IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 h 
 
 A 
 
 4^ 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 iM 12.0 
 
 us 
 
 lU 
 
 u 
 
 IL25 i 1.4 
 
 I 
 
 ■Mil 
 
 1.6 
 
 V] 
 
 y) 
 
 ^;; 
 
 
 <S> 
 
 ^^ *5r w 
 
 V 
 
 •^^'*cs!v. 
 
 y 
 
 -^ 
 
 Hiotograpffic 
 
 ^Sciaices 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STRIIT 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 
 
 (716)872-4503 
 
 f\ 
 
 :i7 
 
 ?0 
 
 ^ \ '^'^ 
 
 
l^^ 
 
 
 CIHM 
 Microfiche 
 Series 
 (Monograplis) 
 
 ICMH 
 
 Collection de 
 microfiches 
 (monographies) 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas 
 
 ^ 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original 
 copy available for filming. Features of this copy which 
 may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any 
 of the images in the reproduction, or which may 
 significantly change the usual method of filming, are 
 checked below. 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagte 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couvert^i 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restauree et/ou pellicula 
 
 n 
 
 couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Caites giographiques en couleur 
 
 Q Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound v-^ith other material/ 
 Relie avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serrte peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion le long de la marge interieura 
 
 □ Blank leaves added during restoration may appear 
 within the text. Whenever possible, these have 
 been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas ete f ilmees. 
 
 n 
 
 Additional comments;/ 
 Commentaires supplementaires: 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 Ce document est f ilme au taux de reduction indique ci-dessous. 
 'OX 14X 18X 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 L'Institut a microfilmi le meilleur exemplaire qu'il 
 lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details de cet 
 exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue 
 bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image 
 reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification 
 dans la mithode normale de f ilmage sont indiqu^ 
 ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagto 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurees et/ou pcllicultes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages decolor^s, tacheties ou piquees 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pdges detaches 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 ansparence 
 
 0" 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Qualite inigale de I'impression 
 
 □ Continuous pagination/ 
 Pagination continue 
 
 □ Includes index(es)/ 
 Comprend un (des) index 
 
 Title on header taken from:/ 
 Le titre de I'en-tCte provient: 
 
 ssue/ 
 
 □ Title page of issue 
 Page de titre de la 
 
 livraison 
 
 issue/ 
 depart de la livraison 
 
 □ Caption of 
 Titre de dei 
 
 Masthead/ 
 
 Generique (periodiques) de la livraison 
 
 I j Masthead/ 
 
 22X 
 
 26 X 
 
 30X 
 
 J 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 n 
 
 32 X 
 
cet 
 
 de vue 
 l« 
 ition 
 
 The copy filmed here has been ceproduced thanki* 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 York University 
 Toronto 
 Scott Library 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^^- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"*, 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 L'exemplaira film« fut reproduit grAce h ia 
 gAn^rosit* de: 
 
 York University 
 Toronto 
 Scott Library 
 
 Les images sulvantes ont «t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de ia condition at 
 de :a nettet* de l'exemplaira film«, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat da 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim«e sont film«s en commen9ant 
 pir le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'Impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont fllm«s en commenpant par la 
 premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'Impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la derniire page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE ', ie 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent #tre 
 filmte A des taux de reduction diff6rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd A partir 
 de I'angle sup«rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 iliustrent la mithode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 32 X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 

 ■f .' V 
 
 ■■: 'js-.n. T ei lii N » 1 18 • m ', r e a $ aiil 
 
 iEEl IHE NEEnS OF IIANKIli|b 
 
 -'-:.. ■ill 
 
 i'«!i 
 
 li ;!■!••;;* 
 
Is It 
 
 J)EBA' 
 
 (iKO. J 
 
/Sesularism; 
 
 Is It Founded on Reason, and Is It Sufficient to 
 Meet the Needs of Mankind? 
 
 ; DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING 
 MAIL (Halifax. N.S.) AND CHARLES WATTS 
 EDITOR OF HECULAR THOUGHT. 
 
 WITH PREFATORY LETTERS 
 
 HY 
 
 GEO. JACOB llOLYOAKE and COLONEL R. G. I^ JERSOLL 
 AND AN INTRODUCTION 
 
 HY 
 
 H E L K N H . (J A R D E N E R 
 
 « « f » 
 
 TORONTO : 
 
 " SECULAR THOUGHT " OFFICE, 
 3« AiiELAiDE St. East. 
 PRICE - a.5 CENTS, 
 
BL 
 
 2172 
 
 &4 
 
 *J'HE folI( 
 
 of each^( 
 
 and in Si 
 
 of the J 
 
 joined ch 
 
 alfo the 
 
 Watts in 
 
 Mail ofil 
 
 be packe 
 
 denies m 
 
 human r 
 
 ^o the di 
 
 fcontrovei 
 
 ^ill have 
 
 fumns alt 
 
 A he Even 
 
 "^rticle OK 
 
 llowed t 
 
 icnt the ] 
 
 ir, — My 
 
 at«d Ju 
 
 That Se( 
 
 :ueet the 
 
 affirm 
 
 »iven in t 
 
 lations so 
 
 Eonditioni 
 
 'hought, 
 
 \vii\l also 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 J'he following discuasion was conducted during 1889, the paper 
 of each^disputanb appearing both in the Halifax Evening McM 
 and in Secular Thaught. The debate originated in the Editor 
 of the Mail issuing, in hi« paper of July 3rd, 1889, the sub- 
 joined challenge to Mr. Watts, which, it will be seen, contains 
 alno the conditions that governed the controversy : — " If Mr. 
 Watts is anxious to present his views to the public, the Evening 
 Mail offers him an audience larger than could by any possibility 
 be packed in any public building in Halifax. The Evening Mail 
 denies Mr. Watts' affirmation: 'That Secularism is based on 
 human reason and is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind.' 
 To the discussion of this »|uestion we challenge Mr. Watts to a 
 iiontroversy, he to take the initiative. Mr. Watts on his part 
 ^ill have the privilege ^ publishing three articles in our col - 
 luuins alternately with i.iree articles written by the Editor of 
 phe Evening Mad, Mr. Watts to close the controversy in a fourth 
 rticle one-third of a column in length, in which he shall be 
 llowed to introduce no new matter." On July 10th Mr. Watts 
 cut the following reply : " To the Editor of the Evening Mail : 
 )ir, — My attention has been called to an editorial in your issue 
 dat«d July 3, in which you invite me to discuss the proposition, 
 ' That Secularism is based on human reason, and is sufficient to 
 meet the needs of mankind.' This you deny, and challenge me 
 to affirm the proposition in your columns. Your invitation is 
 Igiven in such courteous language, and accompanied with stipu- 
 pations so fair, that I accept your challenge upon the following 
 iconditions, viz. : That my opening article appear tirst in Secular 
 IThought, from which you can copy it in the MaU. wherein you 
 will also insert your reply, which I will reproduce in Secular 
 
iv 
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 nought ; the suKsofjufii.t, articloH in the .1. bat., to also appear in 
 a similar inannn' in .ach of tl..- al.ove-naine.l paporH." 
 
 The conditions nu-ntioncl al.ovo boiiiK »..utualiy ajrreed upon 
 tho discussion commenced m Hccda,- Tkunuhl August 8rd, 1 889.' 
 
 That what has been advanced by either disputant u.ay be 
 carefully read and studied is my earnest and sincere wisL 
 
 « . -^„ , „ CHAULE.S Wa'TO. 
 
 February 27th, ISPO. 
 
 THE Ol'INlO.V OF THK ' |.AT1(KK OK SKCIT|,AUFSM." 
 
 " -y*"- ^'l^tts- statem.-nt of Secular principles and policy, in his 
 debate with the Editor of the Halifax E.L,, J/a!/ i. L bJst 
 1 have ever seen. He distinguishes clearly and boldly that the 
 hocularist moves on the planes of Reason and Utility. 
 
 " Geohge Jacou Holyoake." 
 (In Ills letter to the Toronto Secular Convention, 1S89.) 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 to also appear in 
 mporn." 
 
 illy agreed upon, 
 luguHt 8rd, IHH9. 
 
 isputant may hv 
 sincere wish. 
 
 LARISM." 
 
 nil policy, in lii.s 
 Mail is the best 
 boldly that the 
 Itility. 
 
 HoLYOAKE." 
 
 )n, IHHO.) 
 
 < 
 
 OOLONKF, INOEHSOl.l.'s (•JMNIf>X. 
 
 400 Fifth Avenue, Feb. 9th, l«f)0. 
 
 Mv Dkah Mh. Waits,— I liave just read the debate betwpftn 
 yourself and the Editor of the Halifax EvvniiKj Mail,h.i^. 
 Your stateriicnt as to what Secularism is could not be improve<l 
 and y«»ur definitions of certain terms are accurate and lucid. I 
 have never reail better. The Kditor of the M<nl does not under- 
 .stand you. lie has not enou;j;h intellifjenco to {^rasp your 
 nieaniiiij. When you ask for a better «,'uide than U^'hhdii, he 
 does not see that he cainiot rri'ii i/i-tiv that reason is the best of 
 all {guides without a<lmitting Hiat It is. Suppose he had sai<l 
 that tlie Hibje is a better guide than rea.son, he would have been 
 compelled to have given his irntions for Die assertion, and in 
 doing this would have a<hnitted that reason had been his guide. 
 I can hardly call this a debate that you had with tb editor of 
 the AfiiiJ. In a debate there ought to Ik- arguments on bofli 
 .sides All the argument is on your side. Your antagonist refused 
 to come into the ring. He kept outside the ropes and even in 
 that place threw up the sponge. 
 
 You are <loing a great and splendid work in Canada. Every 
 Freethinker ought to stand by you, and no one can attbrd to do 
 without ScctUar Thniujld. Best regards to Mrs Watts from 
 us all and to you. 
 
 Yours always, 
 
 R. G. iNGEllSOLL. 
 
was , 
 mind 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 nv 
 
 HELEN H. GARDENER. 
 
 .■€ 
 
 When Mr, Charles Watts told me, about four years ago, that he 
 was going to Canada to start a Frsethought paper I made up my 
 mind that he had taken leave of a large part of his usual good 
 judgment and was about to fly in the face of providence — so to 
 speak. 
 
 Canada and a Freethought paper impressed me as elements 
 that would refuse to mix. I thought I knew the characteristics 
 of both, somewhat intimately. I expected to hear of the arrest 
 of Mr. Watts and the discontinuance of his paper by the end of 
 the first month. I did not believe that Canada was ready for 
 his sturdy, vigorous style of advocacy of Secularism. 
 
 It appears, however, that I mistook the temper and trend 
 of the times and things in Canada, and that the past ten 
 years have made a vast change, not only in the States, but over 
 the border as well. And so to-day we see Mr. Watts not only 
 successfully conducting an able and fearless Freethought journal 
 in Toronto, and lecturing throughout the provinces ; but, also, 
 able to induce one of the editors of a leading daily paper to en- 
 gage in a debate on the relative merits of Secularism and Chris- 
 tianity.and to publish the same in the columns of his paper — the 
 Halifax Evening Mail. Thus Mr. Watts reaches not only the 
 avowed Liberal thinkers, but the conservatives also. 
 
 In reference to the debate, it is not necessary for me in this 
 Introduction to go into the m^^rits of the case and attempt to point 
 out the defects in the argument of the Editor of the Mail. Mr, 
 
vin 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Watts has proved himself fully al.le to do that. Indeed, the first 
 time I heard Mr. Watts debate in public I was so sor y for 1 
 opponent that I felt ahnost inclined to take his .side J tul 
 
 drubbing that ,t seemed to „.e evei-y n.ental bone in hi, body 
 must have been broken, and that when Mr. Watts should let Z 
 of his collar-as one might say-he would sink into mere pulp 
 Yet ,t was all done with that courtesy of language and manner 
 which distinguishes .Mr. Watts in debate. 
 
 Mr. Watts does not find it nece.s.sary to "call names" in lieu 
 o argument. He has facts on the tip of his tongue and lo.ic 
 always " on call." He is ..ot compelled to dodge the ifsue and take 
 letuge in vocal pyrotechnics- n.ere mentaland verbal gymnastics 
 -to befog the mmds of his readers and so cover his own retreat 
 In short, I have always looked upon Mr. Watts as a masterly 
 debater, and I know^f few people-if any-who would not be 
 running a very serious danger of defeat in venturing to join 
 
 which I wish to cal especial attention touching this discu.ssion. 
 It IS to the splendid.fact that the day is past when such a debate 
 as this can be suppressed. Only a little while ago not only Mr. 
 Watts would have "found his occupation gone," but the editor 
 oHhe Even^ng Mad would not have dared to give an honour- 
 able, honest hearing to his opponent through the columns of his 
 paper. He could not have ventured to give Mr. Watts an open 
 he d and to print ungarbl.d what was .said by his antagonist in 
 behei Canada is to be congratulated that she is now free 
 enough to do this and that some of her editor,, dare give the real 
 arguments and opinions of the unbelievers in organised supersti- 
 tion. Until the Pr..s is wholly free to do this ; until it cannot 
 be boycotted or intimidated for it, there will be no such thing as 
 a free Press, and without an absolutely free Press all liberty is 
 m constant danger. This debate, therefore, serves a double 
 purpose. It not only enables Secularism and Christianity to try 
 conclusions ; but it gives the measure of liberty and freedom of 
 speech and Press to which Canada has attained in the year 1889 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 IX 
 
 Inrleod, the first 
 s so sorry for his 
 is side of th(> ar- 
 ciful intellectual 
 l)one in his body 
 bts should let go 
 
 into mere pulp, 
 lage and manner 
 
 I names " in lieu 
 tongue and logic 
 le issue and take 
 irbal gymnastics 
 his own retreat. 
 ts as a masterly 
 o would not be 
 nturing to join 
 is one point to 
 this discussion, 
 n such a debate 
 ?o not only Mr. 
 ' but the editor 
 five an honour- 
 columns of his 
 Watts an open 
 s antagonist in 
 e is now free 
 regive the real 
 niseu supersti- 
 until it cannot 
 3 such thing as 
 s all liberty is 
 I'ves a double 
 stianity to try 
 id freedom of 
 the year 1889. 
 
 The daily papers are a reflex of the public pulse. It is the easiest 
 and surest way to determine the stage of civilisation at which 
 we have arrived to simply watch the daily papers and read 
 between the lines. 
 
 If any subject or class is refused an honest hearing we may 
 be very sure that there is an iron hand on the throat of some- 
 body. The grip is loosening when an editor here and there 
 dares to give space to both sides — to all sides. The measure of 
 manhood is lengthening. The power of superstition is broken. 
 A better day is dawning. The Press no longer crawls at the 
 feet of dogmatic belief chained vo the dead and ignorant past. 
 
 No honest cause ever needed suppression as an ally. The truth 
 is not afraid to measure conclusions with a mistake and give the 
 mistake an open field. Any argument that can hold its own 
 only by silencing its antagonist by lorce, thereby proclaims itself 
 built \ipon falsehood and sustained by fraud. 
 
 The pioneers of this new and real liberty of speech and Press 
 are, theA-efore, the landmarks in the new era. For this reason I 
 feel like congratulating Canada that the Halifax Mail and its 
 editor as well as Mr, Charles Watts chose homes within her 
 borders. I think we may say that all thoughtful people will be 
 interested in the arguments of the Christian editor, who not only 
 has the courage of his own convictions, but the courage and 
 manliness to present to his readers the ungarbled convictions 
 of his opponent also. Courage is a noble quality, and when it is 
 mental and moral as well as physical its possessor is well on his 
 way to a high order of civilisation. 
 
 I need not commend Mr. Watts and what he says to the 
 Liberal public. He has done that for himself ; but I want to 
 repeat that there are other reasons than admiration of his ability 
 why such a debate as this should be welcomed and widely read 
 by both sides. It shows which way the wind is blowing in more 
 ways than one. It shows what thoughts and opinions are on 
 the down grade. It is a landmark of our progress toward fair 
 play, and there is something for both parties to be proud of when 
 neither one skulks behind silence and suppression. Which ever 
 
til 
 
 * tNTRODUCTION. 
 
 argument the reader finds to his liking, therefore, lie need not be 
 ashamed to say, "This is my champion. He has come to the 
 front like a man for our cause and he has refused to take advan- 
 tage of ;.his adversary." This is a proud boast, and it could be 
 made of few debates where a representative of organised super- 
 stition had charge of one end of the arrangements and of an 
 organ which printed the discussion. 
 
