The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-06
WHAT SECULARISM is
Mr.. Eliot On Its Controversy
With Orthodoxy.
THE ONE CREATES THE OTHER.
But Neither of Them Can Stand the Al.
tacks OF the Modern Criticism
Nor OF Real Liberalism.


There was no regular text, though the
Scripture lesson was the twelfth chapter
OF Paui's Epistle to the Romans. Mr..
Eliot defined the Secularists as a body of
people, mostly men, who believe that
human beings have, or at least need. no
knowledge of God nor belief in spirit or
the future life. This, he said, fairly
summed up their position as to negative
content. That which constituted the posi-
tive content of this faith was belief in
the sufficiency of science. especially the
methods of physical science; professed
loyalty to the truth, which did not differ
entiate them from any sect, and which of
course meant the truth as the Secularists
conceived it, and the attainment of ideal
human character. They would seem to
be, the speaker said in accord intellectually
with the ethical culturists. The difference
was that the ethical culturists are devoted
to constructive work. Their leaders,
like Felix Adler. Sheldon and Salter,
were respected by men of opposite
faith, with whom they often joined hands
IN works OF social amelloration. Their
work. Mr.. Eliot said, was predominantly
positive; the work of the, secularists was
predominantiy negative. Since the Chris
tan church had been the historic witness
OF the great truths of God, of Spirit and
OF immortality, he said, the attack of secu-
larism had been directed especially against
this institution. In so far as the secular
lists had attacked supposed errors in spirit
of courtesy they had exercised the right of
every trnth seeker and truth proclaimer.
In so far as they or any other sect used
methods of personal abuse and ribaldry
they were mentally and spiritually sIob-
bish. 1t was not snobbish. Nh. Eliot said. to
proclaim ones own convictions and point
out the errors ofothers; but it was snobbish
and bigoted, to say the least, when q man
assumed openly and sweepinsly the insin-
certify of all those who oppose him. If
secularism ever expected to be in any de-
gree an uplifting influence, the speaker
said, it must get over some of its dogmatic
assumptions. The faults in the methods
OF secularism were not essential to secu-
larism, perhaps, and yet it was the pre-
dominance in their work of these very
faults that kept them separate from the
ethical culturists, with whom they seemed
to be in intellectual agreement.
I The ribaldry of the secuarist. Mr.. Eliot
said, was defended by him on the ground
that it was in the interest of the truth. II
what they were ridiculing were true, it
would not be hurt by ridicule. 1t was as
If man should tell one that his mother
was vicious and proclaim it to the world
with jest and ribaldry; and when he were
reproached should say: "Well If your
mother is true and good my ribaldry will
not hurt" So here was some one who
holds sincerely to certain convictions of
spiritual fact and experience. 1t did hurt,
the speaker said, to have ones insincerity
assumed, and principles which are sacred
to ones self laughed at. The truer a mans
convictions the more the ridicule hurts
The bigotry of the secularist, like almost
all bigotry. was unconscious. No man
was Intentionally bigot. Said he: sit
is always from some ene's else standpoint
that any one is bigot. The secularist is
bigoted, as it seems to me, in his attitude
toward the Bible. Here is a Christian
bigot who treats the Bible as fetch. Is
he any the less bigoted than a secuarist
to whom it is as red rag to a bull? I
have said little or nothing in direct attack
upon the tenets of secularism. I hope
every word I ever utter or everything |
ever do may be a living protest to what
seems to me to be the awful tallacy of
their gospel"
Mr. Eliot then defined orthodoxy as an
agreement with the genuine doctrines of
the Bible. In Roman Catholicism, the
church determined what was orthodoxy.
In orthodox Professionalism, orthodoxy
was determined by the authorized stand
ards and creeds. Orthodoxy was based,
he declared. upon the assumption that
Scripture is unit in the utterance of
truth. and infailible in every word" Upon
this assumption, therefore, he said, all ap-
parent contradictions in Scripture were
only apparent, not real; and granted the
premise, there was no Inconsistency in the
attempt to harmoniZe all disagreements.
This had to be done both by Catholicism
and Professionalism in order to ascertain
what was the one Scripture doctrine, as
contrasted with what were apparently
many and conflicting Scriptural doctrines.
1t is according to what Scriptural doctrine
one made other Scriptural doctrines har-
NOME that there are different orthodox
sects all claiming to be orthodox, that is,
in agreement with Scripture.
Orthodoxy falls before the higher
criticism, or scientific scholarship applied
to the Bible" said the speaker The
higher criticism seemed to demonstrate
that the Bible was a collection of writings
OF varying historic and spiritual value:
that the Bible was not unit nor without
error The admission of this, together
with its corollary of the at least co-ordi-
nate authority OF reason, among many of
the leaders of the Protestant orthodox de-
nominations, had given rise to the move
meut known as progressive orthodoxy.
There were many other important varia-
tons, bat old orthodoxy ditferentiates
from new orthodoxy upon the rejection or
acceptance OF the higher criticism.
As 10 the relations between secuIarism
and orthodoxy Mr. Eliot thought secular
ism could never reach the heart of Chris
tiaaity, but that orthodoxy. the orthodox
theology and the orthodox view of the
Bible were at its mercy. If there were no
orthodoxy there would be no secularism.
Secularism, unlike ethical culture, vas not
upon a positive basis. 1t lived upon hav-
ing something to attack. Secuiarism at
tackled much else beside orthodoxy, but
there only. so ii seemed 10 him, did its
shafts hit and strike. The orthodox view
of the Bible could not stand before the
higher criticism, neither could the secu-
larist view OF the Bible. Orthodoxy
tended TO destroy a rational rever-
ence for the Bible by treating
il irrationally. SO did secularism.
But the higher criticism, separating the
false from the true. the dross from the
gold. the husk from the kernel. the dreary
mains from its hills and cleaning sum-