duced, and is daily producing, a host of moral, social, and political evils, how can he, as an honest man, take no notice of it, or even slight notice of it? Is he not as much bound earnestly to assail it as one who esteems it an incalculable blessing is bound zealously to defend and propagate it? Is he not all the more bound to oppose it, because its influence is wide and powerful? He who is not for it must be against it. Neutrality is logically and morally impossible. Reason and conscience prescribe a policy which must be conformed to whatever expediency may suggest, and that policy is not one of concealment and evasion. But even an expediency which is real and not merely apparent, universal and not simply individual, must declare against the course recommended by Mr Holyoake. Supposing Sir James Stephen's account of the conduct of Mr Grote, Mr Mill, &c., to have been correct, was the policy attributed to them really beneficial to any person but themselves, and those whom they regarded as their opponents? Mr Grote writing his History of Greece,' and Mr Mill writing his 'Logic,' were, no doubt, admirably employed, and deservedly meriting the gratitude of their contemporaries and of posterity; but what did they effect thereby against Christianity? How did they injure it by ignoring it? Who were the clergymen who became suppliants for their attention? Was there any clergy

man so stupid as to expect that Christianity should be either attacked or defended in a History of Greece,' or in a scientific treatise on 'Logic'? The policy ascribed to Mr Grote and Mr Mill is as absurd as would be that of an admiral who, if ordered to reduce Cronstadt, should, by way of carrying out his commission, stay in London and write a work on mechanics or navigation. That might be good policy for him, but it would have little effect on Cronstadt. Christianity cannot and will not leave secularism alone. If it have any belief in itself, any life and sincerity, it must attack by all fair means a system so utterly alien to itself. Is secularism prepared to renounce the right of reply and counter-attack? I should be rejoiced to hear it; but I must candidly admit that the reasons of my satisfaction would be a conviction that the policy would prove a very bad one for secularism, and, still more, the belief that its adoption might be accepted as a sign that secularists distrusted their power to refute the claims of Christianity.

I fail to see, then, that Mr Holyoake's position is at all an intelligible one. Mr Bradlaugh's I quite understand; indeed, it would be rather difficult not to understand words like these: "What we say is, and what you do not say is, that theological teachings prevent human improvement, and that it is the duty of every secularist to make

active war on theological teachings. It is no use. saying, ignore the clergy. You cannot talk of ignoring St Paul's Cathedral-it is too high. You cannot talk of ignoring the Religious Tract Society-it is too wealthy. You cannot talk of ignoring Oxford and Cambridge Universities— they are too well endowed. They command too many parties to enable you to ignore their power, but you may strive to crush it out a little at a time. You cannot strike all errors effectually at once, but you can strike at some and encourage others to strike too. This is the secularist's work Paine and Carlile cut out years ago. This is the secularist's work Southwell and yourself undertook. This is the secularist's work in which every man has got his share to do, who feels as I feel. The secularist's work which we have to do is to cut down, as my friend put it, the banyan-tree of superstition, which tree seeks to send its roots down into every baby brain, and which holds by the habit-faith of the rich, and by the ignorant credulity of the poor. Every branch of this superstitious tree bears poisonous fruit; but before you can get the branches effectively destroyed, you must cut away the roots as well as gently train the tree. The upas-tree of religion overspreads the whole earth; it hides with its thick foliage of churchcraft the rays of truth from humankind, and we must cut at its root and

strip away its branches that reason's rays may go shining through, and give fertility to the human soil, long hidden from their genial warmth."

There can be no doubt what this means; no doubt that it signifies war,-war open and incessant—a war of life and death-war to the uttermost. So be it. There really is, I believe, no other relationship possible between religion and secularism.1

II.

Let us now proceed to the consideration of the leading positive principles of secularism.

The first of these, as stated by Mr Holyoake, is, "That precedence should be given to the duties of this life over those which pertain to another life." And the reason alleged for it is, that "this life being the first in certainty, ought to have the first place in importance." "We do not say that every man ought to give an exclusive attention to this world, because that would be to commit the old sin of dogmatism, and exclude the possibility of another world, and of walking by different light from that by which alone we are able to walk. But as our knowledge is confined to this life, and testimony and conjecture and probability are all that can be set forth with respect 1 See Appendix XXIII

to another life, we think we are justified in giving precedence to the duties of this state, and of attaching primary importance to the morality of man to man." 1

Mr Holyoake expresses his principle in this form so that he may not exclude theists from the secularist ranks. The message of secularism to them is, Be more worldly and less pious; think much about this world and little about the next; much about man and little about God. I know no message which the world needs less, seeing that it is one which not only avowed secularists, but millions of professed Christians, are already acting on with all their might. It is true, however, that all but convinced atheists and the most careless of men have hitherto felt that doing so was wrong and inexcusable. There are few men even among those most engrossed by the cares and interests of this present life, who have not at times felt that there is another life of which it were well to think more. Bibles and religious books, sermons and Sundays, the monitions of conscience, the reflections of reason," sorrow dogging sin, afflictions sorted, anguish of all sizes," the rapid flight of time, the instability of human things, the loss of friends, the warnings of disease, the prognostications of death, all speak of the claims of eternity; and few have not thereby

1 'Discussion between the Rev. Brewin Grant and G. J. Holyoake' (London, 1853), p. 39.