 Therefore let us congratulate Christianity that she has at last 
 reached a point where she feels herself capable of fairness and 
 possessed of sufficient courage to be honest. And let us felicitate 
 Secularism that she had within her ranks the right man to ably, 
 courteously, and with the self-poise of the veteran, coiduct her 
 side of the debate on a plane of thought and with a dexterity of 
 touch which all who know Mr. Watts so greatly admire. 
 
 Helen H. Gardenbr. 
 
 1 
 
 tions V 
 deemec 
 accept 
 find eh 
 
le need not be 
 i come to the 
 otake advan- 
 nd it could be 
 janised super- 
 its and of an 
 
 he has at Jast 
 f fairness and 
 t us felicitate 
 i man to ably, 
 CO id act her 
 < dexterity of 
 Imiro. 
 
 riARDENaK. 
 
 SECULARISM: 
 
 A DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OF THE HALIFAX, 
 
 N.S., "EVENING MAIL" AND CHARLES WATTS. 
 
 The Proposition : "Secularism is based on liui.wui ifas,,,,, and is suffi. 
 cient to meet the nc(;ds of mankind." 
 
 Mb. Watts affirms ; tuk Euitou of the EveHiug Mail drmka. 
 
 Opening of the Deis ate. 
 by charles watt.s. 
 In supporting my affirmation of the above proposition I have 
 been requested by my opponent to do tliree thincrs • First to 
 explain what Secularism is ; secondly, to defin. the 1 "adino- terms 
 in the proposition ; and, m the last place, to show in what way 
 Secularism is sufficient to meet the needs of munkind 
 
 What is SeculaH.m? In its etymological' signiiication. ifc 
 means th^ age, finite, belonging to this world. Secularist, how- 
 ever, use the term in a more ampHHed scnstv as en.lM.lyinrr a 
 philosophy of life and inculcating rules of c(.nduct that have'no 
 necessarij association with any sj'stem of theology. By this is 
 u.eant that, while there are some phases of theology to which a 
 Secularist could give his assent, it is quite possible to live noblo 
 and exemplary lives apart from any and all theologies For in- 
 stance, Theists who are not orthodox can belong to a Secular So 
 ciety, as can also Atheists, although Secularism docs not exact 
 either the affirmation of the one or the negation of the other The 
 word Secularism was selected about 50 years ago by Mr. Geor-^e 
 Jacob Holyoake to represent certain principles which recognized 
 the moral duty of man in this life, deduced from considera- 
 tions wnich pertain to this life alone." Such a selection was 
 deemed desirable, in order to enable those persons who could not 
 accep orthodox Christianity as a guide in mundane affairs to 
 find elsewhere principles to direct and sustain them in tho eor- 
 
 ^' 
 
DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 I 
 
 red performance of their respective duties. Secularism is, as far 
 as possible, the practical application of all knowledge to the 
 regulation of human conduct, and apart from speculations and 
 beliefs which are unfounded, or unproved, or opposed to reason. 
 
 Secvlar Principles. These, as Mr. Holyoake has frequently 
 explained," relate to the present existence of man and to methods 
 of procedure the issues of which can be tested by the ei^perience 
 of this life. . . . Secular principles have for their object to fit 
 men for time. Secularism purposes to regulate human affairs by 
 considerations purely human. Its principles are founded upon 
 nature, and its object is to render men as perfect as- possible in 
 this life," whether there be a future existence or not The Six 
 great Cardinal Principles of Secularism, as officially taught 
 by the Canadian Secular Union (incorporated under the general 
 Act of Parliament in 1877-1885), are briefly as follows: — 
 1. That the present life being the only one of which we have 
 any knowledge, its concerns claim our earnest attention. 2. That 
 Keason, aided by Experience, is the best j^uide for human con- 
 duct. 3. That to- endeavour to promo j the individual and 
 general Well-being of Society to the best of our ability is our 
 high>."!t and immediate duty. 4. That the only means upon 
 iwhich we can rely for the accomplishment of this object is 
 human effort, based upon knowledge and justice. 5. Conduct 
 is to be judged by its results only — what conduces to the general 
 "Well-being is right ; what has the opposite tendency is wrong. 
 6. That Science and its application is our Providence, or Pro- 
 vider, and upon it we rely in preference to aught else in time of 
 need. 
 
 Secvlar Teachings. — (1) That truth, justice, sobriety, fidelity, 
 honour and love are essential to good lives. (2) That actions 
 are of more consequence to the welfare of Society than beliefs 
 in creeds and dogmas. (3) That "prevention is better than 
 cure ;" we therefore, as Secularists, seek to render, as far as cir- 
 cumstances will permit, depraved conditions impossible. (4) 
 That the best means of securing this improvement are, self -re- 
 liance, moral culture, physical development, intellectual disci- 
 pUse, and whatever else is found necessary to secure this object, 
 
 ~» 
 
DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 rism IS, as far 
 vledge to the 
 culations and 
 ised to reason, 
 as frequently 
 ad to methods 
 he ei^perience 
 : object to fit 
 nan aifairs by 
 :ounded upon 
 IS- possible in 
 aot The Six 
 cially taught 
 5r the general 
 IS follows: — 
 hiieh we have 
 ition. 2. That 
 ' human con- 
 dividual and 
 ability is our 
 means upon 
 this object is 
 5. Conduct 
 to the general 
 acy is wrong, 
 ence, or Pro- 
 ilse in time of 
 
 riety, fidelity, 
 That actions 
 J than beliefs 
 I better than 
 , as far as cir- 
 possible. (4) 
 it are, self-re- 
 llectual disci- 
 re this object, 
 
 provided our actions do not, unjustly and unnecessarily, infringe 
 upon the rights of others. (5) That the disbelief in Christianity, 
 or in other systems of theology, may be as much a matter of 
 ♦lonest conviction as the belief in it or them. (G) That persecu- 
 tion for disbelieving any or all the doctrines of theology is a 
 crime against society, and an insult to mental freedom. (7 ) That 
 the Secular good and useful in any of the religions of the world 
 should be accepted and acted upon, without the obligation of 
 having to believe in any form of alleged supornaturalisui. (S). 
 That a well-spent life, guided and controlled by the highest 
 possible morality, is the best preparation for a safe" and 
 happy death. (9) That the principle of tho " Golden Rule " 
 should be observed in all controversy, and that courtesy, good- 
 will, kindness, and a respectful consideration for the opinions 
 of those who differ from us should characterize our deal- 
 ings with opponents. (10) That from a domestic standpoint 
 there should be no attempt at superiority between husband 
 and wife ; that equality should be the emblem of every home, 
 and that the fireside should be hallowed by mutual fidelity, affec- 
 tion, happiness, and the setting of an example worthy of chil- 
 dren's emulation. These principles and teachings form the basis 
 of the Secularists' faith— a faith which rests not upon conjec- 
 tures as to a future life, but upon the reason, experience, and 
 requirements of this. 
 
 Banis of Secularism. The exercise of Freethought, guided by 
 reason, experience, and general usefulness. By Freethought i« 
 here meant the right to entertain any opinions that com^inend 
 themselves to the judgment of the honest and earnest seaicher 
 after truth without his being made the victim of social ostiacism 
 in this w. :u, or threatened with punishment in some other 
 The law of mental science declares the impossibility of uniform- 
 ity of belief upon theological questions, therefore, Freethought 
 should be acknowledged as being the heritage of the liuinan race. 
 Secular Morality. This consists in the performance of acts 
 that will exalt and ennoble human character, and in a\oidinf' 
 sonduct that is injurious either to the individual or to society at 
 large. The source of moral obligation is in human nature, and 
 
ti' 
 
 W 1»KHATE ()\ .SK(;UIiAllISM. 
 
 the sanctions of, and incentives to, ethical culture are the pro- 
 tection and improvement both of the individual and of tho 
 community. 
 
 Secularism and Theology. The relation of Secularism to tho 
 groat jirobloMis of the existence of Gud and a Future life is that 
 of Agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying. If a person think 
 that he has evidence to justify his belief in a God and immor- 
 tality, there is nothing in Secularism to prevent his having such 
 a belief. Hence, Athcisu) should not be confounded with Secu- 
 larism, which is quite a different (luestion. The subjects of Deity 
 and a Future life Secularism leaves for persons to decide if 
 possible, for themselves. Being unable to inform, it refuses to 
 dogmatize upon matters of which it can impart no information. 
 Secularism, therefore, does not exact Atheistical profession as 
 th(> basis of co-o}»ei'ation. Atheists may be Secularists, but it is 
 not considered necessary that a man should accept Atheism to 
 enable him to become a Secularist. The Secularist platform is 
 sufficiently broad to admit the fellowship of Atheists or non- 
 orthodox Theicts. Secularism fetters man with no theological 
 creeds ; it only requires moral conduct, allied with the desire to 
 pursue aprogres.sive career independent of all speculative theology. 
 Nei/aiive Aspect of Secidarism. Secularism is positive to the 
 true ai d good in every religion, but it is negative towards that 
 which is false and injurious. Our destructive work consists in 
 endeavouring to destroy that which has too often interfered 
 ^with our constructive efforts. Our negative policy " has been 
 to combat priests and laws, wherever priests or laws interfere 
 with Fr(>ethought— that is, our mission has been to act as a John 
 in the wilderness, to make way for science, and to make silence 
 for philosophy." • 
 
 IJeflv it ion of Terms. Reason we define as being man's highest 
 intellectual powers, the understanding, the faculty of judo-niont, 
 the power which discriminates, infers, deduces, and judges, the 
 ability to premise future probabilities from post experience and 
 to distinguish truth from error. Reason, says Morell, is that 
 which gives unity and solidarity to intellectual processes, " aid- 
 ing us at once in the pursuit of truth and in adapting our lives 
 
re are the pro- 
 ual and of the 
 
 Dcularism to the 
 ture life is that 
 f a person think 
 iod and iininor- 
 his having such 
 idod with Secu- 
 labjoets of Deity 
 ris to decide, if 
 n, it refuses to 
 no informaticMi. 
 .1 profession as 
 larists, but it is 
 :ept Atheism to 
 rist platform is 
 itheists or non- 
 no theological 
 h the desire to 
 lative theology, 
 positive to the 
 e towards that 
 ork consists in 
 Pten interfered 
 ilicy " has been 
 laws interfere 
 ) act as a John 
 o make silence 
 
 ;• man's highest 
 r of judgment, 
 nd judges, the 
 ixperience and 
 Morell, is that 
 I'ocesses, " aid- 
 >ting our lives 
 
 DEHATK ON SECULAHISM. 7 
 
 to the state of things in which they exist" ("Mental rhilosophy," 
 p. 2:i2). " It is the guide and director of human activity " {Ihid., 
 p. 2;j.5). Hookei-, in his " Keclesiastical Polity," says reason de- 
 termines " what is go<.(l to be done;" ami Chillingworth, the 
 <-minent Christian writer, in his "Religion of Protestants," ob- 
 serves :— '^ Keoson gives us knowledge ; while faith only gives us 
 tielief, which is a part of knowledge an<l is. therefore, inferior to 
 
 It H '\s h]i rcmon aloiw that we can didinqu.l»h truth from. 
 
 Msehood"* (quoted by Buckle in his "History of Civiliza- 
 tion "). Bishop Butler remarks, " Beason is indeed the only 
 faculty we have wherewith to judge conceniing anything, even 
 revelation itself " (" Analogy of Keligion," o. 170). 
 
 Experience. This reinesents knowk-dge acqui)-ed through 
 study, investigation, and observation in the broadest sense 
 possible. We do not use the word in the limited form, aa 
 Whately em].1r,ys it, simply as individual experience, but as 
 comprising the w urld's legacy of thought, action, scientific appli- 
 cation and mental culture, so far as we are enabled to avail our- 
 selves of the.se intellectual agencies. 
 
 Intuition. This I regard to be a mental recognition of an 
 nnpression or sensation as being the truth without the process 
 of reasoning. Intuition, therefore, differs from reason and ex- 
 perience inasmuch as it excludes the possibility of correcting a 
 mental impression by reflection and philosophical Jnvestigation. 
 The nature and value of intuition depend upon the intellectual 
 condition of the person who has it, upon his training, and the 
 surroundings which have formed and moulded his conceptions 
 or beliefs. The intuition of a savage is very different from that 
 of a civilized person, and the same difference obtains among the 
 devotees of the different religions of the earth. Moreovei^ my 
 opponent's intuition may suggest to him that a certain thing 
 was right which my intuition in all probability would consider 
 M-rong. In such cases, what is the factor that is to decide which 
 IS the correct decision ? Secularism says that although Reason 
 when assisted by Expe rience, may not be a perfect guide, it 
 
 * The italics are mine. 
 
6 DEUATE ON SECU1.AU1SM. 
 
 is tho host known to us up to the present time. If the 
 editor of the Evening Mail has a monitor superior to the one 
 ^elected by Socuhirists, let him produce it, and then we caa 
 judge which is tho bettor by comparison. 
 
 The terms " Needs " and " Sufficient." I place the foliowinfr 
 interpretation upon these words in connection with the proposi- 
 tion under debate. By needs is meant that which is actually 
 necessary, essential to the physical intellectual mural and emo- 
 lional development of the human family. In this controversy 
 needs should be distinguished from wants, inasmuch as in many 
 cases a want is only a desire caused by habits not necessary to 
 the well-being of society. I regard that as being sufficient the 
 nature of which is adequate to meet the »"equiremonta and to 
 Batisfy the demands of the needs of mankixid. 
 
 The request of my opponent has now been complied with, so 
 far as the space allowed me would permit. I have stated what 
 Secularism is, and have given a brief intimation of its principles, 
 teachings, and ethical basis. A definition has also been furnished 
 of what we mean by the temis reason, experience, intuition, 
 needs and sufficient. A statement of what human needs are and 
 wherein Secularism is sufficient to satisfy them must be reserved 
 for my next article. In the meantime I shall read with consid- 
 erable interest whatever my respected opponent may have to 
 say in reply to what is herein set fortli. 
 
 rilE " EVENING mail's " FUIST AHTICLE, IN REPLY TO CHARLES 
 
 VrATTS. 
 
 In consenting to this debate we desired such a precise definition 
 of terms as would enabie us both at the outset clearly to com- 
 prehend the subject matter and scope of the discussion. Though 
 Mr. Watts' thesis bears the stamp of sincerity, its definitions are 
 laboured and involved, vague or tautological ; and the difficulties 
 which perplex his mind and unnerve his hand are manifestly 
 those which have for the most part entirely disappeared before 
 the enlightened thought of these more modern days. 
 
 We asked Mr. Watts for a clear and precise delmition of 
 
DKHATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 titno. If the 
 ;rior to the oue 
 1 then we can 
 
 the t'ollowinsr 
 th the pi'oposi- 
 ich is actually 
 luu'al and eiiiu* 
 hia controvoi'sy 
 uch as in many 
 ot necessary to 
 g sufficient the 
 reinonts and to 
 
 m plied \*rith, so 
 ve stated what 
 i' its principles, 
 been furnished 
 ence, intuition, 
 Q needs are and 
 ust be reserved 
 id with consid- 
 t may have to 
 
 ' TO CHARLES 
 
 ecise definition 
 clearly to com- 
 ision. Thouorh 
 definitions are 
 [ the difficulties 
 are manifestly 
 ppfcared before 
 ,ys. 
 3 deimition of 
 
 " Secularism ; " but ho responds with numerous variations and 
 repetitions which only servo to confuse the reader's mind, whilo 
 demonstrating beyond a doubt that Mr. Watts has never yet ob- 
 tained a clear and comprehensive conception of the tenets of tho 
 HO-cal'ed Secularist faith. For instance, under " Secular prin- 
 ciples," we are furnished with " the six great cardinal principles 
 of Secularism as officially taoght." But not content with this 
 *' official" statement, Mr. Watts reinforces it with a statement of 
 • Secular teachings," six [ten] in number, whieh ditter more or less 
 from the preceding principles as they are " officially taught." 
 Then, as if fear^'ul that "Secular principles ' as "officially 
 taught," even though combined with " Secular teachings," might 
 not convey a clear conception of what " Secularism " is, Mr 
 Watts proceeds to state " the basis of Secularism " and to define* 
 " Secular morality," as if these were diilerent and distinct from 
 the " principles " and tli(> " teachings." And to complete the 
 confusion, although under " Secularism and theology " we are 
 informed that " Secularism fetters man with no theological 
 creeds," — a purely negative aspect, — Mr. Watts proceeds to de- 
 fine under another head " the negative aspect of Secularism." 
 All this serves to convince the reader that even Mr. Watts, the 
 professed exponent of this new faith, is in the unfortunate pre- 
 dicament of having no clear and definite conception of his own 
 beliefs, and that, as a result, his attempts at elucidation only 
 serve to bewilder, confuse, and perhaps amuse those who intelli- 
 gently strive to follow him through his illogical and labyrinthine 
 meanderings. 
 
