Social Economy. IS SECULARISM CONSONANT WITH THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF SOCIAL HAPPINESS? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-IV. "If we might be permitted to throw over our shoulders for a moment that mantle of alle gory which none but Bunyan could wear long and wear gracefully, we should represent REASON and FAITH as twin born; the one in form and features the image of manly beauty, the other of feminine grace and gentleness; but to each of whom, alas! is allotted a sad privation. While the bright eyes of Reason are full of piercing and restless intelligence, his ear is closed to sound; and while Faith has an ear of exquisite delicacy, on her sightless orbs, as she lifts them towards heaven, the sunbeam plays in vain. Hand in hand the brother and sister, in all mutual love, pursue their way, through a world on which, like ours, day breaks and night falls alternate; by day the eyes of Reason are the guide of Faith, and by night the ear of Faith is the guide of Reason. As is wont with those who labour under these privations respectively, Reason is apt to be eager, impetuous, impatient of that instruction which his infirmity will not permit him readily to apprehend; while Faith, gentle and docile, is ever willing to listen to the voice by which alone truth and wisdom can effectually reach her.""Reason and Faith," by Prof. H. Rogers. "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse bis way? By taking heed thereto according to Thy Word."-Psalm cxix. 9. "Secularism," we are informed by " James," p. 191, "is that phase of modern free thought developed by Mr. G. J. Holyoake, and of which he is considered, both by its disciples and opponents, the foremost exponent." We then look for the formal definition of Secularism in the acknowledged authorities, and happily they are furnished to us in the words of this gentleman at the Cowperstreet discussion, January 20th, 1853:* "That which pertains to this world, which relates to human life and welfare, which can be tested in time, by facts of nature, experience, and consciousness, is what is meant by the term 'Secular;'*** when a man goes, as it were, to confront destiny, and submit, it may be, to the interrogations of the Eternal, he must stand dumb unless he has thought for himself. Nothing can sustain him but the habit of independence; nothing can give him courage but innocence; nothing can support him but the integrity of his convictions." These quotations, from the acknowledged founder of the secular theory, we presume may be fairly taken as containing the essence of the system. It will be our aim, in examining their claims to assent, to deal with them with candour and fairness, using argument as powerful as possible, while we studiously avoid the use of epithets and personalities derogatory to the dignity of these pages. Truth we seek, and, in the free and unfettered conflict of opinions, truth will prevail. Such is our faith, and for such we labour, knowing that the Divine blessing will attend all who are truth-seekers in sincerity. We shall conduct the examination of this question, in the first place, as a matter of pure reason; that is, as involving a collection of abstract principles. The secular theory establishes itself upon the outworking of moral, intellectual, social, political, and physical science. This view is correct, we may assume, from its agreement with the propositions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, presented by James," p. 192. That which is established upon the principles of any science must, in all its outworkings, be manifest as a practical development of those principles. Its want of coincidence with those principles, in any one particular, endangers the whole theory, even when the particular disagreement is in itself insignificant, or of little importance; but should that want of coincidence arise in one or more of the first printheory, in this case the whole structure is ciples or foundation-truths of that science or dissipated, and vanishes from the region of fact, although it may for a time find a place in the dreamland of its fond advocates. that the moral nature of man is capable of The secular theory assumes, without proof, the greatest amount of improvement by the aid of reason and the cultivation which reason can supply, without extraneous assistance of a supersensuous nature. Upon this point we join issue with the secularist. He claims the experiences of the present life as facts-the groundwork of all his actions; to him the past and the future are matters of past or future speculation only; he therefore accepts the limitation of pure reason-in fact, it is his choice; and we place ourselves upon his own chosen vantage ground. But where, we would ask him, does unassisted reason find the "moral laws on which happiness depends," obedience to which gives that innocence capable of supporting man with courage "to confront destiny," and We believe, with him, in the necessity of moral purity, or that obedience to "the moral laws on which happiness depends," in order to secure "the highest amount of social happiness." For man may possess the most perfect organization of his physical constitution-his intellect may be cultivated to the highest attainable point of human excellence -his opinion on social and political science may be received with oracular honours, and he may have acquired the wealth of a Crosus; but without that obedience to "the moral laws on which happiness depends"-"submit" to