"we do not, however, deny that, false as the whole theory

[of secularism] appears to us, it is capable of attracting

the belief of large numbers of people, and of exercising

considerable influence over their conduct; and we should

admit that the influence so exercised is considerably better

than no influence at all."—saturday review, july 2, 1859.

this first step is to win, from public opinion, a standing place for secularism. so long as people believe secularism not to be wanted, indeed impossible to be wanted—that it is error, wickedness, and unmitigated evil, it will receive no attention, no respect, and make no way. but show that it occupies a vacant place, supplies a want, is a direction where no other party supplies any—and it at once appears indispensable. it is proved to be a service to somebody, and from that moment it is tolerated if not respected. it may be like war, or medicine, or work, or law, disagreeable or unpalatable, but when seen to be necessary, it will have recognition and support. we are sure this case can be made out for secularism. it is not only true, but it is known; it is not only known, but it is notorious, that there are thousands and tens of thousands of persons in every district of this and most european countries, who are without the pale of christianity. they reject it, they disprove it, they dislike it, or they do not understand it. some have vices and passions which christianity, as preached around them, condemns. as devils are said to do, they "believe and tremble," and so disown what they have not the virtue to practise. faith does not touch them, and reason is not tried—indeed reason is decried by the evangelically religious, so that not being converted in one way, no other way is open to them. others are absorbed or insensate; they are busy, or stupid, or defiant, and regard christianity as a waste of time, or as monotonous or offensive. it bores them or threatens them. they are already dull, therefore it does not attract them—they have some rude sense of independence and some feeling of courage, and they object either to be snubbed into conformity or kicked into heaven. another and a yearly increasing portion of the people have, after patiently and painfully thinking over christianity, come to believe it to be untrue; unfounded historically; wrong morally, and a discreditable imputation upon god. it outrages their affections, it baffles their understandings. it is double tongued. its expounders are always multiplying, and the more they increase the less they agree, and hence sceptics the more abound. disbelievers therefore exist; they augment: they can neither be convinced, converted, nor conciliated, because they will yield no allegiance to a system which has no hold on their conscience. it is, we repeat, more than known, it is notorious that these persons live and die in scepticism. these facts are the cry of the pulpit, the theme of the platform, the burden of the religious tract. now, is nothing to be done with these people? you cannot exterminate them, the church cannot direct them. the bible is no authority to them—the "will of god," as the clergy call it, in their eyes is mere arbitrary, capricious, dog-matical assumption; sometimes, indeed, wise precept, but oftener a cloak for knavery or a pretext for despotism. to open the eyes of such persons to the omnipresent teachings of nature, to make reason an authority with them, to inspire them with precepts which experience can verify—to connect conscience with intelligence, right with interest, duty with self-respect, and goodness with love, must surely be useful. if secularism accomplishes some such work, where christianity confessedly accomplishes nothing, it certainly has a place of its own. it is no answer to it to claim that christianity is higher, vnore complete, better. the advocates of every old religion, say the same. christianity may be higher, more complete, better—for somebody else. but nothing can be high, complete, or good, for those who do not see it, accept it, want it, or act upon it. that is first which is fit—that is supreme which is most productive of practical virtue. no comparison (which would be as irrelevant as offensive) between secularism and christianity is set up here. the question is—is secularism useful, or may it be useful to anybody? the question is not—does it contain all truth? but does it contain as much as may be serviceable to many minds, otherwise uninfluenced for good? arithmetic is useful though algebra is more compendious. mensuration performs good offices in hands ignorant of euclid. there may be logic without whately, and melody without beethoven; and there may be secular ethics which shall be useful without the pretension of christianity.