 Equally unhappy is Mr. Watts in his antiquatetl allusion to 
 reason as a faculty of the mind, more especially as it is coupled 
 with the affirmation that " Secularism is based on human reason." 
 As if a faith, which is supposed to satisfy all human needs, could 
 be based on a faculty of mind ! But our purpose is not to raise 
 mere quibbles in this debate, but rather to tear aside the covering 
 of antiquated verbiage with which Mr. Watts has cloaked his 
 views, and to consider these, carefully yet courteously, in all 
 their naked reality. It is gratifying to us, therefore, that Mr. 
 Watts has not been completely bewild<%red by his wide knowledge 
 
JO 
 
 I>KIIATE t)S SKCII.AIll.SM. 
 
 ot j.hilu Mlnral anti.,uiti.-s, I.ut that Lis soun.l coini.u,,, «,.„ho 
 Jomis hnn to .•.■j..ct tlu- .liscunU.,! ,.„„c..,,tionH of UntU'v. mul ...oro 
 correctly to .I.-Umo rcusun as " the un.lL.rHt.ii..lin- Mu- fuculty of 
 Ju<U,'nit-nt, th.- |K,w.T vvl.idi .lisc-riiiiinutoH, intV.s, .ledu.-os and 
 Jiuljrrs." With tl.is view we aro more dispose.l to coindde, and 
 tliorotoir. tor the purpost-s of di.scussin,, w,. wiH consent to n, r- 
 «oiuty reasoM as that which ' diserin.inates, infers, -Lducos und 
 jurlps;" in ,1 wor.i, as that Which wkkjiis Kviut.voK. 
 
 Kveu Mr. Watts appears t(» havo heen convinced of the absurd- 
 ity ol h.s own athrnwition that the Secularist faith is hased on a 
 JHcuity ot n.m.l, an.l to have incli....,! to his other view that 
 ieason IS that which woi^rhs evidence; f,.r he in.mediately pro- 
 ceeds to detine Experience an.l Intuition as two sources of ovi- 
 dence, althou-h these terms had hitherto been utterly iWeien 
 to the contn.versy. * 
 
 In closing Mr. Watts says: "A statement of what human 
 needs are ,.nd wherein Secularism is sufhcient to .satisfy them 
 must be reserved for our next article"; and therefore we are 
 Im-ced to restrict ourselves for the present to Mr. Watts' Hrst 
 affirmation "that Secularism is ba.s,.,: on human i-e-ison " ; in a 
 word, that Secularism is based on evi.Jcnce. 
 
 What th(.n is Secularism ? Its lirst principle is, we are told 
 •' that the present life being the only one of which we ha>e any 
 knowled^re, Its concerns claim our earnest attention." But herein 
 lies the assumption that our present individual existence is the 
 only life of which we may be co-mizant. Where is the evidence 
 to support that assertion ? The c ricoms " of this life " claim 
 our earnest attention ! " Whet evidence ^s there of the validity 
 ol thus claim ? What obligation iti tiiere to live at all ? 
 
 2. " That reason aided by experience is the best guide for 
 human conduct." Then reason alone is not the sole basis of 
 Secularism! And again we are told that "althoucrh reason 
 when assisted by experience, may not be a perfect guide it is 
 the best known to us up to the present time." Again we call for 
 evi.K'nce to substantitie this statement. Surely Secularism 
 w>..ald make no assumptions ? 
 3. " That to endeavour to promote the individual and general 
 

 I'KIIATK (iN SECUI.AIIISM 
 
 1' 
 
 III CUIIIIIKitl "ciiso 
 
 lltltliT, mid tnoro 
 1^'. tlif Idculty of 
 Vrs, (letlupt's and 
 ! to coirifiUe, luul 
 I cotiscriL to ]). r- 
 V'rs, ilcfluccs ami 
 
 odof thealisurd- 
 ith is liust'd <jn n 
 other view timt 
 iiiiiifdiatcly pro- 
 o souri'o.s of ovi- 
 i utterly foreign 
 
 )f what human 
 to satisfy them 
 iherefore wo are 
 Mr. Watts' first 
 n i'c'ison " ; in a 
 
 is, we are told, 
 2h we ha>e any 
 on." But herein 
 existence is the 
 
 is the evidence 
 tMs life "daim 
 oi" the validity 
 t all ? 
 
 best guide for 
 e sole basis of 
 though reason, 
 ect guide, it is 
 ?ain we call for 
 ly Secularism 
 
 il and general 
 
 vell-I.eing of society, to the best of our ability, is our highoist 
 and immediat." duty." Again we ask what ri^lit hosStcuUnsni 
 to assuiiie that there is any "duty " ohligp.tory upon us i Can 
 A'e impose* such n " duty " upon ourseK .s i If not, who has 
 impo.sed the.se duties upon us c 
 
 4. Thus we might go through the li.st of ' Sejular piiiiciplos," 
 and ask if " knowledge and justice," as alleged, ar«« alone .suffi- 
 cient to promot.> the highest well-being of the individual «nd of 
 society. Are not ben.-volenee and .self-sacrifice ei|Ual.'v i-ssential ? 
 
 5. What claim to validity has the su.spicious statement that 
 conduct is to be Judged by results alone ? The loctrine of 
 these "expediency morali.sts " has been reje-ited by iho vast 
 majority of men since it was first propoundecl ov. '• twenty 
 tM!nturies ago. What evidence is there forthcoming to low that 
 this jirinciple is based on reason { 
 
 a. That we should rely upon Science as our Provid^•nce or 
 I'rovitler in preference to ought else ! Scie.ice mny provi. .• food, 
 drink and apparel. But it -lepends upcm the natnrt^ of th- man 
 as to whether these provisions are complete and satisfa 'tory. 
 The Hottentot knows few .scientific appliances, and di.scaro . fiuo 
 raiment as well as .savoury viands. Neither Hottentot modes of 
 life nor Hottentot morality may be expected to satisfy the i -eds 
 of this nineteenth century civilization. 
 
 These six Secular principles are a.ssumed by Mr Watts, -ho 
 furnishes no evidence whatever as to their validity. The :en 
 teachings of Secularism must also be proved on grounds of utihty 
 alone, since Mr. Watts accepts without evidence the utilitarian 
 tenet that "whatever conduetis to the general widl-being is right, 
 whatever has the opposite tendency is wrong." Hut if Mr. Wattsi 
 will only furnish evidence of our personal obligation to speak 
 tiie truth, it may, perhaps, surpri.se him to find ecpially reliabh^ 
 evidence of his obligation to believe in the existence of a God. 
 But these Secular teachings are of slight importance to this con- 
 trover.sy. They are not new to Christian morality. That actions 
 are of more con.sec|uence than beliefs may, doubtless, be disputed, 
 since beliefs may be the ultimate source of actions. The third 
 ieaching that " prevention is better than cure " cannot be accepted 
 
ff 
 
 12 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 >il I 
 
 as a Secularist novelty, seeing that centuries ago it passed into a 
 proverb. The fourth teaching is the theme of every Sunday 
 school teacher as well as of the Secularist ; and what is more to 
 the point, the Sunday school teacher may make a claim of 
 priority to this teaching. The hfth teaching that disbelief may 
 be as much a matter of honest conviction as positive belief makes 
 against Secularism as much as against Catholicism. As 
 for persecution, it is not now upheld in this free country. 
 And as for the prejudice which Mr. Watts has against " alleged 
 supernaturalism," that would doubtless be allayed if he would 
 but persist in making a closer study into the deepest of these 
 problems. The dividing line between the natural and the 
 supernatural was always an arbitrary one, and is now scarcely 
 recognized. What more natural than thought ? What more 
 supernatural than the existence of the thinker ? The " golden 
 rule " and the rule for domestic government make up the ten 
 teachings of Secularism ? The body of these teachings is 
 accepted by all ? They are chiefly more or less crudely expressed 
 tenets cf an ethical system which is recognized by the majority, 
 and to which Secularism can make no special claim. 
 
 Nor is there any novelty in the basis of Secularism, which is 
 defined as the exercise of " the right to entertain any opinions 
 that commend themselves to the honest and earnest searcher." 
 That is, in exactly the same sense, the basis of politics, of 
 journalism, of digging drains or breaking stones. Nor does this 
 basis find any support in what is here crudely expressed as " a 
 Jaw of mental science." No " law of mental science " declares 
 the " impossibility of uniformity of belief upon theological 
 questions." We simply find from experience that men think 
 differently about the same thing, whether it be theology or the 
 best methods of drainaoe. 
 
 Nor is " Secular morality " more properly so described. The 
 doctrine, that the end of life consists in the perfection of individual 
 character and the good of the race, is as much a part of 
 " Methodist morality " as of " Secular morality." 
 
 Here then is ♦ 'le conclusion of this prolonged investigation, 
 "Secularism" Is an arbitrarily selected part of our prevalent 
 
igo it passed into a 
 of every Sunday 
 ad what is more to 
 make a claim of 
 that disbelief may 
 jsitive belief makes 
 Catholicism. As 
 this free country. 
 IS against " alleged 
 ayed if he would 
 e deepest of these 
 e natural and the 
 id is now scarcely 
 ;ht? What more 
 3r? The "golden 
 I make up the ten 
 hese teachings is 
 3 crudely expressed 
 id by the majority, 
 claim. 
 
 jcularism, which is 
 rtain any opinions 
 earnest searcher." 
 lis of politics, of 
 es. Nor does this 
 y expressed as " a 
 science " declares 
 upon theological 
 i that men think 
 be theology or the 
 
 io described. The 
 
 iction of individual 
 
 much a part of 
 
 ged investigation, 
 of our prevalent 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 13 
 
 moral beliefs. Such additions as are made are of very dubious 
 validity. The emendations are made without authority ; and 
 the selections are accepted without evidence. For if evidence 
 were forthcoming it would be found to make the belief in God 
 as the belief in the morality of truth or justice. Herein is Mr. 
 Watts' dilemma. He accepts in part a system of morality which 
 all accept ; or else Secularism is Scepticism, or Agnosticism, pure 
 and simple. Scepticism which rejects one portion of our moral 
 beliefs will find no validity or obligation in the other portions 
 which Mr. Watts accepts. On the other hand, the evidence by 
 which Mr. Watts could establish the validity of one portion, 
 gives a like support to all. Secularism must be either identified 
 with orthodox morality or with scepticism ; it cannot be differ- 
 entiated from them both. 
 
 But, Mr. Watts adds, by way of excuse for th«4 anomalous 
 position which he has assumed, " the subjects of deity and a 
 future life Secularism leaves for persons to decide, if possible, 
 themselves. Being unable to inform, it refuses to dogmatise 
 upon matters of which it can impart no information." But 
 herein lies the abject weakness of Secularism. Kant has said 
 that we cannot assume an air of indifference toward God, free- 
 dom of the will, and immortality, which are always of deepest 
 interest to mankind. Mr. Watts refuses to think of these 
 problems which are of deepest interest to mankind ; so other 
 men might determine to give up thinking altogether and live the 
 life of the brutes ; but could they expect the majority of man- 
 kind to follow their example ? Secularism refuses to inform us 
 upon these problems, and very properly so ! So might the 
 savage refuse to inform us of the moral principles which obtain 
 even in Mr. Watts' meagre system of ethics. 
 
 In conclusion we scarcely need to '.'emind Mr. Watts that it 
 yet remains for him to establish that Secularism " is sufiicient 
 to meet the needs of mankind," a proposition which he has 
 elected to deal with in his second article. But before entering 
 upon that discussion it will be pertinent to the enquiry upon 
 which we have already entered for him to establish the validity 
 of those ethicAl DrinGinles and teaching's which even Secularism 
 
i 
 
 I 
 
 14 
 
 DIOBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 .found o uphold. Mr. Watts professes to reject unreservedly 
 
 V ' .r ?"" °^ ''^'''' ^^'^ y'' ^^^^' ^° «*rtain of these 
 
 very sa,«e ethical teachings. He can only satisfy th« needs of 
 this discussion by bringing forward evidence of the validity of 
 
 belound f t '""';T' "'"' ^"^^^"^^ '""'^*' '' he is consistent, 
 be ound to havo valid authority, even though the Theistic belie 
 be utterly rejecU'd. "^"ci 
 
 MR. watts' second AIcTfCLB. 
 In times before science had demonstrated the folly of tiie belief 
 n w, cheratt and in the existence of a pere.,Hnatiug d v 1 
 there lived, it is said, a great magician. f/e cllimod to W a 
 secret by which he could at any moment summon King Beeke! 
 bub and compel him to do hi.s bidding. The magician h dan 
 apprentice who one day ]i.stem.d at the keyhole ot" his master's 
 sanctum, an.I learned the great secret of raising the Devi? The 
 next day during the absence of the magician the boy performed 
 the .eeossaiy incantations, and, lo and behold the devil came 
 up at his bidding But, horror of horrors ! the boy gotterrmTd 
 and he wanted his satanic majesty to retire again by the way 
 1.e had come But this could not be accomplished, and the dlvH 
 remained, sa.lly to the discomfort of the poor lad 
 
 Editor ot the /.v.mng Mail in this debate. Enamoured t 
 certain theological incantations, he probably thought thit Z 
 could call torth such definitions that iould plaly" t^ t^/ 
 he afhnnatu>n of the proposition. But, lo and behold wh« 
 the said detmit.ons appeared they so terrified him as to "perplex 
 his mind ami unnerve his hand." and he could take no Lm ite 
 excep ion to any of them but the first, and with this o . 
 aeually imag.^ed "difficulties which have for the m J pj 
 entirely disappeared before the enlightened thought of the o 
 more modern days. '' ^ 
 
 My opponent in issuing his challenge to debate this question 
 very properly made the "demand " that I should define Secu ar 
 ism and give its - basic element » ; that I should explain " r!" t 
 
DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 15 
 
 •eject unreservedly 
 to certain of these 
 atisfy the needs of 
 I of the validity of 
 if he is consistent, 
 the Theistic belief 
 
 folly o£ the belief 
 re^^rinatiiig devil, 
 claimed to have a 
 Tfion King Beelze- 
 magician had an 
 le of his master's 
 -• the Devil. The 
 e boy performed 
 
 I the devil came 
 boy got terrified 
 
 gain by the way 
 ed, and the devil 
 d. 
 
 position of the 
 Enamoured by 
 ihought that he 
 lyze the force of 
 id behold when 
 
 II as to " perph^K 
 take no detinite 
 ith this one he 
 
 the most part 
 ought of these 
 
 te this question 
 detino Secular- 
 xplain " reason 
 
 as distinguished from intuition and f lom experience " ; that I 
 should present a "statement of the ethical teachings of Secularism, 
 and the grounds of their validity." Furthermore, he requested 
 a specification of the interpretation to be placed upon the terms 
 " sufficient " and " needs." To these fair requirements I readily 
 acceded in my opening article. Unfortunately, however, in doino- 
 so I failed to please :ny opponent. Frankly, this did not surprise 
 me ; still, it might, perhaps, have been more dignified on his 
 part if, instead of finding so much fault with my style of writing, 
 he had tried to answer my arguments. 
 
 According to my opponent I do not understand Secularism. 
 He says that " beyond a doubt " I have not a clear and com- 
 prehensive conception " of Secular tenets ; and he charges me 
 with " repetition.s," ignoring the fact that he does the same thing 
 himself in repeating, in almost the same words, this very charge. 
 But it is significant that he does not once make an effort to sub- 
 stantiate his allegation ; neither does he offer any other definition 
 of Secularism than the one given by me. In a debate of this kind 
 mere assertion is not enough, therefore, I await the proof for the 
 statement tliat " Mr. Watts is in the unfortunate predicament of 
 having no clear or definite conception of his own beliefs." It 
 may also strengthen ui}/ opponent's position if he can verify his 
 assertion that the Secular teachings which I mentioned "differ 
 more or less," from the Secular principles as "ofHeially taught." 
 The gentleman is also pren\ature in charging me with afiirmino- 
 that "the Secularist faith is based on a faculty of the mind." 
 The term " mind" is not used by me in any of my definitions, 
 but as my opponent has introduced the word perhaps he will 
 define in what sense he en)ploys it, and then I may deal with 
 his exclania'iion, "As if a faith, which is suppo.sed to sati.sfy 
 all human needs, could be based (^n fi faculty of niitid ! " We are 
 next told that Experience and Intuition are terms that had 
 hitherto "been utterly foreign to the ct)ntroversy," and yet my 
 opponent demanded in his challenge tliat I should define these 
 very terms. Is not this " verl)iago," and a fair specimen of 
 "illogical and labyrinthine meanderings ? " 
 
 As I am pledged to deal in this article with the second part of 
 
16 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 Ill 
 
 I .i ' 
 
 our proposition, namely, the suflBciency of Secularism to meet 
 the needs of mankind, I am compelled to reserve for my third 
 article a review of my opponent's remarks upon Secular prin- 
 ciples and teachings. These remarks, though bearing " the 
 stamp of sincerity," appear to me to be exceedingly " laboured, 
 vague, and tautological." 
 