the "may be " "interrogations the consciousness of possessing moral purity he is not capable of the highest amount of social happiness, nor can its realization ever become a matter of experience with him. of the Eternal"? His experiences are only sensuous; moral laws are not objective realities, by which the senses may be affected; they are supersensuous, therefore moral laws Man is an imperfect moral agent: it is are no part of his experiences, consciousness, unnecessary for us to account for the cause or nature, and therefore, being "impractical of this imperfection, sufficient for our present in his endeavours, the secularist seeks to purpose is the knowledge of the fact itself. know and to communicate to others a knowNone will, we presume, dispute the fact, its ledge of (what it is impossible for him to existence being patent to all possessing the know or to teach, according to his own funordinary powers and faculties of human na-damental maxim) the moral laws on which ture. Here the secular theory finds its sub- happiness depends." jects. Man, with an imperfect or impure All laws necessitate the existence of an moral nature, employing the imperfect laws authority competent to make and enforce of renovation that this impure nature of his them, and the existence of a standard by has invented, to produce a perfect moral which they are made. Moral laws, therefore, agent, or such an obedience to "the moral have their origin in a competent authority, laws on which happiness depends," as shall and imply a requisite standard. In this be consonant with the highest amount of also we are limited to reason; and the avesocial happiness. Thus we have an impure nues of reason are the senses alone, as the agent, with impure means, achieving a per- secularist rejects the supersensuous. Man is fect result; that is, combined imperfections the only subject of reason, the only moral producing perfection, which is absurdity. agent in this part of our universe, therefore Apply this principle of action, and course of man must be the authority competent to thought, to mathematical reasoning, and we make these "moral laws on which happiness should have two equals producing an une-depends." But these laws must be pure, or qual, and vice versa. Extend the principle they cannot be moral laws at all; and man still further, and its absurdity is increasingly is impure; therefore, the impure would be palpable, for two blacks shall make one white, and two and two no longer shall follow the rule of schoolboy calculation, and, according to Cocker, make four, but readily acquire the power to become five, or any other number the practical (!) theorist shall please to demand. We forget not that this question must be examined by pure reason that no aid is to be received from supersensuous sources, with which to combat Secularism. For the present we adhere to these terms, and we desire the secularist also to observe similar terms; further, we dispute his right to any other terms. required to make the pure, which is an ab- "No force the law and be free, has power to inflict | shown the inefficiency of Secularism to secure the penalty and be independent; he must submit to the law, and think for himself respecting the truthfulness of that law, and the power which enforces it. Farther, every man is equally the subject of reason, is equally the moral agent, and equally the moral legislator; therefore, every man is equally the moral legislator to every other man; and every man is at the same time equally free and independent of every other man: contradictions and absurdities, evidencing the most egregious folly on the part of those who, possessing the ordinary powers and faculties of human nature, can so far deceive themselves with such incoherences. Truly, Secularism is the most unreasonable conglomeration of pretended reason ever presented to the world. If such are its legitimate fruits, abstractedly considered, what must be its grosser practical results ? law; Antecedent to all obedience there must be and the idea upon which the law is formed must be pre-existent to that law, must form the standard of perfection on which the law is formed and obedience is demanded. From whence does the secularist derive his standard of moral perfection? From man? Man is the only moral agent he recognizes, because he is the only being possessing reasoning powers-the only moral agent whose existence is matter of experience to his sensuous nature; but man is an imperfect moral agent; therefore, man is the imperfect author of a perfect standard of moral perfection, which is an absurd contradiction. Moreover, the secularist rejects all supersensuous evidences, agencies, and existences; therefore, if man is not the author of the standard of moral perfection, it has no author, and is by consequence underived and exists from necessity-uncreated, underived, and eternal, which are follies, the extravagance of which is only equalled by the boldness with which that theory is put forth, whose principles involve these and far more serious errors. We have shown that, according to pure reason unaided by supersensuous agencies, "Secularism is not consonant with the highest amount of social happiness," but involves contradictions and absurdities of the most glaring character, opposed in every respect to the well-being of man, present and prospective. It now remains for us, having this object, to point out what is " consonant with the highest amount of social happiness.” This we shall do as briefly