Page images
PDF
EPUB

in their favour. But, marching through an enemy's country, and having to fight for every inch of ground; menaced upon their march upon all sides, and having to provide themselves with every requisite from the resources of their own country, who does not at once apprehend the impossible nature of the attempt? It is, in fact, this very difficulty which has alone hitherto prevented Russia from attacking the Chinese empire, which presents more advantages and incentives, and fewer obstacles to conquest, than does British India.

We have, then, so far, keeping strictly within the limits of the subject we proposed to ourselves, endeavoured honestly to state and to remove such reasons as can be urged as justifying the present war; and we hope to have succeeded in producing a conviction that neither our "honour" nor our "interests would be jeopardized by that event, the prevention of which is urged as the great and worthy object of the present struggle with Russia.

[ocr errors]

There is, however, a "special" interest, moral, not material, dear to us all alike, which, it is supposed, will be placed in the utmost peril by the success of Russia's designs upon Turkey. That interest is liberty-European liberty. It is said, and oh, with what gravity! that the possession of Turkey by Russia would be but the first step to the subjugation of entire Europe, and the empire of the world. Now, we think this notion not only monstrous and silly, but we regard it with utter contempt. So far from the fact supposed giving to Russia any advantage for further aggression, it would, on the contrary, bind her over, in very heavy recognizances, to keep the peace towards the rest of Europe for at least a hundred years. Like all conquered countries, Turkey would prove a thorn in the flesh " to an unscrupulous despot, a hotbed of revolution, an element of weakness, and a standing invitation to any daring enemy, in time of war, to make it a principal point of attack. Does not the position of Hungary explain the secret meaning of the boasted neutrality of Austria? Menaced on the one side by Russia, and on the other by the allies, it is unable to adopt a bold and independent line of policy; and as it lacks the honesty and the wisdom which might prompt it to atone, by one great act of justice, for

[ocr errors]

The

years of perfidy and oppression, it has forfeited its rank as an independent, first-rate power of Europe. And again, have our opponents ever considered what, at this moment, is the weakest point of Russia? If not, let them ask an exiled Pole, and read the answer in the sudden quiver of the lip, and the sudden lighting up of the eye. And why is it that Poland is the weakest point of Russia? Not, CERTAINLY, because the mass of the Polish people are not in an infinitely better position than before the first partition, but because that instinctive spirit of nationality, which is the life of a people, is hereditary and immortal, and must, sooner or later, assert its supremacy over the simply brute force of the conqueror. And, therefore, though Poland is at this moment little other than a huge fortress, it is still less a rampart to bar the approach of Russia's enemies than a breach, wide and indefensible, which invites their approach, and would facilitate their success. young Emperor of Russia wields the sceptre of power over, such as they are, some eighty or a hundred distinct nations; but this duty, difficult as we all know he finds it to be, would be simply disastrous and overwhelming, could he, for but an instant, succeed in subjecting to his sway the cultivated and advanced nations of the west of Europe. But such a consummation is as plainly impossible as it would be fatal to Russia herself, could it be accomplished. Already, under the pressure of the present war, Russia seems on the eve of being "crumpled up;" but in the case supposed, subjected as it would be to the shock of an European coalition fighting for personal liberty, the rickety structure of Russian despotism would, as a power, be crushed and swept out of Europe. As with every other nation, she must seek wealth and power by cultivating the arts of peace, by developing the resources of the country, by cultivating industrious habits amongst her population, and by the extension of her commerce. Despising this, the only sure path to greatness, the Czar may as well set himself to subjugate the moon, as hope to quench in Europe that blithe spirit of liberty, which laughs equally at his terrible lath-and-plaster high-mightiness as at those silly alarmists, who, in this country, profess to fear him.

IRENE.

Social Economy.

IS SECULARISM CONSONANT WITH THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF SOCIAL HAPPINESS?