 In order that I may not misrepresent the position of my no 
 doubt well-intentioned antagonist when I further reply to his 
 criticism, will he kindly answer in his next article the following 
 questions ? (1) Does the first Secular principle necessarily involve 
 the " assumption " that there is no future life ? (2) What better 
 guide is known for human conduct than that which Secularism 
 offers ? (3) Where does Secularism teach that " knowledge and 
 justice alone " are sufficient to promote the welfare of society ? 
 (4) What does my opponent understand by the term " expedi- 
 ency moralists " ? (5) In what part of Christian morality is it 
 taught that any or all of the theological systems of the world 
 can be rejected by the honest searcher for truth, without his in- 
 curring the risk of punishment hereafter ? (6) In what way 
 does the fifth Secular teaching, as given in my previous article, 
 " make against Secularism " ? (7) What evidence is there that 
 the " existence of the thinker is supernatural " ? (8) Did Kant 
 admit that by reason the existence of utod and the belief in im- 
 mortality could be demonstrated ? (9) Where is the proof that 
 " Mr. Watts refuses to think of these problems " ? 
 
 I am requested to establish the validity of Secular principles 
 and teachings. Does not my opponent see that such validity 
 consists in the necessity and adaptability of Secularism to human 
 needs ? In the second paragraph of my opening article I men- 
 tioned one fact to prove the necessity of Secular philosophy, 
 namely, that inasmuch as moral conduct is indispensable to the 
 well-being of society, Secularism has been found necessary to 
 enable those persons who could not accept orthodox Christianity 
 as a guide in mundane afTairs to find elsewhere principles to direct 
 and sustain them in the correct performance of their respective 
 duties. Upon this point my opponent has hitherto remained 
 silent. 
 
DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 17 
 
 larism to meet 
 ve for my third 
 m Secular prin- 
 i bearing " the 
 :igly " laboured, 
 
 sition of my no 
 ler reply to his 
 ie the following 
 essarily involve 
 2) What better 
 liich Secularism 
 knowledge and 
 fare of society ? 
 ! term " expedi- 
 Q morality is it 
 IS of the world 
 without his in- 
 
 In what way 
 Drevious article, 
 e is there that 
 
 (8) Did Kant 
 he belief in im- 
 
 the proof that 
 ? 
 
 cular principles 
 it such validity 
 arism to human 
 y article I men- 
 lar philosophy, 
 ipensable to the 
 id necessary to 
 lox Christianity 
 nciples to direct 
 their respective 
 herto remained 
 
 I will now show in what way Secularism is sufficient to 
 meet the needs of mankind. What are these needs ? 
 
 (1.) Development of Man's Physical Organisation. This ia 
 regarded by Secularists as being the first important nee"d, inas- 
 much as upon the due observance of the laws of healtend,h dep 
 not only personal and general physical soundness, but also, to a 
 large extent, mental vigour and intellectual usefulness. To 
 satisfy this need Secularism urges the necessity of studying and 
 adopting the best means possible to secure sound bodies and 
 pure surroundings. Experience proves that health has obtained 
 and life has been prolonged, in proportion to practical attention 
 being given to the facts of science. This truth establishes the 
 reasonableness of the Secular principle that applied Science is 
 the Providence of Man. 
 
 (2.) Cultivation of owr Moral Nature. To put it plainly and 
 briefly, by moral action we mean the performance of deeds that 
 ■will encourage virtue and tfscourage vice; that will foster 
 truth, honour, justice, temperance, industry, and fidelity ; and 
 that will enhance the welfare both of the individual and of 
 society. Secularism teaches that the source of morality is in 
 human nature, and that its inspiration is in the happiness, pro- 
 gress, and elevation of the human race. Experience funiishes 
 the means that enable us to judge of the ethical superiority of 
 some actions over others, and reason is the standard whereby wo 
 can discriminate and judge right from wrong. 
 
 (3.) Cultivation of owr Intellectuality. Secularism alleges 
 that such cultivation can be efiectually acquired only by the 
 possession of knowledge and its correct application, which con- 
 stitutes true education. This, as Taine remarks, " draws out and 
 disciplines a man ; fills him with varied and rational ideas ; pre- 
 vents him from sinking into monomania or being exalted by 
 transport ; gives him determinate thoughts instead of eccentric 
 fancies, pliable opinions for fixed convictions ; replaces impetuous 
 images by calm reasonings, sudden resolves by the result of re- 
 jfiection ; furnishes us with the wisdom and ideas of others • 
 gives us conscience and self-command." Surely such a course of 
 
In 
 
 If'i 
 tl 
 
 it! 
 
 18 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 training as this must be admitted to have its source in reason 
 and to be justified by experience. 
 
 (4.) Fostering of domestic happiness. Secularism alleges that 
 happiness and just contentment in the home are of paramount 
 importance. Domestic misery destroys the usefulness of indi- 
 viduals, robs life of its sweetest charms, and wrecks the peace 
 bnd comfort of whole families. To avoid this deplorable evil. 
 Secularism teaches that purity, love, fidelity, mutual confidence, 
 and connubial equality should reign in every household ; that 
 between husband and wife there should be no claim to superi- 
 ority in their matrimonial relationship ; that " a man possessing 
 the love of an honourable and intelligent woman has a priceless 
 treasure, worthy of constant preservation in the casket of his 
 afiections." It is, therefore, but just that the wife should main- 
 tain her position of equality In the domestic circle, for without 
 this the blessings of unalloyed happiness and the inestimable 
 advantages of pure love will n^er adorn the " temple of home." 
 
 (6.) Fromotion of social hat^mony. This, according to Secu- 
 larism, consists in the human family living peaceably and amic- 
 ably together upon the principle of the brotherhood of man. 
 The strong should help the weak, and the wealthy should respect 
 the interests and rights of the poor. Benevolence and self-sacri- 
 fice should be ever ready to bestow a service when and where 
 necessity calls for their aid. Personal pleasure should never be 
 had at the cost of the public good, and the utmost individual 
 freedom should be granted, provided that in its exercise the righ' 
 of others are not invaded. To fully realize such harmony, there 
 should be no forced theological belief and no persecution, or 
 social ostracism, for unbelief. Other thing? being equal, the sin- 
 cere sceptic should be regarded with the same degree of respect 
 and fairness as the honest Christian. No one system has all the 
 truth, and no one religion can command universal assent ; there- 
 fore Secularism says that difierences of opinion ought never to 
 be allowed to aever the ties of love and friendship, or to mar the 
 usefulness of mutual fellowship and co-operation. 
 
 (6) Bdigioua aapvrationa and emotional gratification. To 
 moot these needs, Secularism would substitute personal liberty 
 
 a 
 
DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 19 
 
 ;S source in reason 
 
 larism alleges that 
 are of paramuunt 
 isefulness of indi- 
 wrecks the peace 
 !s deplorable evil, 
 uutual confidence, 
 Y househc'ld ; that 
 
 claim to superi- 
 ' a man possessing 
 lan has a priceless 
 the casket of his 
 wife should main- 
 jircle, for without 
 
 1 th-3 inestimable 
 ' temple of home." 
 according to Seca- 
 Eiceably and amic- 
 itherhood of man. 
 thy should respect 
 Qce and self-sacri- 
 
 when and where 
 e should never be 
 itmost individual 
 exercise the righ' 
 ch harmony, there 
 ao persecution, or 
 iing equal, the sin- 
 degree of respect 
 system has all the 
 rsal assent ; there- 
 )n ought never to 
 ihip, or to mar the 
 ion. 
 
 ■jratijication. To 
 I personal liberty 
 
 for theological dictation. It is not claimed even by theologians 
 that religious aspirations are uniform in all nations and among 
 all peoples. Such aspirations depend for their distinctive features 
 upon climate, organization, birth, and education. They assume 
 very different forms among the Chinese, the Buddhists the 
 Mohammedans, the Jews and the Christians. Recognisirrr this 
 diversity of feeling. Secularism deems it right that each plrson 
 should be permitted to believe or to disbelieve as he feels justi- 
 aed, and to worship or not to worship as his reason dictates 
 The Secular motto is, Freedom for all and persecution for none 
 The emotional part of human nature is to the Secularist a reality 
 to be regulated by cultivated reason and to be controlled by 
 disciplined judgment. Where this is the case pleasure will not 
 degeneaate into licentiousness and religion will not be degraded 
 - into fanaticism. 
 
 The affirmation of the proposition under discussion has now 
 been stated. In the remaining two articles which by arrange- 
 ment I am to write, my duty will be to analyse my opponent's 
 objections to Secular philosophy, and in doing so (to use my 
 opponent's words), my object will be " not to raise mere quibbles, 
 
 . . . .but. rather to tear aside the covering of antiquated verbiage 
 with which " the Editor of the Evenirig Mail " has cloaked his 
 views, and to consider these, carefully yet courteously, in all their 
 naked reality." 
 
 THE EDITOR OP THE "EVENING MAIL's " SECOND ARTICLE 
 IN BEPLF TO CHARLES WATTS. 
 
 It will have been made clear to thoughtful readers of the pro- 
 ceeding articles that, stripped of all extraneous matter, the vital 
 tesues at stake in this discussion are those which Mr. Watts has 
 deemed it expedient to avoid as much as possible in his second 
 contribution to the controversy. At the same time, our opponent 
 manifests an altogether undue anxiety to win unmerited prestige 
 by intimating that in calling him forth from the quietude of his 
 sanctum we have succeeded in " raising the Devil." We were 
 very suspicious at the outset, and this second article has only 
 
n 
 
 h !« 
 
 20 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 aerved to confirm the impression, that Mr. Watts is a far less for- 
 midable adversary. For, if the traditions brought down from 
 the olden times may be relied upon as accurate, his satanic 
 tuajesty, though equally clever at begging the question, had 
 nevertheless the courage of his convictions, and was withal ever 
 ready to give a plausible reason for the faith that was in him. 
 
 Without being intentionally offensive, we must confess at the 
 outset that Mr. Watts appears to have coloured the whole reli- 
 Igious, moral and social life of man with the false light of hia 
 own personal prejudices. He appears most apprehensive I st hia 
 free expression of opinion should subject him to religious perse- 
 cution, to moral obloquy or to social ostracism. While sym- 
 pathizing deeply with Mr. Watts, if it has been his misfortune 
 to experience such indignities, we may declare at the outset that 
 for the sincere seeker after truth, no matter where his investi- 
 gations may lead him, we entertain the most profound respect 
 Though educated in the Christian faith, we have the same 
 respect for Francis Newman, whose deep erudition drove him 
 into scepticism, as for bis brother, John Henry Newman, whose 
 equally undoubted conscientiousness and profundity of thought 
 drew him within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 Secularism, as somewhat crudely defined by Mr. Watts, em- 
 braces nothing more than a few arbitrarily selected tenets of our 
 prevailing moral beliefs. Christianity finds the authority and 
 Talidity of its ethical code, and an explanation of the personal 
 obligation of man, his sense of duty, in the existence of a per- 
 sonal and intelligent God, who has a purpose concerning man, in 
 accord with which he has committed to man's care an immortal 
 soul, a personality and consciousness that survive the death of 
 the body. The Christian religion which prescribes these ethical 
 teachings as the direct commands of God, gives a meaning to 
 this sense of duty, of personal obligation, by directly appealing 
 to our fear, our hope, our love, the most potent passions of the 
 human heart Secularism, on the other hand, says Mr. Watti, 
 assumes the attitude of Agnosticism, neither aflBrming nor deny- 
 ing the existence of God nor the immortality of the souL In a 
 word, it declares that there is no evidence for such beliefs; and 
 
DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 21 
 
 .ts is a far less for- 
 •ought down from 
 urate, his satanic 
 the question, had 
 id was withal ever 
 that was in him. 
 lUst confess at the 
 ed the whole reli- 
 e false light of his 
 prehensive i ;.st his 
 to religious perse- 
 ism. While sym- 
 sen his misfortune 
 i at the outset that 
 where his investi- 
 b profound respect 
 ve have the same 
 rudition drove him 
 y Newman, whose 
 'undity of thought 
 olic Church, 
 by Mr. Watts, era- 
 lected tenets of our 
 the authority tind 
 bion of the personal 
 existence of a per- 
 concerning man, in 
 'a care an immortal 
 rvive the death of 
 jcribes these ethical 
 gives a meaning to 
 directly appealing 
 bent passions of the 
 id, says Mr. Watti, 
 aflfirming nor deny 
 jr of the souL In e 
 >r such beliefs ; and 
 
 therefore the moral code which Secularism arbitrarily solecti 
 from the Christian code is by that iitfirmation denied the author- 
 ity for its validity which Christianity finds in the Theistic belief. 
 Secularism Mr. Watts has defined us " embodying a philosophy 
 of life and inculcating rules of conduct which have no necessary 
 association with any system of theology." If we would question 
 the authority of this Secularist code of morals, we are told by 
 Mr. Watts that " the sanctions of and incentives to ethical culture 
 are the protection and improvement both of the individual and 
 of the community," 
 
 So far as morality is concerned, Mr. Watts practically denies 
 the existence of God, at least he would exclude all such consider- 
 ations from the discussion of his fragmentary moral code, and 
 would find in considerations alone affecting the well-beinc of 
 society and of the individual, the meaning and authority of 
 duty which Secularism declines to derive from theolo" ic reliction 
 On first analysis it will be found that the underlying assumption 
 here is that society is constantly improving and approaching 
 perfection; and that this consummation, devoutly to be wished, 
 is sufficient to incite men to live moral lives, purely from a desire 
 to accomplish this end. But Professor Huxley, the leader of this 
 Agnostic school, has himself shown that this theory is wholly 
 inadequate and ineffective. Instead of finding such progress 
 exemplified in history as would incite men to worship humanity, 
 to live for humanity for humanity's sake, the results of his study 
 are declared by himself to have proved unutterably saddening ; 
 and, whatever their real merits may be, his words will doubtless 
 have due weight with Mr. Watts : 
 
 " Out of the darkness of pre-historic ages man emerges with 
 the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a brute, 
 only more intelligent than the other brutes ; a blind prey to im- 
 pulses which, as often as not, lead him to destruction ; a victim 
 to endless illusions which, as often as not, make his mental exist- 
 ence a terror and a burden, and fill his physical life with barren 
 toil and battle. He attains a certain degree of physical comfort, 
 and develops a more or less workable theory of life, in such 
 favourable situations as the plains of Mesopotamia or Egypt, and 
 then, for thousands and thousansd of years, struggles with vary- 
 
(T 
 
 22 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM, 
 
 iiij^ fortunes, attended by intinite wickedness, bloodshed and 
 misery, to maintain himself at this point against the greed and 
 the ambition of his fellow-men. I'e makes a point of killing or 
 otherwise persecuting all those who try to get him to move on, 
 and when he has moved on a step foolishly confers post-mortem 
 deification on- his victims. He exactly repeats the process with 
 all who want to move a step yet further. And the best men of 
 the best epoch are simply those who make the fewest blunders 
 
 and commit the fewest sins [ know of no study so 
 
 unutterably saddening as that of the evolution of humsinity aa 
 it is set forth in the annals of history ; . . . . [and] when the 
 Po.sitivists order men to wor.ship Humai)ity — that is to say, to 
 adore the generaliznl conception of men, as they ever liave been, 
 and probably ever will be — I must reply that I could just as 
 soon bow down and worship the generalized conception of a 
 ' wilderness of apes.' " 
 
 But let us admit that from a scientific study of the histoiy of 
 mankind — in a word, that iVom human experience it has been 
 ascertained that certain lines of condu'*.t must be adhered to in 
 order to conserve the best interests of society as a whole. Society 
 may enact certain laws embodying that code of morals, and affix 
 pains and penalties for their transgression ; yet our conception 
 of the necessity for such laws is very different indeed from our 
 sense of duty, of personal obligation to pursue a certain line of 
 conduct in strict conformity with them. The " must " and the 
 " ought " are nowise identical. Passive obedience to an external 
 law differs altogether from a voluntary and active obedience to 
 a law that is internal. The Secularist fails utterly to give any 
 satisfactory account of duty ; and we make bold to assert that 
 no satisfactory account ever has been found beyond the pale of 
 Theism. 
 
