particularly by those of Mr J. S. Mill and G. H. Lewes; but in the main their scepticism is a native product. Thomas Paine and Richard Carlile, Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, Robert Owen and George Combe,-all contributed at least as much to the formation of secularism as Auguste Comte.

It is difficult, or rather impossible, to ascertain to what extent secularism is prevalent. There are, so far as I know, no reliable statistics on the subject. Many are doubtless complete secularists who do not call themselves so, and who belong to no secularist society. On the other hand, some who call themselves secularists, and perhaps even the majority of the members of some of the secularist societies, hold probably only a very small part of what is usually implied by the term secularism. Mr Holyoake represents what may be called one school of secularists, and Mr Bradlaugh another; and one main difference between them is, that the former denies that the principles of secularism include atheism, while the latter affirms that they do. Yet even Mr Bradlaugh does not hold that atheism is a necessary condition of membership in secularist associations. Such membership may, consequently, be in some, or even in many cases, merely the expression of more or less dissatisfaction with the theology taught in our churches, and of sympathy with

certain projected social and political changes. It may not exclude either belief in a God or belief in a future state. Hence even those who ought to know best the strength of secularism are found to differ widely from one another as to what its strength is, and as to whether its strength be increasing or not. In proof, I may quote from the discussion between Messrs Bradlaugh and Holyoake held in the New Hall of Science, London, in 1870. The former thus replies to the latter's statement that the Freethought party is in a state of disorganisation: "I presume my friend means relatively to some other period of their existence. It is so disorganised, that I think we can send something like a hundred petitions to the House of Commons in favour of any measure we desire to support. It is so disorganised, that within three days I will undertake to have all the principal towns of England and Scotland placarded with any particular placard which it is desired to have brought before the notice of the people. It is so disorganised, that there is not a large town, not a village in England, not a large town in the south of Scotland, and not many in the north, not many in the south-west of Ireland, that within four or five days I could not have any kind of communication placed by the hands of the members of the Secular Society in the hands of the clergymen of those towns. I am not speaking of what could be

done. I am speaking of what has been done during the last few years. Our organisation has been such that we have played a part in the political action of the country which has made itself felt" (p. 56). Mr Holyoake answers: "Mr Bradlaugh wanders through this land proclaiming the principles of secularism as though they were atheism, and arguing with the clergy. Why, when I go now to Glasgow, to Huddersfield, to Liverpool, to Manchester, I find the secularists there unadvanced in position. Even in Northampton, which Mr Bradlaugh knows, I found them lately meeting on the second floor of a publichouse, where I found them twenty or twenty-five years ago. In Glasgow they are in the same. second-rate position they were in twenty-five or thirty years ago. What have we been doing? Does not this show an obsolete policy? Ranters, Muggletonians, Mormons, and men of their stamp, are superior to acting so. Any party in the present state of opinion in the world could with thought have done more. The most ordinary sects build or hire temples, and other places, where their people decently meet. Mr Bradlaugh, with all his zeal and appeals, finds to-day that all London can do is to put up this kind of place in which we now meet opposite a lunatic asylum, where people, so the enemy says, naturally expect to find us. He is even obliged to tell you that at the West-end of

London he does not think highly of their state. Now, we who have principles of materialism, and descant incessantly on their superiority and efficacy, what halls of splendour and completeness we ought to put up! . . All that Mr Bradlaugh said about the organisation of the party was not an answer to what I said. I spoke of the organisation of ideas in it. I spoke of the number of your paying members that belong to your societies in any part of the country. Look at the poverty of their public resources. Look at the few people of local repute that will consent to share their name and association. Why do they not do it? Because they find no definite principle set down which does not involve them in atheism and infidelity. The truth is, that there are liberal theists, liberal believers in another life, liberal believers in God, perfectly willing to unite together with the extremest thinkers, for secular purposes, giving effect to every form of human liberty-but they refuse to be saddled with the opprobrium of opinions they do not hold, or do dislike."

These two estimates of the strength and progress of secularism by its two best-known representatives are very different, and yet probably they are not really contradictory. I am inclined to believe that they are both fair and unexaggerated statements, and that if we combine them, instead of contrasting them, we shall come tolerably near to

the truth. If secularism be dissociated from atheism it may be as strong as Mr Bradlaugh represents it to be, while if explicitly committed to atheism it may be as weak as Mr Holyoake represents it to be. Some of the advocates of atheistic secularism speak as if they represented the great body of the artisans of our large towns. This would be most alarming if it were true; but no real evidence has been produced to show that it is true, and I for one entirely disbelieve it. I should be surprised if in Edinburgh, for example, there were not on the communion rolls of many a single congregation the names of more artisans-and skilled artisans too-than there are of avowedly atheistical secularists in the whole city; and yet, I daresay, what secularists there are could get a large number of signatures to petitions in favour of purely secular education, the disestablishment and disendowment of the National Church, the abolition of the House of Lords, and a great many other things, wise and foolish. On the other hand, it may not improbably be the case that the strength of the most thorough secularism is by no means fully represented by the number of its avowed adherents; that many are decidedly in sympathy with it who do not decidedly attach themselves to it; and that many are on the way which would lead to acceptance of the atheism which it teaches who have not yet reached that goal. I believe that atheism