66

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III.

thought?" We are not answered by being told that, these things being first as to time and sense, secularists hold them most worthy of "precedence" (Qy., to what?); because these matters may and do exist with religionists as an end, which is practically pursued by them first as to time, but subordi

THE avowed purpose of Secularism, as which they are prepared to defend as "pure expounded by Mr. G. J. Holyoake, is to morality," nor have they made any discovery establish a "positive side" in connection with in science-the reputed "discovery" of "sci"free thought," or the "tentative and nega- ence the providence of man" being, we have tive" aspect of so-called "free thinkers," in already seen, no discovery at all. Their regard to the fundamental belief of religion- "eclectical" exercitations are due to intellect ists; and, indeed, the obtainency of such a and taste, the result of education and experiposition is of the last importance to their ence, which are common to all, thus alike to advocacy of the affirmative of the present secularists and religionists. How, then, does question; for, if Secularism is nothing more the recognition of these things constitute a than the old black crow of infidel negation" positive side" for the scepticism of "free disguised in the stolen peacock plumes of positive philosophy, it will be hard for its adherents to prove that anything of a positive nature-thus, any amount of social happiness"-can possibly result from it. An analysis of the particulars which constitute the general "province of the secularist," as indicated by "James," leads us to this esti-nately to, and contemporaneously with, a mation of its intrinsic character. He informs us that "it proposes pure moralism as a basis of union and rule of conduct,"-that "it is 'the philosophy of the things of time;" ;"" and that "he (the secularist) discovers that science is the providence of man." Now, al! that is implied in these general propositions has been, and still is, held to by religionists, in connection with religion. "Pure morality" is regarded by them as one of the ends and issues of true and practical religion. "The philosophy of the things of time" is indebted for its progress and present development chiefly to religionists; and "science a providence of man," is implied in the application of science in order to supply the necessities, conveniences, pleasures, and protection of mankind in all ages. Secularists are undeniably indebted to an "eclecticism" from the "past" for their particular notions in regard to morality, science, and use, which go to make up the general propositions already noticed; and this "past" they appear to admit was ever mainly under the auspices of religion, which fact is, we presume, the reason with them for dubbing it "a mystery." They have not, hitherto, so far as we can learn, enunciated a single new tenet

higher end-the end contemplated by religion. Taking Secularism, therefore, at its own estimate of itself, it is simply the disconnection of religion from the "morality of man to man," and the uses of this life;that is to say, it ignores, or for all practical purposes denies, religion, ergo, Secularism is intrinsically a negational residuum, and thus "inconsonant with the highest amount of social happiness," which is a positive result to which only a system of a positive character is adequate.

It would appear from the drift of " James's" article that secularists regard religion as somewhat opposed to, obstructive of, or abstracted from, the moral and social duties and uses which they assume as their particular "province;" but this is simply a misconception on their part. Religionists hold this world to be a sphere of probationary existence, wherein to form a character for a heavenly eternity, which character is achieved by the true and efficient performance of the duties and uses of this life, as consisting in general of the "morality of man to man," and in being useful "in our day and generation." When this is done, as the revealed will of God, and in view of our

66

soul's salvation from sin, we are "making | explanation of the fact that both "love" and the best use of this world," "laying up treasure in heaven," and "setting our affections on things above." The extra appurtenances of religion, as consisting of self-denial, prayer, scripture reading, and worship in general, are so many means whereby to obtain and sustain the religious life and light within. Secularists hope to merit heaven, "if there be a heaven," without either regarding it as an end, or using the approved means for the achievement of the "kingdom of heaven within" them. We can only deplore their delusion, and attempt to point out its folly. Providence, as held to by religionists, seems to require some explanation for the information of secularists. We regard the providence of God as having mainly in view the salvation of souls, and as disposing the circumstances of this life only so as to subordinate their influences as means to this higher end;-always bearing in mind that salvation consists, not merely in the forgiveness of sins, but in their removal, and in the substitution of the life of goodness and truth. Religion is not answerable for the backslidings, errors, shortcomings, and vagaries of some of its professed adherents; these are due to an imperfect ascendency of religion, and a consequent obtainency of human nature in se, which is essential Secularism, and belongs to its standard wherever found. If secularists would approach the scriptures with a desire to affirm them as the Word of God, and so take their authority for the fact of God being the Creator of nature, we might hope to offer them a satisfactory explanation of what occurs to them as contradiction in its pages; and this through analogies, for which their professed "study of the order of nature" would furnish the first terms. Thus, the quality of the sun's influences in nature, if described according to its effects, might be represented both as life-sustaining and lifedestroying; for while, on the one hand, it is instrumental in the production and perfection of normal growths and objects; on the other hand, by its influences on excrementitions and abnormal objects and states, it is productive of dissolution and of pestilential exhalations. Now, supposing that the influence of the "Sun of Righteousness" is represented in scripture according to its effects (and valid reasons can be adduced why it should be so), then we have a satisfactory