 But before proceeding further we must congratulate Mr. Watts 
 upon having radically improved his Secularist code since the 
 composition of his first article. Benevolence and self-sacrifice 
 have now for the first time in the discussion found a place among 
 the Secularist virtues. The Secularist code is without doubt ap- 
 proaching completeness ! To Mr. Watts some credit is due for 
 having accepted the Christian code as his own, even though his 
 ethical system is deficient in all that energises and ennobles its 
 
 m 
 
DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 !, bloodshed and 
 ist the greed und 
 oint ot Killing or 
 him to move on^ 
 t'ers post-mortem 
 the process with 
 the best men of 
 fewest blunders 
 w of no study so 
 I of humanity as 
 [and] when the 
 that is to say, to 
 y ever liave been, 
 it I could just as 
 conception of a 
 
 of the histoiy of 
 ence it has been 
 be adhered to in 
 a whole. Society 
 morals, and affix 
 t our conception 
 indeed from our 
 a certain line of 
 " must " and the 
 ice to an external 
 tive obedience to 
 terly to give any 
 Did to assert that 
 yond the pale of 
 
 itulate Mr. Watts 
 it code since the 
 and self-sacrifice 
 nd a place among 
 y^ithout doubt ap- 
 credit is due for 
 , even though his 
 i and ennobles its 
 
 prototype. Does Mr. Watts deny that his is, in the main, the 
 Christian code ? We repeat, as an historical fact, that Christian 
 teaching first stamped benevolence and self-sacrifice upon the 
 moral consciousness of the race. It was Christ who first taught 
 that he who loseth his life shall find it, that life should consist 
 not in getting for .self but in doing for others. For the duty of 
 benevolence and self-sacrifice. Secularism has, and can find, no 
 satisfactory explanation. Acting the part of an intellectual 
 Ananias it cloaks itself in the garb of Christian ethics, while 
 dishonestly refusing to pay the only possible price, belief in the 
 existence of God, the moral ruler of the universe. Secularism 
 virtually admits that we ought to do something which many 
 leave undone, and which involves in the doing a painful struggle, 
 amounting even to self-sacrifice to do. We enquire, when and 
 why should we undertake this struggle ? Whenever necessity 
 calls, says Mr. Watts, Which merely amounts to the declaration 
 that when it is necessary that others should be hcppy, it is ne- 
 cessary that I should be miserable. But of this necessity Secu- 
 larism gives no satisfactory explanation ! On the one hand is 
 the way of self-indulgence and of pleasure, on the other the way 
 of pain and struggle, self-sacrifice, yea, even to the death. Though 
 human experience may say that it is necessary for the good of 
 the race that I should follow the path of pain, yet Secularism 
 leaves unexplained the crucial mystery — that I feel that I ought 
 to follow this path, not for the public good so much as for my 
 own good — that though in the struggle I lose my life I shall 
 nevertheless find it again. The mystery of that word " ought " 
 has never yet been fully explained outside the pale of Christen- 
 dom. Secularism, profiting from prevalent Christian teaching 
 may point out what its duties are ; but it fails utterly to create 
 an all-powerful desire to do them. 
 
 And just here it is admissible to revert to a question which Mr. 
 
 Watts propounds : " Did Kant admit that by reason the existence 
 
 of God and the belief in immortality can be demonstrated ? '* 
 
 ; Certainly not. He did not admit that these facts could be de- 
 
 ! monstrated any more than that the law of the uniformity of 
 
 ^ nature can be demonstrated, or than Mr. Watts can demonstrate 
 
fr 
 
 M 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 ''I / 
 
 that his own father onco had an existence. Mr. Watts must 
 know that he cannot, without making a vital assumption, demon- 
 Btrate to me the fact of hia own oxi.stonco. All existence is 
 supernatural ; phenomena, as made known to the consciousness 
 through the senses, is alone natural. What Kant did admit is 
 briefly this ; " My moral nature is such— I possess such a sense 
 of obligation and feel such imperious calls to holiness— that 
 unless there be a God and an immortality of the soul I can find 
 no explanation for it." Nor does such a method of demonstra- 
 tion diffbi- essentially from that pursued by the natural scientist. 
 Prof. Huxley has told us that from the nature of ratiocination 
 it is obvious that it must start from axioms which cannot be 
 demonstrated by ratiocination, and that in science it must start 
 from " one great act of faith " — faith in the uniformity of 
 nature. 
 
 " If there be a physical necessity," says he, " it is that a stone 
 unsupported must fall to the ground. But what is all that we 
 know and can know about this phenomena ? Simply that in all 
 human experience stones have fallen to the ground under these 
 conditions ; that we have not the smallest reason for believing 
 that any stone so circumstanced will not fall to the ground ; and 
 that we have, on the contrary, every reason to believe that it 
 will so fall." 
 
 From the experience of a stone falling we, by " one great act 
 of faith " in the uniformity of nature, a belief that is neither 
 demonstrated nor demonstrable, we reach the law of gravitation, 
 an axiom of natural science. The scientist finds that only by 
 assuming the fact of the uniformity of nature by this " one 
 great act of faith," can the universe of nature be satisfactorily 
 explained. Theologic Religion, to use the pertinent words of 
 W. H. Malock, replies in like manner : •" And I, too, start with 
 faith in one thing. I start with a faith which you, too, profess 
 to hold — faith in the meaning of duty and the infinite import- 
 ance of human life ; and out of that faith my whole fabric of 
 certainties, one after the other, is reared by the hand of reason. 
 Do you ask for verification ? I can give you one only which you 
 may take or leave as you choose. Deny the certainties which 1 
 declare to be certain — deny the existence of God, man's freedom 
 
DEHATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 25 
 
 Mr. Watts must 
 isuinption, demon- 
 All existence is 
 the consciouanefls 
 :(ant did admit ifl 
 sse.ss such a sense 
 to holiness — that 
 he soul I can tind 
 lod of demonstra- 
 ) natural scientist, 
 e of ratiocination 
 I which cannot be 
 ence it must start 
 ie uniformity of 
 
 " it is that a stone 
 ^hat is all that we 
 Simply that in all 
 round under these 
 ason for believing 
 lO the ground ; and 
 , to believe that it 
 
 by " one great act 
 ief that is neither 
 law of gravitation, 
 finds that only by 
 iure by thi.s " one 
 re be satisfactorily 
 ertinent words of 
 d I, too, start with 
 h you, too, profes,s 
 ,he intinite impert- 
 iiy whole fabric ot' 
 he hand of reason, 
 jne only which you 
 certainties which I 
 Jod, man's freedom 
 
 4 J 
 
 ftfid immortality, and by no other conceivable hypothesis can you 
 vindicate for man's life any possible meaning, or save it from the 
 degradation at which you profess to feel so aghast." There is 
 no other way by which the dignity of life may be vindicated ! 
 Our beliefs in the existence of Qod and in the immortality of 
 the soul are facts ascertained by the same method and accepted 
 for the same necessary reasons, and by an act of faith, in like 
 manner as the law of the uniformity of nature is a,scertained 
 anrl accepted. 
 
 If Secularism accepts the teachings of natural science, it is only 
 by exercising Huxley's " great act of faith." This Christian law 
 of self-sacrifice which SeculaVism enjoins, finds its validity and 
 authority only in a similar act of faith. Does not all meta- 
 physics serve to show that the belief in the existence of nature, 
 ||as well as in our own existence, rests on a similar act of faith ? 
 ' In fact, no less profound a philosopher than Berkeley has said : 
 " I see God as truly as I see my neighbour." What I know 
 ifi that I have certain sensations which I call sights and sounds. 
 What I infer or reason is the existence of a being— my neigh- 
 bour. In fact, does not that very act of reason rest upon the 
 assumption, an ultimate unreasoned fact, of the existence of niy- 
 self ? It is precisely here in self-consciousness, that Descartes, 
 Sir William Hamilton, Jacobi, and others, have found the 
 fulcrum for the demonstration of the divine existence. In like 
 manner by faith alone we choose the right and .shun the wrong. 
 I see that A is higher and better than B, and has the right to 
 me ; and I surrender myself to it in reverential obedience, 
 though no science proves it, or no expediency makes it a duty 
 to me. By faith alone Mr. Watts accepts the teachings of 
 natural science. By fuith alone can he accept the Chri.stiau law 
 of self-sacrifice. What we demand to know now is, by what 
 authority and on what evidence Mr. Watts would thus determine 
 ftnd limit the bounds of faith to science and to Secularist 
 toiorality ? 
 
 To Mr. Watts' general description of the needs of mankind 
 We are not disposed to take special exception. Man's physical 
 tieeds no doubt find their satisfaction in food, drink, sleep, exer- 
 
I,!' 
 
 26 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 ci8e, etc. Man's intellectual needs find their satisfaction in 
 science, that is, knowledge in its widest signification. Man's 
 aesthetic needs find their satisfaction in art. Man's social and 
 political needs find their satisfaction in the family, in society, 
 and in the state. Man's moral needs find satisfaction in right 
 living. Man's religious needs are satisfied by religion. But the 
 significant fact is that Secularism, which has proposed to satisfy 
 all the needs of mankind, finds no place in Mr. Watts' category. 
 In our opinion the omission is clearly vindicated by the fact that 
 Secularism, as a distinct form of science, or as a distinct faith, 
 has no proper place, either in the economy of knowledge or in 
 the economy of religion. To declare that Secularism can satisfy 
 our religious aspirations, and gratify our religious emotions, is 
 an obvious disregard for the meaning of the terms. A man's 
 clothes may remain after his body has mouldered away, but 
 religious emotions, apart from a belief in God, are but the shrouds 
 of a ghost. The laws of heredity may transmit them to the 
 second or third generation, yet, except their object be revived, 
 their ultimate extinction is inevitable. But are we to understand 
 that Mr. Watts would substitute Secularism fortheologic religion? 
 With equal authority and no less presumption would another 
 substitute sensuality for science. For a truth, our intellectual 
 needs require for their satisfaction the focussing of the results of 
 all science, of all knowledge. Such satisfaction theologic religion 
 supplies in the conception of God. This is the ultimate intellec- 
 tual principle as the law of gravitation is the ultimate physical 
 principle. Secularism accepts the latter, but it utterly destroys 
 its usefulness in rejecting the first. 
 
 MR. watts' third ARTICLE. 
 
 In my last article, being anxious to give my reasons for affirruing 
 the latter clause of the proposition in debate, I was necessitated 
 through the limited space at my disposal to omit a reply to many 
 of the criticisms ofiered by the Editor of the Evening Mail in 
 his first article. The reader is particularly requested to again 
 
I 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 27 
 
 ir satisfaction va 
 nification. Man's 
 
 Man's social and 
 'amily, in society, 
 tisfaction in right 
 religion. But the 
 Toposed to satisfy 
 . Watts' category, 
 d by the fact that 
 s a distinct faith, 
 
 knowledge or in 
 larism can satisfy 
 ?ious emotions, is 
 
 terms. A man's 
 Idered away, but 
 •e but the shrouds 
 mit them to the 
 ibject be revived, 
 we to understand 
 iheologic religion? 
 n would another 
 I, our intellectual 
 J of the results of 
 theologic religion 
 ultimate intellec- 
 altimate physical 
 I utterly destroys 
 
 ions for affirruing 
 was necessitated 
 1 a reply to many 
 livening Mail in 
 :iuested to again 
 
 r^ad that article and then note my answer here given. For the 
 sake of brevity the paragraphs containing the criticisms will be 
 taken in order. First, as to what my opponent has said upon 
 Secular principles : — 
 
 1. Herein there is no " assumption," but a dennite declaraticm 
 '• that the present life is the only one of which we have any 
 knowledge." If my opponent possess a knowledge of another 
 life, I shall be glad to ascertain what it is. The existence of 
 belief upon this subject is not denied ; but many persons are un- 
 able to discover sufficient evidence to justify their acceptance of 
 such belief. If to some individuals the doctrine of immortality 
 appears true. Secularism does not interfere with their convictions. 
 The " validity " of our claim that the "concerns of this life" 
 should command " our earnest attention " consists in the fact 
 that its duties are known and their results are apparent in this 
 world ; whereas, if there be a future existence, its duties and 
 results can only be understood in a " world that is to come." 
 Our " obligation " to live is derived from the fact, that being here 
 and 1 eing recipients of certain advantages from society, we deem 
 it a duty to repay by life-service the benefits thus received. To 
 avoid this obligation either by self-destruction, or by any other 
 means, except driven to such a course by " irresistible forces," 
 would be, in our opinion, cowardly and unjustifiable. 
 
 2. It is true that " reason alone is not the sole basis " of the 
 Secularist's guide ; hence, we avail ourselves of the aid of experi- 
 ence allied with moral and intellectual culture. The " evidence " 
 tiiat these constitute, although not a perfect guide, the best 
 known to us, is shown in the absence of a better one. If my op- 
 ponent is aware of a guide that is superior to the one we offer, 
 let him mention it, but until he does we are justified in claiming 
 fliurs as the " best." 
 
 3. By " duty " we mean an obligation to perform actions that 
 liave a tendency to promote the welfare of others, as well as that 
 <^ ourselves. The phrase " self-imposed duties " is not mine. 
 (|bligations are imposed upon us by the very nature of things 
 liid the requirements of society. 
 
 I 4. Secular principles nowhere teach that " knowledge and 
 
 I 
 
Hi- 
 
 ss 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 justice are alone sufficient " to secure the well-being of the indi- 
 yidual and society. I have never made such an assertion either 
 in this or in any other debate. Certainly, benevolence and 
 self-sacrifice are, as Secularism teaches, sometimes " essentials " 
 in the battle of life. 
 
 6. The " validity " of this principle appears to me to be ex- 
 ceedingly clear, in the fact that actions which conduce to general 
 and personal improvement must be a benefit to the human race. 
 All modern legislation that is approved by the general public is 
 based upon the usefulness of actions. Even Christ is said in the 
 New Testament to have taught a similar principle. [See Matt. 
 7 : 16-20 : 25 : 34-40 ; 1 Tim. 1 : 8.] To borrow an idea from 
 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, that which is good both for the 
 swarm and for the bee must be of reasonable service to the com- 
 munity, and, inasmuch as the fifth Secular principle inculcates 
 such service, it is " based on reason." 
 
 6, No doubt it depends upon " the nature of rhe man " as to 
 how far scientific appliances " are complete and satisfactory." 
 This is one reason why Secularists recognise the necessity of 
 moral and intellectual cultivation. It enables individuals the 
 better to receive the application of science. Secularism does not 
 by any means recommend the regulation of life by " Hottentot 
 morality," with which science has little or nothing to do. The 
 Hottentot is a specimen of the influence of some other " Provi- 
 dence " than that of science. 
 
 So much for my opponent's criticism of Secular principles. 
 Now, as to his comments upon our teachings in the same article. 
 
 1. The Secular " obligation to speak the truth " is obtained 
 from experience, which teaches that lying and deceit tend to 
 destroy that confidence between man and man which has been 
 found to be necessary to maintain the stability of niutual socie- 
 tarian intercourse. It would indeed " surprise " me to find that 
 the same reason makes it an " obligation to believe in the exist- 
 ence of God." Truth fortunately is not the monopoly of Theism. 
 
 2. If it could be shown that Secular teachings were " not new 
 to Christian morality/' it would not thereby invalidate their 
 force from a Secular standpoint. It should be remembered that 
 
DEBATE UN SECULARISM, 
 
 29 
 
 being of the indi- 
 
 m assertion either 
 
 benevolence and 
 
 limes "essentials" 
 
 fs to me to be ex- 
 Bonduce to general 
 o the human race. 
 3 general public is 
 hrist is said in the 
 iciple. [See Matt, 
 row an idea from 
 ;ood both for the 
 lervice to the com- 
 rinciple inculcates 
 
 >f f lie man " as to 
 and satisfactory." 
 5 the necessity of 
 es individuals the 
 jcularism does not 
 ife by " Hottentot 
 •thing to do. The 
 ame other " Provi- 
 
 3ecular principles, 
 n the same article, 
 truth " is obtained 
 ad deceit tend to 
 in which has been 
 y of mutual socie- 
 ) " me to find that 
 }lieve in the exist- 
 nopoly of Theism, 
 gs were " not new 
 7 invalidate their 
 e remembered that 
 
 Secularism is eclectic, and selects from many sources whatever is 
 good or useful. The truth i.s, however, that Secular teachings 
 numbered four, five, six, eight and ten are not only " new to 
 
 ^ Christianity," but they are the very opposite to what is taught 
 
 ^ by orthodox Christians. 
 
