore give the precedence to the things of time, and the human duties of this existence. Secularism is that which seeks in the realisation of the present its sphere of duty; in science, help; in morals, service. It would substitute service of man as the most acceptable service to any possible Deity; it would substitute work for worship; teachers for preachers; temples of science for temples of orthodoxy. Morally, Secularism teaches men to give works of humanity the first consideration.

We have been, by my present opponent and others, at various times, accused of concealing our sentiments by the use of the term "Secularism;" whereas, the true concealment is accomplished by those who call us by names which disguise and distort our objects. The term "Atheist arose when men believed morality to be dependant on certain speculative notions of the origin and government of the world. The term "Infidel" arose when every Christian believed that he alone had the truth, and that no man could be intelligent, honest, or sincere, who did not agree with him in opinion. These party names, arrogant and sectarian, have no application to us. We claim the right not to recognise terms which convey calumnious associations, and to adopt those which imply a positive and a moral element. If you can confute us, do it; but do not brand us by contumelious epithets, and call that confutation. In the enunciation of our views, it is objected that we are "politic." It would be a much more serious objection, could it be said that we were not. Certainly, we have a policy. A party without a policy is a party which works by incoherent impulses, and trusts to accident to give it success. . . . The Duke of Wellington once said of Lord Gough, that if he had ten thousand men in Hyde Park, he would not know how to get them out again. The forces of free-thinking have often suffered from some such want of skill in command. An advocate will often prove himself capable of assembling a troop of arguments on a platform, but utterly incapable of dispersing them through society. The defender of reason may learn something from experienced military movements. An army marching four or six abreast may pass easily through a narrow gateway; but if the whole attempt to pass at once, they become a struggling mob, and merely impede each other. So it is with the multitude of principles which free inquiry has discovered, and free discussion has established. While they all seek to gain admission into society at once, they are unable to force their way through the narrow passes of bigotry, prejudice, and misunderstanding. But if these same truths are marshalled in quiet order, and made to present themselves a few at a time, honestly, implicitly, and independently, they will obtain admission.

In this discussion I hope to show, by appeals to reason and experience, the soundness of two leading secular propositions, viz.-That sincerity is the primary justification before God in matters of theological or anti-theological opinion; and next, That the existence and cultivation of morality is possible on secular grounds.

V. With respect to the Bible, we are now called upon by opponents to