vengeance"-spiritual life and spiritual death-are predicated of the same infinite and immutable Being; nor have we any difficulty in determining which is the essential, and which the accidental property pertaining to his Essence. The particular passages of scripture deemed "immoral, ambiguous, impracticable, and improbable," were not specified, or we might have been able to adduce something in the way of explanation, being well assured that there is nothing in holy writ which, rightly interpreted, can justify these aspersions on its character; not that we deem ourselves capable of explaining all the mysteries contained in that divine book, but we might do something in the way of justifying them as mysteries. If all the "meanings" of such a production of Divine Wisdom were clear to secular understandings, that would furnish a much more cogent reason for doubting its divine origin than any of the arguments adduced by sceptics on the score of its apparently "perplexed and double" sense. Against the secularist estimation of the Bible, as "falling below acknowledged human productions," we place our own appreciation of it as being so far superior to the literary works of man as the works of God in nature are superior to the mechanical works of man, and this in virtue of analagous qualities. What if men of ability, learning, and godliness have differed in their explanations of the Bible? Different impressions must normally occur to different mental optics, for the plain reason that all truth, as it exists for the finite human subject, is relative, partial, and apparent in its nature. These differing views arise from different mental and moral positions and attainments, analogously; as in the natural sphere, a perfect circle will occur to observers in different positions, respectively, as a straight line, or an oval of indefinitely differing proportions: there is not necessarily any contradiction in the impressions thus received, they are all true-that is, relatively-provided there is "agreement between the proposition and the reality it represents;" nor will the diverse accounts of the same object (in the natural sphere), or the same subject (in the Bible), justify the denial, respectively, of the fact or of the Bible. But there exists, unhappily, such things as essential errors, both in sci

ence and religion, and in both cases we conclude to a fundamental defect, not in nature or revelation, but in those who interrogate them. In the case of religious error we conclude to the presence of the "mote" or the "beam"-the pride of self-intelligence or moral obliquity-affecting the mental vision. We are willing to opine the former rather than the latter of secularists, in deference to their protestation that "it may be an intellectual want, it may be ignorance, but it is not wickedness," that prompts their rejection of revelation and of revelation's God. It is, then, the pride of self-intelligence which hinders their advent in the temple of God's truth; they wish to know and understand before they try-to be men in religion before they are children in its regard. Such an advent as they desire to effect is not given; its folly is susceptible of numerous illustrations. If a child, in pride and obstinacy, should determine to know and understand the rationale of the rules which govern the processes of his first lessons in arithmetic, could he ever advance in this branch of his education? We can imagine one who should spend his whole life in reasoning respecting a hat or a shoe, whether it would fit or not, to the exclusion of the simple and practical test of trying it on; and many, perhaps the great bulk of sceptics, perpetrate an analogous folly-they! even they, must first receive religion in that spirit of obedience and confidence proper to children, before they can properly test religious truth; for it is written, "in thy light shall we see light,"-but self-will and pride are its own hindrances. Again it is written, "My ways are all plain to him that understandeth,"-that is, to him who seeks to know the will of God, with a view to practise it; in this regard we re-asseverate of the Bible, that it "is so plain that a wayfaring man cannot err therein."

We conclude by impeaching the attitude of Secularism, both on logical and moral grounds. In its logical aspect it must be pronounced non-logical, since it dogmatically assumes "the past" to be "a mystery," and

AFFIRMATIVE

"Seize upon truth where'er 'tis found,

Amongst your friends, amongst your foes; On christian or on heathen ground; The flower's divine where'er it grows."

[ocr errors]

the future "a secret." Matters should be so to justify secularist principles, and that consideration suggests that "the wish might be father to the thought." It would be very convenient for Secularism to ignore the past, since it would obviate many of the objections to their principles, nor does its testimony say anything in their behalf. If the possibility of the existence of a separate secularist community were questioned (and we would be understood as most decidedly questioning it), there is nothing in the history of "the past" to support its probability, however, the convenience of the assumption in secularist regards, does not make it the less dogmatism. Our professed knowledge of the future is assumed to be "a guess or surmise;" and since our belief in this regard is founded on revelation, it is meant, we suppose, to be implied that its contents are guesses and surmises; "—well, secularists have much to prove and disprove before they establish that; meanwhile, its assumption is dogmatism, and its attitude in regard to the past and its legacy revelation non-logical. In its moral aspect, the attitude of Secularism is moral rebellion, for it professedly disregards, and practically revolts from, that authority which ever was, is, and ever will be, the Dictator and Sustainer of "pure morality,"-even God in revelation. Why do secularists seek to repudiate the term "infidelity," which has ever attached to their principles, when this term rightly expresses their attitude to the powers that be," or at all events, that are generally recognized as being. It was never yet taken as a valid excuse for political rebellion, that the rebel could not understand the legal title of enthroned authority. Yet secularists tell us in their justification, that "their reason, with which it is admitted God has endowed them," "warns them that what is represented as the 'truth of God' is no such thing." We reply, in the language of scripture, "If thy right eye (i. e., understanding of spiritual truth) offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire." PERSONA. ARTICLE.-III.