as possible, and entreat the candid consideration of the secularist, who is earnestly seeking for truth, to this part of our argument, assuring him that our object is not victory but his happiness. From the remarks we have already made, it is apparent that the origin or source of moral law is extraneous to human nature, moral perfection being supersensuous or beyond the nature and possible attainment of man in his present condition and organic constitution. It becomes necessary, therefore, that we should seek for the standard and source of moral purity in a being whose nature, attributes, and actions exhibit, so far as we can apprehend them, all the necessary conditions the subject demands. He should be uncreated and eternal, otherwise there might be a previous or subsequent existence of more perfect wisdom and purity, capable of devising purer laws and making larger demands upon his moral powers. He must be universal in his knowledge and power; or beyond his sphere of knowledge and power another moral agent might exist whose nature and attributes might be far superior, and would be entitled to precedence as moral legislator. But with these attributes combined, such a being must necessarily be the summum bonum of all good; in a word, moral purity itself. Such a being in relation to man must be supersensuous; and, as moral legislator to man, the moral agent and subject of his moral government must necessitate the creation of a medium of inter-communication between the governor and the governed. This medium must be adapted to man's moral organism; his moral powers must be reached through his sensational faculties; and the moral governor must assume those conditions of existence capable of affecting the sensational faculties of man. In other words, Deity must exist, and Deity must reveal himself to man as the moral governor of the universe. Hence we perceive the necessity for a divine standard of moral perfection, and the necessity of revelation for the purpose of publishing the moral law to man, as the subject of moral government. Thus we have shown Deity as the authority competent to make the perfect moral law and enforce the penalty of its infraction;—we have shown Deity to be in his own nature the standard of moral perfection, and revelation is proved to be the medium of communicating "the moral laws on which happiness depends" to man, the searcher after that happiness. Moreover, the christian scriptures are found on examination to possess all the characteristics of a truly divine revelation; they reveal to man the moral truths which we have seen are necessary to "the highest amount of social happiness;" and the truths they reveal, whether within the limits of reason and experience or of a supersensuous and transcendental nature, all are equally adapted to the condition of man, mentally, morally, and physically. Deity therein addresses himself to man as a loving father to a froward and perverse child; now in the language of authority, and again in love, at this time with punishment and stripes, and anon with all the yearnings of paternal affection he gently reproaches the ungrateful child, and with the cords of love binds on him the fetters of willing obedience. His love is matchless, his wisdom is infinite, his long-suffering, forbearance, and mercy are extended to the vilest ingratitude ever manifested by prodigal, repentant man. His love to man has become incarnate in the Son of his love; for Christ Jesus so loved the world as to give himself a ransom for our sins, against that perfect "moral law on which happiness depends." We, through him, receive justification from the Moral Governor of the universe; possess ing the imputed righteousness of Christ, while we are relieved from the curse of the láw, which we cannot fulfil ourselves, we receive this additional motive to be perfect because Christ is perfect. Therefore, all that are in Christ are new creatures, freed from the bondage of the law of sin and death, rejoicing in the glorious liberty of the gospel, walking in love, as love is the fulfilling of the law, and loving God with the whole heart, and our neighbour as ourselves. The Christian religion, as exhibited in the holy scriptures, we maintain on these grounds is alone "consonant with the highest amount of social happiness," as it gives a perfect standard of moral perfection, a competent authority for moral legislation, a code of moral laws perfect in their nature and universal in their adaptation to the circum stances and condition of man, and so permanent in their demands as to include all times, all places, and all men; and while man is never relieved of the obligation to fulfil them, he is relieved of the despondency likely to arise from unsuccessful efforts towards perfect obedience by the atoning efficacy of the love of Christ, and receives the imputed righteousness of Jesus as an additional motive to renewed effort and continued well-doing; so that, while his soul is fixed on the supersensuous and perfect law, his efforts towards the realization of its precepts necessitate the daily and constant outworking, in the business and intercourse of life, of those moral laws on which happiness depends. Christianity is thus the only true Secularism, as it alone seeks the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of persons, by the easiest, safest, and most reasonable means, and from the highest, purest, and best motives. We hold that it is no valid argument against Christianity to indicate the imperfections