 3. Of course it may be " disputed that actions are of more 
 consequence than beliefs ; " but to dispute a fact does not neces- 
 sarily destroy it. While " beliefs may be the ultimate source of 
 actions," it is the actions, nevertheless, that affect society. 
 
 4. True, the proverb that " prevention is better than cure " is 
 no " Secular novelty." Secularism adopts that which experience 
 has proved to be useful rather than that which is novel. 
 
 5. If persecution " is not now upheld in this free country," it 
 is because the Secular tendencies of the age will not permit it. 
 Where the Church has the power, even now, it practises perse- 
 ■cution, as my opponent would speedily discover were he a 
 H^ecular propagandist. If he has any doubt upon this point, 
 numerous instances can be given him where unbelievers in 
 •Christianity in this " free country " have had to encounter a 
 variety of petty acts of persecution in consequence of their hold- 
 ing heretical opinions. Not long since in Halifax, where my 
 •opponent resides, efforts were made by the Christian party to 
 prevent me having a hall to lecture in. 
 
 6. I admit that " thought is natural," but again I ask for evi- 
 -dence that the " thinker is supernatural." Why does my opponent 
 remain silent upon this point, introduced by himself ? 
 
 7. Exception is taken to my phrase, " law of mental science," 
 but my opponent admits the very point for which I contend in 
 this matter. He says experience teaches " that men think dif- 
 ferently about the same thing." Exactly, and from the same 
 monitor, assisted by the process of reasoning, we learn that uni- 
 formity of opinion is impossible, and why it is so, and this con- 
 stitutes a part of " mental science." The philosophy of Secularism 
 jjomeH in here and says all honest and intelligent opinions 
 phould be welcomed a-i an advantage, and no penalty for unbelief 
 iphould be inflicted either in this or in any other world. 
 
 b. It is misleading to assert, as my opponent does, that, accord. 
 
mm 
 
 
 80 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 ing to Methodist morality, " the end of life " is human improve- 
 ment. Methodism goes farther than this and teaches that the 
 true object of life is to secure the belief in and hope of a future 
 life of blissful immortality. It also inculcates that mundane 
 affairs are only to be regarded as being of secondary importance. 
 For such teachings the Methodists have the sanction of the New 
 Testament. [See Matt. 6 : 19-25, 31-34 ; 16 : 26 ; Co!. 3:2:1 
 John 2 : 15.] 
 
 9. In the application of the eclectic process to existing systems 
 of moraJity, " Mr. Watts' dilemma " is not apparent. Ee does 
 " accept in part a system of morality which all [many] accept." 
 The validity of such selection is found in its usefulness, while 
 the invalidity of the portions b« rejects is discovered in their 
 uselessness, and in some instances their positively injurious 
 character for the practical purposes of life. 
 
 10. Mr. Watts does not " refuse to think " of the problems of 
 the existence of God and a future state. He has thought cf 
 these subjects seriously and impartially for nearly forty years, 
 and as a result he has come to the conclusion that the Secular 
 position in reference to both questions is the logical one. Being 
 unable to inform, Secularism does refuse to dogmatise upon 
 matters in reference to which it can impart no information, and 
 for the same reason as my opponent's " savage " would " refuse " 
 to inform us of the moral principle, namely, that he knows 
 nothing about it, although the said savage belongs to a race said 
 to have been created " in the image of God." The position of the 
 Secularist here is that of the Agnostic : he neither affirms nor 
 denies, and in not denying the Secularist remains open to con- 
 viction, being ever ready to receive whatever evidence may be 
 forthcoming. In the meantime, if there be a God of love and of 
 justice, and a desirable immortality. Secularism prescribes such a 
 course of action during life as should win the approval of the 
 one and secure the advantages )f the other. 
 
 We now come to the consideration of the last article by the 
 editor of the Evening Mail, and without " being intentionally 
 offensive," I " must confess " that, as a controversial document it 
 is exceedingly defective, being very assertive and, in many in- 
 
 won. 
 
DEBATE ON SEOULAUISM. 
 
 31 
 
 3 human improve- 
 teaches that the 
 i hope of a future 
 63 that mundane 
 odary importance, 
 action of the New 
 26 ; Col. 3 : 2 ; 1 
 
 existing systems 
 parent. Ke does 
 11 [many] accept." 
 usefulness, while 
 iscovered in their 
 sitively injurious 
 
 P the problems of 
 e has thought cf 
 early forty years, 
 that the Secular 
 gical one. Being 
 dogmatise upon 
 information, and 
 • would " refuse " 
 , that he knows 
 agn to a race said 
 le position of the 
 ither aflSrms nor 
 lins open to con- 
 evidence may be 
 od of love and of 
 prescribes such a 
 approval of the 
 
 st article by the 
 ing intentionally 
 rsial document it 
 id, in many in> 
 
 Btaiiries, irrelevant to the proposition under discussion. I was 
 " very suspicious at the outset " that in his opposition to Secu- 
 larism my opponent would not prove a '-'' formidable adversary," 
 and his " second article has only served to con^rm the impres- 
 i#iou." It is rather diflScult to decide which is the more conspicu- 
 ous in his " reply," his sins of omission or those of commission. 
 
 The attentive readers of tliis debate are requested to note the 
 persistent silence of my opponent in reference to most of the 
 questions put to him in my last article. The questions there, 
 submitted involved " the vital issues at stake in this discussion," 
 and yet he has avoided noticing nearly the whole of them. Has 
 he discovered that silence is the better part of valour ? In my 
 previous article, paragraph four, proof was requested of the 
 assertion that I had misrepresented Secularism, and that its 
 teachings difi'ered from its principles ; a definition was also soli- 
 cited of the term " mind ;" in the sixth paragraph, nine import- 
 ant questions were submitted ; and in paragraph seven, proof was 
 g;iven of the validity of Secular principles. To all these, with 
 two exceptions, be it observed, ray opponent has not even at- 
 tempted a reply. 
 
 Instead of grappling with " the vital issues at stake," what 
 has my opponent done ? After a misapplication of the incident 
 of " raising the Devil," and a few, probably unintentional, mis- 
 representations, he indulges in some well-known Theistic and 
 Christian platitudes, which by his own request should have been 
 excluded from this debate. As to the jest of " raising the Devil," 
 if my opponent will again read my application of the story, he 
 may see that the monarch of the lower regions was not induced 
 to appear through my being called from my sanctum, but in con- 
 sequence of the force of the definitions that were presented at 
 the command of my antagonist. This slight correction, to use a 
 kumorous phrase, " plays the devil " with what no doubt was 
 intended by my opponent to be a harmless joke. True, I am a 
 •* lees formidable adversary " than his " Satanic Majesty," for " if 
 the traditions brought down from the olden times may be relied 
 lipon as accurate," that gentleman would have soon settled the 
 Editor of the Mail, by giving him a warm reception in apart- 
 
82 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 ments Where he would have had no opportunity for cool reflection 
 Sfest'ed''""''' ^^ ^^^ ""^"^^ ^""^ *^^ shortcomings that he had 
 But, to be serious. Will my opponent name what " extraneous 
 matter has been introduced into this debate upon my part, and 
 wherem I have " deemed it expedient to avoid'as mu^ch a. pos- 
 8 ble the "issues at stake." Will he also state in what part of 
 my last article I appeared apprehensive lest my free expression 
 
 . of opinion should subject me " to religious persecution." etc. ? It 
 must be repeated that proof, not mere groundless assertion, is 
 required m debate. Perhaps, when my antagonist penned th e 
 allegations, he was not quite free from the influence of the "arch 
 
 deceiver. 
 
 nnJM^fl ^ r-^^^^f *^** "^y °PP"°^^*' ^° ^^ 1^* article, did 
 not confine himself to Secularism, as he agreed to do. In hia 
 
 original challenge to debate with me he wrote : "Secularism, and 
 
 not Christianity, is on trial before the bar of public opinion and 
 
 t IS obviuosly out of place to introduce irrelevant discussions of 
 
 6 h"l889^ irVl ^^"^^*--^^'" «*- livening MailMy 
 of fr'onfi?'^ .t^""^ ^" interesting to leam why this chan^ 
 of front has token place. Let it be distinctly understood that^ 
 have not the slightest objection to discuss the irrelevant matL 
 that has been introduced by my opponent, at the proper tiiT 
 At present my business is to show the reasonableness and suffix 
 cency of Secularism. When this debate is finished I shal ^ 
 ready to do my best to demonstrato that Christianity is th<«! 
 oughly unreasonable and quite inadequate to meet the model 
 needs of mankind; also that Agnosticism is preferable toCW 
 lan Theism. If my opponent, or any of his representat^ 
 colleagues, will accept an invitation to discuss these two ^Z 
 ^ons either orally or in writing. I am at their service. Notli^ 
 would be more easy m such a debate, than for one to prove t^ 
 completo fallacy of the supposed validity of the Christian's 
 ethicaJ code that the obligation of man and his senToiZy 
 find an explanation m the "direct commands of God " and th« 
 very reckless statement that " Christian teaching first stamped 
 oenevolence and self-sacrifice upon the moral consciousness of ?^ 
 
iJEIJATE (tN SECULARISM. 
 
 33 
 
 race." There is not a particle of truth in tliese wild assertions, 
 and to me it is marvellous how any man of intelligence could 
 entertain such palpable delusions. 
 
 My opponent snys that Secularism teaches that, because society 
 is constantly improving, " this is sufficient to incite men to live 
 moral lives." Secularism enjoins more than this, namely, that 
 during the process of improvement truth, justice, love, and ethi- 
 cal purity should adorn men's lives. Such nobility of character 
 would enable us to make the best of this life, and at the same 
 time to secure the felicity of a future life if there be one. 
 
 I perfectly agree with the point that Prof. Huxley enforces in 
 the extract given by my opponent. What the Professor says is 
 no argument against Secularism, but it rather tells against 
 Theism. Furthermore, the Professor contends in his works,— 
 his " Lay Sermons," for instance,— that during the progress of 
 the human race theology and orthodox teachings have been a 
 mighty obstacle to its onward career. 
 
 I have already given the Secularist's account of duty, and 
 when my opponent asserts " that no satisfactory account ever has 
 been found beyond the pale of Theism," he repeats an orthodox 
 error which hus been discarded long since by the leaders of 
 modern thought. Duty involves morality, and it has been ad- 
 mitted again and again, even by eminent Christians, that the 
 moral actions of a man do not necessarily depend on his belief in 
 God. Atheists have been and are as good and useful members 
 of societ" as Theists. Jeremy Taylor, Blair, Hooker, and Chal- 
 mers have all admitted that it is possible for a man to be. moral 
 independently of any religious belief ; and the Bishop of Here- 
 ford, in his Bampton Lectures, says : " The principles of morality 
 are founded in our nature independently of any religious belief, 
 Vid are, in fact, obligatory even upon the Atheist." 
 
 As to the word " ought." The only explanation orthodox 
 Christianity gives to this term is pure selfishness. It says you 
 " ought " to do so and so for " Christ's sake," that througli him 
 you may avoid eternal perdition. On the other hand. Secularism 
 finds the meaning of "ought" in the very nature of things, as 
 kivulvinw duty, and implying that something is due to others. 
 
34 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 As Mr. J. M. Savage aptly puts it : " Man oughc-what ?-onghfc 
 to tuIHl the highest possibility of his being ; ought to be a man • 
 ought to be all and the highest that being a man implies. Why ? 
 That IS his nature. He ought to fulfil the highest possibilities 
 ot his being; ought not simply to be an animal. Why ? Because 
 there is something in him more than an animal. He ought not 
 simply to be a brain, a thinking machine, although he ought to 
 be that. Why 1 Because that does not exhaust the possibilities 
 •of his nature : he is capable of being something more, something 
 higher than a brain. W, say he ought to be a moral being. 
 Why ? Because it is living out Lis nature to be a moral being. 
 He ought to live as high, grand, and complete a life as it is pos- 
 sible for him to live, and he ought to stand in such relation to 
 his fellow-men that he shali aid them in doing the same. Why ? 
 Just the same as in all these other cases : because this and this 
 only is developing the full and complete stature of a man, and 
 he is not a man in the highest, truest, deepest sense of the word 
 until he is that and does that ; he • ^ only a fragment of a man 
 so long as he is less and lower." 
 
 Of course Secularists accept the " one great act of faith," 
 because experience teaches the nece.ssity of such. There is, how- 
 ever, this great difference between Secular and theologic faith, 
 the one is based upon experience and the other on conjecture', 
 the one upon what we know and the other upon what we 
 surmise. Secularism accepts the first for the reason that it has 
 an experimental basis for its " authority " and utilitarian " evi- 
 dence " as to its results. 
 
 From a Secularistic standpoint sensuality could not be substi- 
 tuted for science " with equal authority " that Secularism could 
 be put in the place of theologic religion. Sensuality encourages 
 the lowest of human passions which are injurious to society, 
 while Secularism fosters the noblest aspirations of our nature,' 
 which are beneficial to the general good of all. 
 
 My opponent's objections to Secularism have now been 
 answered, and an invitation has been tendered him to discuss his 
 system based on Christianity and Theism. It remains for him 
 
DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 Si 
 
 to accept or to refuse the opportunity now offered him to defend 
 his fnith, as I have endeavoured to defend mine. 
 
 TAB EDITOR OF THE "EVENING MAIL's" THIRD AND LAST 
 REPLY TO CHARLES WATTS. 
 
 AMhovigh the Evc/ning Mdit had considered this debate at an 
 end in view of Mr. Watts* delay in replying to our last article 
 (Sept. 6th) it is nevertheless with pleasure that we publish his 
 reply at this late date, more especially as we are personally 
 assured that the delay on his part was owing to unavoidable 
 circumstances. 
 
 In the limited space at our disposal it would not be possible 
 and probably not profitable, to follow out every side issue that 
 may perchance have been raised during this discussion, though 
 we will endeavor to pay due attention to those of Mr. Watts' 
 arguments which are not altogether irrelevant to the vital ques- 
 tion : Is Secularism sufficient to satisfy the needs of mankind ? 
 Mr. G. J. Holyoake is (juoted by Mr. Watts in his second article 
 as saying : 
 
 "It is asked will Secularism meet all the wants of human nature. 
 To this we reply, every system meets the wants of those wlio believe in 
 it, else it would never exist. . . . We have no wants and wish to 
 have none which truth will not satisfy." 
 
 But this is merely reasoning in a circle in the first instance 
 and begging the question in the second. When Secularism is 
 boldly offered to the Christian world as a substitute for preva- 
 lent religious beliefs, with the express declaration that "Secular- 
 ism is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind," it is an obvious 
 . avoidance of the issue to meet the doubting enquirer with an 
 illogical argument such as this : 
 Every system meets the wants of those who believe in it, else it 
 
 would not exist. 
 Secularism is an existing system. 
 Therefore Secularism is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind 
 
36 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULAIUSM. 
 
 This is obviously a non Heqwitur. It would be quite as con- 
 clusive to assert that : 
 Buddhism is an existing system. 
 
 Therefore Buddhism is sufficient to meet the needs of man- 
 kind. 
 
 Or to syllogise thus : 
 Every system meets the wants of those who believe in it. 
 Die Schopenhauerische Philosophio is a system. 
 Therefore Schopenhauer's pessimism is sufficient to meet the 
 needs of mankind. 
 In the second instance, the reasoning of my Secularist friend 
 is equally inconclusive, involving as it Hoes a glaring petitio 
 principii such as this : 
 Truth will satisfy all the wants (needs?) which we have in the 
 
 present or wish to have in the future. 
 Secularism is Truth. 
 Therefore Secularism will satisfy all our needs. 
 
 Yet it is obvious at a glance that right here Messrs. Holyoake 
 and Watts make the unwarranted assumption that Secularism is 
 Truth— the very point at issue. For what we demand to know 
 at the outset is, by what criterion can the Secularist discriminate 
 between the true and the false, in order that we, by this same 
 standard, may measure the truth or the falsity of Secularist prin- 
 ciples and teachings ? 
 
 Again, when pressed on this point. Mr. Watts replies in his 
 second article : 
 
 "I am requested to establish the validity of Secular principles 
 and teachings. Does not uiy opponent see that such validity consists 
 in the necessity and adaptability of Secularism to human needs ? In 
 the second paragraph of my opening article I mentioned one fact to 
 prove the necessity of Secular philosophy, namely, inasmuch as moral 
 conduct is indispensable to the well-being of society, Secularism has 
 been found necessary to enable those persons who could not accept 
 orthodox Christianity as a guide in mundane affairs to find elsewhere 
 principles to direct and sustain them in the correct peri'ormance of 
 their respective duties. Upon this point my opponent has hitherto 
 remained silent." 
 
