The Northern Guardian. — 1897-12-14 (Hartlepool, Cleveland, England)

SECULARISM AND WHY I OBJECT TO IT.'  The above was the subject of a lecture given in the Free Trade Hall, West Hartlepool, last night, by Mr Thomas G. Reed, lecturer, of Newcastle-on-Ty,io; being the first of a course of four lectures to be given by that gentleman on Protestant and anti-infidel subjects. There was a fair attendance. The chair was occupied by Mr John Black, an Mr J. H. Reed was also on the platform. 'llie lecturer commenced with an attempt to define secularism from the writings of secularists, and in doing so showed that they differed very much, and that Charles Bradlaugn had defined it as atheism. It was pernicious, and their literature was morally poisonous. (Hear, I hear). He objected to it because of its utter incapacity to teach either children, women, or men how beat to live or die; because it did nothing • whatever to benefit the community; because it! blasted character and destroyed the influence of i Jesus Christ; and because its own publicathms were immoral. His arguments were supported by ; numerous quotations. In reply to several questionsthat were asked by gentlemen in the meetiug, the lecturer maintained that the Bible was not immoral. He had several extracts from two volumes on "Bible Heroes," by W. G. Foote, I which he said were immoral, one passage stating, that God brought all the animals before Adam': ! to get named, and also that he might select a I wife from among them. Proceeding, Mr Reed said that the agreement was greater and the difficulties less among Christians than among Secularists. Replying to a taunt against Jalyez Balfour, the lecturer asked if a system of religion could be judged by a hypocrite or a Judas? (Applause. In reply to a question about the exist- i ence of God, he said that the great forces of' nature were unseen, but that did not disprove their existence. Replying to a question about the future of a murderer and of a good, but nonChristian man, Mr Reed said surely the Judge of all the earth would do right! If they denied I the existence of a God, then they would have justice from the fixity of law. "Why," asked another interrogator, "is an Athiest, not as go4d as a Christian if he conscientiously believes himself right, and is a neutral man to know who is the right man for hereafter?" Mr Reed replied that sincerity of a man's beliefs was not a certainty that he was right. A man might sincerely believe that a weak bridge could hold him up, but that would not save him in crossing if the bridge was weak. If any had honest doubt in the matter, it should lead him to a positive faith. To say there was no God was a contradiction in terms; for it implied that he who said it would have to be omniscient and omnipresent before he could know that he was right. I,,fr Reed refused to answer a question as fo whether Tom Payne's "Age of Reason" was immoral, adding that Payne was not a member of the Secularie4. The question was repeated with some heat, and a lady in the audience replied that Payne WSW a Deist. The interrogator then asked for a definition of a Deist, Atheist, a Fabian, and a Secularist. Mr Reed replied that he might BA well have introduced Theosophists, or Spiritualists. (Laughter).  The Interrogator: Would you preach Tom Payne or hie works from the pulpit? The Chairman: We have nothing whatever to do with that, but only with what was treated of in the lecture.  The same questioner, with considerable warnith, quoted Payne's passage about "leaving the world a little better than one found it:'  The Lecturer: That is but a poor echo of what Christ said—Work while it is day, for the night cometh, when no man can work. (Applause). Another Catechiser: Is there anything in rhe Bible that you would not pot before your children? _  The Chairman: He has already answered that by saying that he would have no hesitation in Haring the Bible before his own children. Her, hear). A vote of thanks to the Chairman concluded the meeting, which had lasted 24 hours.