of persons professing Christianity: the appearance is not the reality; appearances are shadowy and deceptive, realities are solid and substantial. Christianity is what God made it-pure and perfect; professing Christians are imperfect mortals, seeking perfection; one is the substance, the other is the shadow-an important distinction, and well to be marked by the truthseeker. In conclusion, we may be permitted to remark, without the least discourtesy or vindictiveness to our secularist friends, that whatever there is in Secularism which is new is not good; and whatever there is in it of good, and serviceable to man, is not its own, but ungraciously stolen from Christianity, and paraded before the world as its own invention. In fact, without the previous existence of Christianity, and a highly cultivated state of civilization, the invention of such a theory as Secularism is not possible. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Birmingham. L'OUVRIER. AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-IV. THE present question is one of peculiar | human power or human conception. Has importance, as it regards the investigation of Christianity accomplished these things? A a system which ostensibly involves the well-negative answer must be the unanimous rebeing of mankind. Numerous as are the sponse. What then follows? Its claims to systems that have flourished and decayed, their tendency, with scarcely an exception, has been to fetter the development of the human mind, to distort or suppress the sublime dictates of reason,-and to pervert man's real nature. It is true that man has progressed, but his progress has been, not in consequence of any bygone system, which was only a mechanical bondage of the past, but in consequence of his powers of observation and reflection acting upon the objective realities and the phenomena of nature, and exercising themselves independently, and often to the ruin of systems. The reason why past systems have so much impeded the expansive and the onward march of the human intellect is, because they were generally constructed and maintained to subserve the interest, the ambition, or the bigotry of parties, because they were not in harmony with man's nature, nor constructed upon a scientific basis. divine origin, its assumed omnipotence and perfection, fall to the ground. Had Christianity possessed these attributes, then the subsequent development of Secularism or any other ism would have been unnecessary, nay, even impossible, and this discussion would in no sense have been requisite or justifiable. In perusing "Rolla's" article upon the negative of this question, we find that it is principally composed of high sounding language, but, like most high sounding things, it is very empty. His arguments are a peculiar compound of assumption and special pleading, and have signally failed to establish his position. It is asserted by this writer that, "Secularism is the most inadequately defined thing known; "—that "it contradicts the first principles of rationality;" and that "science has borne her testimony against it." Such verbal assumptions as these, which are presented without the shadow of an argument, will doubtless carry anything save conviction to the thinking reader. Secularism is a term clearly defined, not only in all secular writings, but in almost every lexicon of the English language. Secularism signifies that which pertains to this world only; it knows nothing of future, unseen worlds in which we shall exist; it knows nothing of spiritualism or supernaturalism; but it compels the professors of these doctrines not to occupy their time in asking what Secularism means-which cannot be misunderstood by the meanest capacity-but in defining and proving their own case. Thus the burden of proof is placed on the right shoulders, and truth made to have fair play. Neither does Secularism conflict with science; on the contrary, it avails itself of all attainable knowledge-of all science, for the wellbeing and happiness of this world. Secularism is, per se, the science of this world; that which is not science or knowledge in the Had Christianity, or any other system, emanated from a Being possessing infinite wisdom, goodness and power, such a system must necessarily have been universal, perfect, and unique; neither could there at any future period have existed the least possible necessity for puny man to have exercised his finite capacities in order to conceive and introduce any other system. Had there been any one so foolish and presumptuous as to have dared the attempt, the boundless insignificance of his productions, when contrasted with that which had emanated from Infinity, must at once have sealed their condemnation. The magnitude of such folly would be but faintly indicated by an individual attempting to supersede the meridian splendour of the noonday sun by lighting a candle. If Christianity, therefore, were an emanation from the Infinite, then no human scheme or system could for one moment have endured in its presence. Christianity must have cast everything proceeding from man into the profound-positive is not Secularism. It leaves out all est shades of obscurity, insignificance, and contempt. Its omnipotence could not have failed in producing everywhere all possible good and happiness, infinitely beyond all mysticism, assumption, and conjecture, which is the peculiar and the unenviable province of theology. The assertion, then, that science bears testimony against Secularism is equi |