 Or; 
 
 .jatJfl8liauia.*Lu^uyjM 
 
DKHATE ON .SECULARISM. 
 
 87 
 
 lite a.s con- 
 
 3 of man- 
 
 1 it. 
 
 meet the 
 
 rist friend 
 ng petitio 
 
 Lve in the 
 
 Holy oak e 
 iilarism is 
 to know 
 criminate 
 ;his same 
 rist prin- 
 
 es in his 
 
 principles 
 y consists 
 aeds ? In 
 le fact to 
 as moral 
 irism has 
 ot accept 
 elsewhere 
 mance of 
 ! hitherta 
 
 This reasoning is far from conclusive. The argument em- 
 ployed by Mr. Watts resolves itself into a syllogism such as th« 
 
 following : 
 
 Moral conduct is indispensable to the well-being of society. 
 
 Orth'>dox Christianity cannot be accepted by a society of Secu- 
 larists, so-called, as a moral guide to direct and sustain them 
 in the correct discharge of their duties— i. e. in moral con- 
 duct. 
 
 Therefore the teachings and principles of Secularism are sutti- 
 
 cient to satisfy all human needs. 
 Or : Therefore orthodox Christianity .should forswear its beliefs 
 
 and accept Secularism as a guide to moral conduct. 
 The Secularist argument might also be stated thus : 
 A body, caiod Secularists, have accepted certain principles and 
 
 teachings as their guide to all moral conduct. 
 Moral conduct is indispensable to the well-being of society. 
 Therefore, all members of society should embrace the Secularist 
 
 guide. 
 
 So, we repeat, with equal authority and no less presumption, 
 might a South African native contend that Hottentot modes of 
 life and Hottentot morality are sufficient to satisfy the needs of 
 this nineteenth century civilisation. 
 
 Now, we desire it to be clearly understood that we do not seek 
 to disparage the motives of any body of men who, finding that 
 they can no longer accept Christianity and its doctrinal teach- 
 ings, and yet conscious that "moral conduct is indispensable to 
 the well-being of society," resolve, after due consideration, to 
 place before themselves certain "principles to direct and sustain 
 in the correct performance of their respective duties." In one of 
 his early discourses with Charles Bradlaugh, Mr. Holyoake, to 
 whom Secularism owes its name, admits that he was not unin- 
 fluenced by such considerations of expediency in formulating the 
 Secularist principles and teachings. He said : 
 
 " They were principles which we had acquired by the slow accretion 
 of controversy, by contesting for them from platform to platform all 
 over the country ; and, when they were drawn up, I submitted them 
 
 I 
 
SR 
 
 DKIIATE ON SECIJLAUIHM. 
 
 n.eu , wo had made, «uoh a statement of Secular prh.cipIeH as were 
 worthy o Htand as seif.dofe.>sive pri,.ciph. of the worki„rc Ls ala ' 
 ndependent mode of opinion which would no longer in !h ul „ 
 
 ^.:^::?n,iri''« ^""r "^"''^" ^"" 4.onsiuiii:'7: 
 fflt;:.:ert:;,tit-'^'^''"'''"'' '''-'' ^'-'^ ^^-^^^^^ ^'-^-p- 
 
 ThiH desire to protect the working claBses against the dire 
 onsequences that too often issue from a rash espLal of Agls 
 
 correct n ^^ ^ "f""^ ^""''P^^^ ^°^ *^^>^ ^'"'d^"«« in the 
 correct per orniance of certain duties, was without doubt a 
 
 commendable one. And so long as the Secularists condne their 
 
 energies to constructive ertbrts of this nature, we heartily wish 
 
 them "God speed!" Though their methods may be 1 ss effi 
 
 effor? r'^"'"P^°^^' by Christian philantlfropistrthet 
 • efforts m this direction will, though their sphere is circLscr bed 
 no doubt conserve the interests of moixlijy. But when w th a' 
 presumption that is not born of kn<,wledge anld'scret on 
 Secularism impudently declares that its trite' eachingt which 
 were arbitrarily selected ami arranged at . particular critto 
 administer, even though inado,uately. to the needs of a iLnited 
 class who had been seduced from their early faith-aeuf 
 
 neTd:vr:hot' 1 ^"^''^^'"^'' '"°^^' -"^^°- -^ ^^ 
 
 needs ot the ^hole human race, we may be pardoned if we find 
 ourselves unable to treat so preposterous a proposition with be 
 coming seriousness. ^ ^® 
 
 However upon examination of the ten teachings of Secularism 
 
 which Mr. Watts has kindly outlined for us in his firTar ' ' 
 
 .we were forced to conclude that they were, of t ': "f 
 
 shgh importance to this controversy, inasmuch as they onLn 
 
 very l.tt e that is new to Christian morality, and were chi flv 
 
 ^ore or less crudely expressed tenets of an ethical systl which 
 
 whcrrit ' '•" ""•^■f '^^^' *^^ ^*^-*^- world, aL to 
 which beculansm can make no special claim. To invalidate 
 
DEIUTE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 89 
 
 lanitely for- 
 iii hit* jiidg- 
 les as were 
 cliiSH, (la an 
 ve tliom ill 
 itiou of an 
 the purpose 
 
 i the dire 
 of Agnos- 
 rmulate a 
 nee in the 
 
 doubt a 
 itino their 
 •tily wish 
 
 less eflS- 
 iats, their 
 inscribed, 
 in with a 
 iscretion, 
 I — which 
 crisis, to 
 . limited 
 •are suf- 
 lesthetic 
 
 we find 
 with be- 
 
 ularism 
 ; article 
 jlves, of 
 contain 
 chiefly 
 I which 
 and to 
 alidate 
 
 this argumont, and, ostensibly, to show that Seculaiisni is a 
 more excellent syhtem, Mr. Watts retorts that the following tive 
 Secularist teachings are not only new to Christianity but the 
 very opposite of what is taught by orthodox (Christiana: 
 
 '•4. That the beat moans oi securing this improvement (i. e. rondci- 
 ing depraved conditions impossible) are aelf-reliimce, niorid culture, 
 physical development, intellectual .discipline, .wn wuatkvku ki.sk is 
 FOUND NKCKSSAKV TO SKcuitK TUis oiUKCT provided OUT actions do not 
 unjustly and unnecessarily infringe upon the rights of others." 
 
 (NoTK. — Tii« capitals are ours.) 
 
 "5. That the disbelief in Christian! y, or in other systems of the- 
 ology, may he as much a matter of honest conviction as the belief in 
 
 it or them." 
 
 "(). That persecution for disbelieving any or all the doctrines of 
 theology is a crime against socinl and an insult to mental freedom." 
 
 "8, That a well spent life, ciuiDEU .\nd contuollko hy tuk iikjukst 
 P08SI11LK MOUALITY, is the best, preparation for a safe and happy 
 death." 
 
 (Note. — The capital: aie ours.) 
 
 " 10. That from h rlomestic standpoint there should be no attempt 
 »t superiority bet ^^ con husband and wife ; that equality shouhl he the 
 emblem of ever\ home ; and that the fireside should be hallowed by 
 mutual fidelit , atfection, happiness and the setting of an example 
 worthy of children's emulation." 
 
 "Th. truth is," says Mr. Watts, "that Secular teachings 
 numbered four, tive, six, eight and ten ar»." not only new to 
 Christianity, but that they are the very oppo.site to what is 
 taught by orthodox Christians." Mr. Watts' statement is worthy 
 of a denial as emphatic as can courteously be conveyed in the 
 language of debate. With regard to the lOth teaching of Secu- 
 larism it is only nect.ssary to refer to I Cor. 7 : o-4 ; Eph. 5: 
 22-38; Col. 3 : 18-19 ; Titus 2 : 4-5 ; 1 Peter 3. And if there is 
 found to be any discrepancy between the teachings of Mr. 
 Watts and those of Paul, we are disposed to accept the apostle's, 
 even on the ground of utility solely. With regard to the 8th 
 teaching, we need only to say that Christ taught the highest 
 
40 
 
 HEUATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 rnorality. With regard to the 6th, that Christ never counten- 
 anced persecution, except to turn the other »heek when «r«t 
 
 aie not only taught, but repentance and forgiveness for nast 
 .ms, and pureness of heart and holiness of ik are n u ca'ted 
 h} the Christian, and accredited by personal experience 7s th« 
 
 ;:li''''T:^ t^' '' "^^"'^^^"' depraved rd^L: it 
 
 But it i. nl! .'P'*'''^- . .^'^"■'^<^ *^^-Sht no "system of theology." 
 fhe 1 tet: ^,'; .P^f ^'^-b«'-*• in the cardinal doctrinf'of 
 int txi.tence of God, for instance, can never be a matter of 
 honest conviction. Even thouHi .mh.i,- f ^ "^ """"^^^^ °* 
 
 eases be iustifipd .Slu ^ ""hehef may, m exceptional 
 
 belief ihlt H n ^ ^' "" ^^"""^^ ^^^ P^^^tive dis- 
 
 proof .;;f/'' .•'V^ "^^«^ i« - "«.-ative that is Lapable of 
 proof. The verdict may be that the existence of a Cod ,-« nnf 
 proven; it can never be that it is dispro " Even Mr hI 
 
 Idiirt d^^^R?- ""''''•'' '''^' '^'^ ^-- - a ^'is^^t 
 iius aamitted (Keasoner xi.. 15 2,S9Whaf ".:„„.• • ,. . 
 
 «nUe .„„„,ed,e as to the JnYol'li,; J-^^tZ 
 mmd ™ay be reduced to the dreary condition of 'Z T'^", 
 
 And furthermore it is elear th!f 1 , '" convietion. 
 
 eo::^':™rct;s:irrf::rd^;r;H"'"^^^^ 
 
 eo ever/rrd^:':,"^:!:;^::; ™t ■: -..appear „ thin,, 
 claim that its principles are npw f ' n. 7 ^ Secularist 
 
 Christian toain, ^:^;zi^^:r:::!:;^^z^ " 
 
 tion that disbelief may be an hnn^.f f- ^ afBrma- 
 
 «. the part of S^u Js^^I^s^re^ituC-'^r™: 
 
DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 41 
 
 then is the proposition that Secularism makes to Christianity. 
 * It i our peculiar glory that we admit to our fold aU who deny 
 the existence of God. Do ye then forswear Chnstmn y. for^ 
 swear your positive belief in God, and become partakers with 
 Atht sts of Lis glory of unbelief !" And to make his meaning 
 dea b yond all possibility of doubt, Mr. Watts has closed hiB 
 SarUcle with the bald, bold affirmation that Chris.anily is 
 quite inadequate to meet the nSeds of mankind and that Ag- 
 Tsticism is preferable to Christianity ; ^l-ugh the sole c aim as 
 to the superiority of Secularist teachings, is made on the ground 
 
 hat t recognise! positive disbelief. The basis of this strange 
 and unnatural fellowship between the The st and the Atheist, the 
 
 believe and the infidel, is thus set forth in Mr. vVatts first 
 
 ^'"'' Secularism, therefore, does not exact Atheistic profession as the 
 basis of co-operation. Atheists may be Secularists ; but it is not con^ 
 sidered that a man should accept Atheism to enable hun to become a 
 Secularist. The Secularist platform is sufficiently broad to admit the 
 fel'owship of Atheists or non-orthodox Theists." 
 
 If Secularists who believe in God, actually associate themselves 
 with Atheists-pardon us if we decline to accept an affirmation 
 to that effect !-they must be prepared to sub.,ect themse ves to 
 the restraints which society in self-preservation is compe ed to 
 place upon the active propagandists of Atheism. For ' what 
 concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that 
 believeth with an infidel 9 " For i£ Mr. Watts in his definition 
 of the "basis of Secularism," and in his declaration m his 
 second avticle-that there should be no persecution, or social 
 ostracism for unbelief-means to assert, that society has no right 
 to protect itself from the hopeless national ruin that the tiiumph 
 of Atheism would bring in its train, then we niust most em- 
 phatically dissent from his views so expressed Yet the penal 
 or social prohibition of an active propagation of Atheis ic views, 
 which is necessary for the protection of society should be care- 
 fully distinguished from religious or any other form of persecu- 
 tion Such a distinction is recognised by the common law of 
 
*t 
 
 DEBATE ON SECIti,ar,s„. 
 
 England, as Mr. Bradlaugh has haH ,1, . . 
 
 « certainly ju^mM. on gr„„„d '^i;'^'"^"^ '» "hoover, and 
 
 SecaIar.stmorality-the piJ^lonTZTT''^' "'" '" 
 
 This then is our reply to Mr wlt? « ,, ""'' "■•««ni»m. 
 yonr Secularism, all *e rci^ce^l h '-"^ P"'""'^ '™"> "t 
 i^ than yours, though I utteri; ,W T^! ''"'^ '^ •""<' »» 
 your Secularisu,, and*u,ai„wr Lt 1 " """ '" ?'='=»«" '<• 
 than those which I owe tX IT .^ ^?° '''«''" '^"'^^^ 
 commands my unconditional oTedienae ■ . fX ^°"'' "^° "'>''=h 
 
 natehetweL" rig^VrrZnt ^f ' "^ *"'*' """ ^-™i- 
 - examine the%oint m e'cltir/r'w^"""'"""'' I^^' 
 second article that- "Reason Ttt. J' ^""^ ^"^^ '» Ws 
 discriminate between and'ul r'Lr"' "'>-''>Ae can 
 tkough he has thus made Reason "f\''T '""'"S" ^nd, al- 
 criminate, he has also sdd fn hi iis;:^, T,? "'"^"^ "' *- 
 power which discriu.inates," ■ L rWH t . '.' "'"»" '» " *« 
 taguish truth from error '• Yet h„ ^ * * '» <lis- 
 
 human reason those absolute f„n;r u^"'' "'""^ «'«»' for 
 
 'he Divine Reason. Humatretott """t/*^'^" ""ert 0/ 
 d«c„minates between right Td L ' T"'"! """"e "» believe, 
 own supreme light. Yet h e" thrif a^ "V* "'"' »' "^^ 
 ■nmd an attribute which is declared to b ™"' °' "■<> ''™« 
 predicted of the Divine Mind ■ N»v f '""™eivable when 
 
 ■ng the debate endorsed Ser', ^ " ' ^'- ^""^ '- open- 
 knowledge... and that 'ifrbv reaT"? '""' "'*^"=» ^'ef™ 
 'ruth from falsehood.'. Absir ""' **' "« di'tingmsh 
 
 predicted of the human tnj^irr " ",*"' "'">"°' e 
 mittedly very imperfect. But 2eJ"T ^'""""'^' '" "<>- 
 reason „f p„.f,„j J^^ jben th.s ,dea of absolute 
 
 wh.ch Mr. Watts, wittingly of n„/ "'""'^"' «'"b error 
 
 , Again in his last arti! f Mr itt""'? '° ^^'^' ' 
 love and ethical purity an!" ™b l'1"l'° " '™"'. J"'"-, 
 and manite, to the realLtion „f ^a f °' '='»™'«." absolute 
 reference does credit to his hea-rt t ^^ ""^''"'"'- The 
 
 »hea.t,but not to his intelligence! 
 
discover, and 
 aised even in 
 rganism. 
 tive truth of 
 7 is mine no 
 ' peculiar to 
 igher duties 
 Idea which 
 ' sheer folJy 
 
 Id discrimi- 
 iioral ? Let 
 Jays in his 
 3by We can 
 And, al- 
 by we dis- 
 on is " the 
 * to dis- 
 Blaims for 
 assert o/ 
 IS believe, 
 "d of its 
 tie human 
 ible when 
 I in open- 
 gives us 
 stinguish 
 innot be 
 je is ad- 
 absolute 
 
 h error 
 > 
 
 justice, 
 tbsolute 
 i The 
 igence ! 
 
 DEBATE Cy SECULARISM. 
 
 43 
 
 For what are these but attributes which are predicated by the 
 Theist of the Divine Ideal, the Deity, towards whom Mr. Watts, 
 as a Secularist, affects to assume an attitude of utter indifter- 
 enco, neither affirming or denying his existence ? 
 