66

are not ignorant of being branded with the most opprobrious epithets from the iron pen of "Rolla." He denounces Secularism as

66

On entering the arena of this debate, we “moral obliquity and infidelity,” as an em

bodied blasphemy." But, whilst the uncharitable guardian of an uncertain theology is silent, we will seek to show that Secularism and Religion are not diametrically opposed one to the other, as "Rolla" would have them be. He takes the same narrow view of Secularism as some people do of Christianity: they only pourtray to the mind the selfishness of priestcraft, and the cant of hypocrisy, and would fain have others believe the whole system to be a tissue of falsehood; so "Rolla," relying on the truthfulness of his cherished prejudice, has denounced Secularism as "contradicting the first principles of rationality, -natural and revealed theology,--and at the same time belying all the better aspirations of our common humanity."

It will be our object in this article to show that Secularism is not opposed to religion. Secularism, as we understand it, is the positive part of this life; it bids us help forward civilization, education,-the establishment of truth; it teaches us to exercise in everyday life the intellectual, affectional, and moral elements with which we are endowed: in a word, it is well-doing, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, defending and upholding the oppressed, administering to the wants of the fatherless and widow, raising our species by science and art, engaging in any way best calculated to supply the wants and enhance the happiness of humanity; it teaches us to act justly towards all men, doing to others as we would others should do unto us.

We attribute the error into which "Rolla" has fallen to his assumption of the infallibility of the Bible. We do not consider it infallible; still, we prize it for its intrinsic merit; we look upon it as "the book of books," containing, as it does, truths which no other book contains, so deep, so rich, so divine. When we look into it as into other books, we find facts which force the conclusion upon us that the Bible is a human book. "Orthodoxy"-ambiguous, everchanging-bids us beware, for we tread on holy ground. It tells us:-"The Bible is a miraculous collection of miraculous books; every word it contains was written under the influence of a miraculous inspiration from God, which was so full and infallible that it set forth the whole truth and nothing but the truth; it contains all religious and moral truth which it is possible for man to attain, and no particle of error: therefore, the Bible is the only

authoritative rule of religious faith and practice." We conscientiously differ from this opinion, finding as we do in the Bible numerous contradictions, conflicting histories which cannot be reconciled with themselves, prophecies which did not come to pass, accounts of miracles, the belief of which we cannot admit as "an article of faith;" stories that make God a man of war, cruel, capricious, revengeful, and not to be trusted. Connected with these things are lofty thoughts of nature, man, and God; devotion, touching and beautiful; and a most reverent faith. In the Old Testament, fact and fiction, history and mythology, wisdom and error, are intimately blended. Who, then, will maintain that it is the "voice of Divinity"? Throughout, we have marks of fallibility, which prove that its authors were not a different race of men from the present, but were fallible like ourselves; they each shared, like us, the ignorance and superstition of the respective ages in which they lived.

Why do we ascribe a peculiar inspiration and infallibility to the writers of the New Testament? They do not claim it for themselves. Paul tells us that all Christians receive the "Spirit of God." He refers wisdom, faith, knowledge, ability to teach or to heal diseases, skill in the interpretation of tongues, to inspiration," All these worketh that one and self-same Spirit." If the apostles were infallibly inspired they could not disagree on any point. But such is not the case; we find they entertained doubts as to whether the Gentiles were to be admitted to Christianity. Paul seems surprised that "God is no respecter of persons." We find that some of the apostles "contended with him" on this point; but when they heard that to certain of the Gentiles God gave the like gift as unto them, they exclaimed,"Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Now, another question arose between them: Shall the Gentiles keep the old ceremonial law of Moses, and be circumcised? On this question they held a consultation, called the Christians together "to consider this matter." After "much disputing" they adopted a resolution that all the Mosaic ritual should not be imposed upon the Gentiles, only such as James deemed "necessary things." This decision was communicated to the churches. However, Paul and Peter seem to have disregarded it; one

« PreviousContinue »