 Again, Mr. Watts quotes with approbation a passage from Mr. 
 Savage, which we too most heartily endorse ; but which finds no 
 place in the tenets of consistent Secularism. Read that passage ! 
 Man ought to fulfil " the highest possibilities of his being ! " 
 What are these but the capacities which are gradually realised 
 by us in time, by means of a progress of personal character to 
 personal character — which capacities are eternally realized for 
 and in the Et nal Mind ? What are these possibilities toward 
 which '^ ? impelled, but the realisation of the Moral Idea of 
 our ov : .al perfection ? But why ought man to fulfill these 
 possibilities ? Let Mr. Watts' own quotation answer ! " Because 
 
 THERE IS SOMETHING IN HIM MORE THAN ANIMAL ? BecaUSe " he 
 
 is capable of something more, something higher than brain !" 
 What is this occult and mysterious something, "more than 
 animal " and " higher than brain ? " What can it be but the 
 human soul within us, with its infinity of moral and spiritual 
 possibilities, and its deep yearnings after God and an immortality? 
 Who, that has experienced the agony of soul that permeated the 
 very centres of our being in the more memorable crises of this 
 human life, can sincerely say with the Secularist that the needs 
 of his intellectual, moral and spiritual nature are satisfied by 
 assuming an attitude of indiftevence toward God and immortality? 
 Who can disregard that soul'ti divine relationship, order his con- 
 duct, as the Secularist prescribes, by '' considerations which 
 pertain to this life alone," and yet develop his manhood "in the 
 highest, truest, deepest sense of the word ? " 
 
 We might proceed with the reflections which Mr. Savage's 
 words inevitably suggest; or we might discuss at length the 
 minor issues that Mr. Watts has raised. But for the present let 
 this suffice. 
 
 Is Secularism, then, sufficient to satisfy the needs of mankind ? 
 We reply that it offers nothing to satisfy the needs of that 
 
44 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISAT. 
 
 category of needs, recognises 'ZiTn ^'*:"^^"«™ i" Mr. Watts' 
 gratification;- but it\i uttertrTT"" '^"^ ^'"^"-'^^ 
 experience in all ages wiil coTclLL / ''^'''' '^^ ^'^^^^ 
 
 supreme needs of tht soul nmn 1-' '' '' '^^ '^ ^^e 
 
 ^3m gives no satisfaction to our fl^n!''"' 7°««^^^'o«- Secular- 
 our love, and compieteJy severs if! f^ ""'' '°P'' °"'' reverence, 
 the higher emotional pZl'fu ''"" ^" *'^'^* -^" develop 
 "Ot only fai,.s to satisfy ou Ll' T. T'"' ^^^"'--™ 
 «hown, inconsistent wi^h itseTf "'l ' '^ "^ ^^^^« 
 
 the conditions of rational belief m!^ ' ^'"''^ ^^"^^t'«" of 
 God and immortality an indiff!l u""''' ^^ "^^^^s, toward 
 
 reason of the very na ure oU^nT^ Z^-'"" ""'^^'"^ -"«*> by 
 Secularism thus i^es noury , L" rlh^r^^^'^^ '' "^^•"^-" 
 Jectual needs; but as it fails to en. '• f '' ''''''^^ ^""^ ^"tel- 
 nature of man, so in like mlnner tS " ™'"' ^"' ^P'"'"^' 
 and literature of an elevatin. and ^ , "° ^"^Piration to art 
 epochs,'' wrote Goethe, "in w^hich fa.th "^'"f "''"''''''■ " ^^ 
 has pravailed, have been brilliant h / T^'' ^^'^^ever form, 
 both to contemporaries and to^o ^tl^^^^ f-itful! 
 
 contrary,inwhichunbelief undervvtT^" * ' epochs, on the 
 a«ad supremacy, even if fo" thp ''^'''"' ^^^ '"^'^^^ained 
 
 false splendour.'lanish o n the "?"' '^^ -^""^ '' -^'h a 
 
 none care to torment themse^s vTt7tb .'"*."^*^' ^^^-- 
 barren." ^'"^^^ '^'^^ that which has been 
 
 eo '^:^^z:^t:sz ''"°; °?^ ^«»^«- *« 
 
 Agnostic,™; but „|,i,e this p onolirn" "f,«''™'»»"y and 
 some future day, when Mr wT T" '"' '^"'«rtained at 
 
 aoeeptanee at the present tim.I. " "'"'"« *" P™™''e, its 
 Mr. Watts can assur „" ttt WvTn '"°""'"^- ^" '-'' >""- 
 subject, he is prepared to advln!:' ! "°"''^ "'" "«" » ^e 
 behalf „f Agnosticism than hTh ," us T ""^""^ "'•«"">-'^ °» 
 of Seeularism, a second debate wo„M '"'''™''"' ™ '"''■»« 
 
 and unprofltabJe. ™''' W" <!""« unnecessary 
 
DEBATE ON SECULARKM. 
 
 45 
 
 
 MR. watts' CONCLUDIKG ARTICLE. 
 
 After a delay of over six weeks since my last article in this de- 
 l.ate appeared, my respected opponent has penned his final reply 
 in the present discussion. I have good reasons for believing that 
 the delay which has arisen was caused by circumstances beyond 
 
 his control. , „ „ 
 
 The reader is particularly requested to again read caretuliy 
 the whole of the debate and note in how few instances my 
 opponent has grappled with the main issues between us. I regret 
 that while I have answered every important question put to me 
 by the Editor of the Mail, he has treated most of my requests 
 with either silence or evasion ; and instead of combatting my 
 arguments he has indulged in good-natured generalisations ot a 
 very indefinite character. He has made no attempt whatever to 
 verify his assertion that I did not understand Secularism, neither 
 has he given any other definition of that system than the one 1 
 furnished He has also omitted to show that Secular teachings 
 " diff"er more or less " from Secular principles, and in what sense 
 he used the term " mind." In my second article nine most im- 
 portant questions were submitted to him, but with the excep- 
 tion of one he has not taken the slightest notice of them. A 
 demand was made that I should deal with the word "ought ' 
 and the question of duty from a Secular standpoint I did so 
 and showed that with Secularists these terms have a higher and 
 nobler meaning than is attached to them by orthodox Christian- 
 ity Furthermore, I indicated cur " one great act of faith and 
 upon what it was based ; also why sensuality could not be sub- 
 stituted for science " with equal authority." To all these points 
 my opponent has given no attention, neither has he adduced any 
 Joorthat Secular morality, with its basis and incentives, is 
 defective, or that the Secular conception of human needs is 
 wrong. How far such an evasive mode of procedure will make 
 good the negative side of the proposition that we should have 
 discussed, the reader is left to decide for himself. 
 
 The Editors "last reply " is a peculiar specimen of contro- 
 
46 
 
 OKBATE OK SECUUmsK. 
 
 versUI ingenuity, which may do "credit, m t- ,. 
 ■nteihgence." His syllom.tic rLl ""' ■•'""■■ "»' '" hi. 
 
 of logical precision «d Itl ^1^' "??'"' * ^'^ """f--- 
 .mited space at my disp„Xre,St^?e T ""°"'"«- '''" 
 harmony between the premised /,, °^'"°« ""■ ™t »f 
 perhaps sneh a course wouU he „ """"'"'ions drawn. But 
 
 nature of the eonclus „"?„!» uTvT^' T"""'' •"' '^ "" 
 e.'her my quotation from Mr fi J '^' ""?''' '" °° ""^ "T'^' 
 a«to moral conduct. Mr Holvo„ t ^ ^° ° ^ "'>' "^*»™°» 
 meets the wants of those who hi "'^'' *'"'*" '^ery system 
 membered. however, that hi a,he ron^l-" f ' *™" "^ - 
 « supposed to decide for himself 1., t^"""" '" 'i""'"™ 
 wants may differ from those remeH ' """ ""■ ®'"='' 
 
 ■n other .system.,. UndoubtedTv IdT'^'^ ''^ *"' ''="-'" 
 Buddhist to be .ufflcient to meet hi! w r" '' *''""«'" "^ "-. 
 ■■egarded as being the truth bv tl, « ^^' ""* " S<=eularism is 
 to assert that " with ,1, autori ™ ""*' " '» -»' "-orrect 
 t at of the Secularisirn ighf a SouTh « ■^" '''^™""'«» f- 
 that Hottentot mode, of iffe and W„.^ /?"" """'" ™'"'^""1 
 «ent to satisfy the needs of this jne tellb T'"'''' "^ '"«- 
 No sane person within the naie of ^^ °''^' "'""nation." 
 
 that the mode of livinLnd^^! °' «ni..sation would contend 
 efficient for therequirementt of tb "v"^ "' ^^' Hottentot are 
 
 While certain humlnnredtattr "f'™°'*''^P«-°"™«- 
 the result of habit, are i „ ted tZ'^^T" " "»""•" '«'"« 
 "«nts " of one race or da! of n.r " '?'' "'"^ ^PPlr «« 
 inadequate in other ease I„ ZT 7"" ■"■^■"""^ ^= 'o"d 
 cted which pertain to human natuT "''"* '" '""^* "■='» 
 my opponent says that he is" not dsn "^ f °'='-°l. "d to these 
 t.on.» It was'further i,own in U,e "' ^P^°'»' ^"^P" 
 
 Secularism was deemed .,„<B°Te„t to I t7^ "^'^ "'""i" 
 of meeting what was adrnced 'l ?. ''f °''='^'- I°»'=>d 
 ^tatitutes for general need' partL, " T""' "^ "PPonent 
 through special training and tl P"^'"'"''"^ «nts " acquired 
 illustration. Clever vlst bu trf ^^ PoorHottentotls an 
 
 " '' ^'-"'- '° -" -i - - t^"TrC:^S our 
 
DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 M 
 
 '< constructive efforts " as being " commendable," and in iny 
 opinion it would be well if no other mode of advocacy were ne- 
 cessary Unfortunately, however, theological esclusiveness and 
 bigotry compel us sometimes to do destructive work, in seekmg 
 to remove from our midst all fancies, creeds and dogmas that 
 obstruct the carrying out of our constructive work. While shams 
 arc re<^arded as realities,and falsehood is worshipped as truth.this 
 phase^of our advocacy wi'l be necessary. Old systems that have 
 lost all vitality, except for evil, need to be broken up ; and theo- 
 logies which have hitherto usurped judgment and reason, require 
 to be refuted. The theologians claim to have " the truth, the 
 whole truth, and nothing but the truth," and unless we walk in 
 their paths, unless we accept their authority, unless we behevo 
 implicitly in all their teachings, we are at once condemned as a 
 rebel ac^ainst their God, as an outcast from society, and as an 
 enemy of our "ellow-men. While this cruel injustice exists, de- 
 structive work will be necessary. 
 
 My opponent says that my statement that Secular teachings 
 numbered four, five, six, eight and ten are not only new to 
 Christianity, but that they are the very opposite to what is 
 taucrht by orthodox Christians. " is worthy of a demal as em- 
 phaUc as can courteously be conveyed in the language of 
 debate." Let us test the value of this bold denial. The fourth 
 teaching enjoins self-reliance, which is the very opposite to what 
 is taught by Christianity. (See 2 Cor. 3:5; John G: 44.) It 
 makes belief in Christ an absolute necessity and threatens 
 damnation for non-belief. (See Acts 4 : 12 ; 16 : 31 ; Mark 16 : 160 
 The fifth teaching proclaims the right and honesty of disbelief. 
 Christianity denies this (1 Tim. 6 : 3-5; 2 Cor. 6 : 14, 15 ; 2 
 Thess. 1 : 8), and my opponent endorses the denial, as far as the 
 existence of God is concerned. The sixth teaching condemns all 
 persecution in consequence of the rejection of any theological 
 doctrines ; Christianity, on the contrary, enforces such persecu- 
 tion. (See Matt. 10 : 14, 15 ; John 15 • 6 ; 2 John 1 : 10 ; Gal 
 1 • 9.) The tenth teaching alleges that between husband and 
 ■wife equality should exist in the domestic circle. This could 
 
48 
 
 DEBATE ON SECULARISM. 
 
 |l ! 
 
 ety m self-preservat on is comn^ll^rJ *« i 
 
 propagandists of Atheisl" 7^/^ the „ld IT 7? ''>^«!-« 
 
 persecution, which the Edito7„f the l^If . K^™'°«'°'' 
 
 r«.°i Azr -^^ ;t:: -^,;;:«- ^ V the s-: 
 
 deUte, I wouid shew that ^^^''th'e tflZce' ? ^ ^ 
 
 cr.«.es we,e done and co.n,itted „p„„ ZZZuy'l^Te 
 
 Yea, I do say that cultivated reason aided by experience is the 
 standard by which we test riffht from wrom, If *T 1 
 higher one, why has it not been prodTedT To ta i^ "Ll! 
 reason ...s to spealc of that of ^hich we have no kn„ J X" 
 
 ^tr ronTirit:'X:r? ■'^-^^^^ ■' - 
 TtTnttr ^^-^'^'^^"^^^^ 
 
 cordmg to Secularism, reliance upon science is of moreTmport 
 ance han havjng faith in the alleged supernatural ; thauZme 
 .ttentionshould be given to the duties of this life, rather Zn to 
 the speculafons m reference to any other existence. Id thit 
 
TIKPAXr. ON' SF('T"T.\i:iSM. 
 
 40 
 
 4: 34.35, 
 3 husband 
 ad submit 
 om. 
 
 un- 
 
 the 
 
 Atheists 
 bich soci- 
 he active 
 eological 
 ■ quoting 
 persecu- 
 
 relative 
 ject for 
 iism, not 
 bitterest 
 ad utter 
 ies and 
 
 of the 
 
 56 is the 
 re be a 
 ' divine 
 ivledge, 
 I if not 
 uct are 
 Jtter ? 
 all the 
 is that 
 vation 
 )elieve 
 a, and 
 Ac- 
 aport- 
 preme 
 lan to 
 that 
 
 morality is I'F raorr coiis(H|uence than belief in any of the theo- 
 lo-ic.il systems of !.:u world. Theseare truths thatno oithodox 
 
 (.jlwistiall ca'l, to \n' i LSintt'Ilt, HCCej.t. 
 
 1 mil not sur[>rise(l lat l\w Editor of the Evcnhf/ Mail refuses 
 to a-cept my iuvitati 'U to discuss Christianity and Agnosticism. 
 Possibly in tliia deljau' he has learned a lesson that will induce 
 liim in f ului-e to be more cautious both in his offensive and defen- 
 sive policy. When, liowever, he intimates that he would require 
 " more reasonable arguments" to deal with he retlects upon his 
 own lack of ability. If my arguments in this debate have been 
 inferior, and I'lniainiiig as ihey do unanswered, what chance 
 would my opponent have with better arguments ? 
 
 In conclusion, I wish to say that as Secularists we do not tieat 
 the existence of God and immoitality "with indifference." We 
 endeavour to get all possible light upon the subject, and in the 
 meantime we try .'o to live that if God exist our conduit shall 
 meet with his approval, and if there be a future life, we do our 
 best to deserve what advantages it may possess. While many 
 Sccnhirists believe both in God and immortality, others are 
 unable to do so, and with them moral conduct is deemed of 
 paramount importance, because the welfare of society demands 
 it, and experience proves that mankind is the better for adopting 
 it. If they have no "God to fear," they have man to love, and 
 regad for his welfare is sufficient to inspire them to seek to 
 perform useful deeds. Christianity—which mainly urges each 
 one to look after the Salvation of his own soul, since it w\l\ j ot 
 profit him if he gains the whole world and loses this — is far 
 inferior to Secularism in this respect ; the more so as it often 
 engenders hatred and cruelty for difference of belief, while 
 Secularism has no stark creeds into which it would make all 
 alike compress themselves. It simply says in a purely practical 
 toni>, Come end let us work together for the good and happiness 
 of us all, whatever our speculations maybe. Seculaiiam does 
 not re(iuire the motive Christianity thinks necessary. It finds 
 what to its adherents appears a stronger and better motive in 
 the love of our fe.lew erea ures, whom we know, than '".i the 
 
I p 
 
 00 
 
 DFnATE OS SFri'T.AnrSM. 
 
 B in;,' unknown to me ^ I answ. T 1 T ^"P'^natu. .u 
 
 know, and will work with JlT i,. 'r '"' ^'^'^"^ ' ''' '^"^^ 
 I neither «eo nor know n " '^•"" ' ^ ^"""^' ^^^"^ «"" ^vho.n 
 
 almighty, he can wanrn. h ' ''' "' "'^' "P^""*'"* '-""v.- 
 
 -■ for hhn an" i. un " "" "°''"^ "" ^^'^^ ^« --•>< -''t^ 
 our guessing V^mirriTrT '^ ^"^*« ^->-onU 
 
 were%vo.^kingfrrhiJa. J'V'"' '^""^' hi„,, thinking we 
 they thought^npul: .^t^^^^^^^^ ^^-e -l-n 
 
 they were doing God se.vi'ce! ° ' ^'''^'''' *^^^**