Mid-Nineteenth-Century Secularism As Modern Secularity 35

Michael Rectenwald Mid-Nineteenth-CenturySecularism as Modern Secularity

1Introduction

In the early1850s, anew philosophical, social, and political movement evolved from the Freethought tradition of Thomas Paine, Richard Carlile, Robert Owen, and the radical periodicalpress.The movement was called “Secularism.”¹ Its founderwas George Jacob Holyoake (1817–1906) (Grugel1976, 2– 3).² Holyoake was aformer apprentice whitesmith turned Owenitesocial missionary, “moral force” Chartist,and radical editor and publisher.Given his earlyexposure to Owenism and Chartism,³ Holyoake had become aFreethinker.With his involve- ment in Freethought publishing, he became amoral convert to atheism.Howev- er,his experiences with virulent proponents of atheism or infidelity and the hos- tile reactions to them on the part of the state, church, and press induced him to develop in 1851–1852 the new creed and movement he called Secularism. In retrospect,Holyoake claimed thatthe words “Secular,”“Secularist,” and “Secularism” wereused for the first time in his periodical TheReasoner (founded in 1846), from 1851 through 1852, “as ageneral test of principles of conduct apart from spiritual considerations,” to describe “anew wayofthinking,” and to de- fine “amovement” based on that thinking, respectively(Holyoake 1896a,

 The foundationaltexts of Secularisminclude Holyoake (1854) and Holyoake(1870).  In addition to Grugel’sbiography, for biographical sketchesofHolyoake,see Royle (1974,esp. at 3–6, 72– 74,and 312); and McCabe (1908).  Chartism was aworking-class movement that emergedin1836and was most active between 1838 and 1848. The aim of the Chartists was to gainpolitical rights and influence for the working classes.Chartism gotits name from the formal petition, or People’sCharter, that listed the six main aims of the movement.These were:1)avote for all men over twenty-one, 2) the secret bal- lot,3)noproperty qualification to become an MP,4)payment for MPs, 5) electoral districts of equal size, 6) annual elections for Parliament. The movement presented three petitions to Parliament – in 1839,1842and 1848 – but each of these was rejected. The last great Chartist petition was collected in 1848 and represented, it was claimed, six million signatories. The Chartists planned to deliverthe petition to Parliament, after apeaceful mass meetingonKennington Common in London. The government sent 8,000 soldiers,but only20,000 Chartists turned up on acoldrainyday.The demonstration was deemed afailure, and the rejection of this final petition marked the end of Chartism. Manyex- cellent works on Chartism have been published, includingChase (2007) and Royle (1996).

OpenAccess. ©2017 Michael Rectenwald, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458657-004 32 Michael Rectenwald

45 – 49). In using these new derivatives, he redefined in positive terms what had been an epithet for the meaner concerns of worldlylife or the designation of a lesser state of religiosity within the western Christian imaginary.His bold claims for the original mobilizationofthe terms are corroborated by the Oxford English Dictionary.Never before Holyoake’smobilization had “secular” been used as an adjectivetodescribeaset of principles or “secularism” as anoun to positively delineate principles of moralityand epistemology,orasamovement to carry them forth. Like Thomas H. Huxley’slater agnosticism, Holyoake’sSecularism deemed that whatever could not be “tested by the experience of this life” should simply be of no concern to the science practitioner,progressive thinker,moralist,orpolitician. The “Secularist” was one who restricted efforts to “thatprovinceof human duty which belongstothis life” (Reasoner 1852, 12: 34). But,asinHux- ley’sagnosticism, atheism was not aprerequisitefor Secularism. Secularism represented “unknowingness without denial” (Holyoake 1896a, 36–37). Holyoake did warn against the affirmation of deity and afuture life, giventhat reliance on them might “betray us from the use of this world” to the detriment of “progress” and amelioration, but belief in the supernatural wasregarded as amatter of speculationoropinion to which one was entitled, unless such beliefs precluded positive knowledge or action. It is important to distinguish Holyoake’sbrand of Secularism from that of his eventual rival for the leadership of the Secularist movement,Charles Bradlaugh. UnlikeBradlaugh, for Holyoake the goal of Freethought under Secularism was no longer first and foremost the elimination of religious ideologyfrom the public sphere. While Bradlaughmaintained that the primary task of Secularism was to destroy theism – otherwise the latter would impedethe progress of the new secular order – Holyoake envisioned Secularism as superseding or superintending both theism and atheism – from the standpoint of anew scientific, educative, and moral system. Holyoake insisted thatanew,secular moraland epistemological system could be constructed alongside, or above, the old religious one.⁴ Mid-century Secularism thus represents an important stageofnineteenth- century Freethought – an intervention between the earlier infidelity of Richard Carlile and “Bradlaugh’srather crude anti-clericism and loveofBible-bashing” (Lightman1989,287– 88). While he inherited much from the earlier infidelity of Carlile and Owen, Holyoake offered an epistemology and moralityindepend- ent of Christianity,yet supposedlynolongeratwar with it.Bytheterm “secular,”

 Colin Campbell(1971,54) referred to these twoapproaches as the “substitutionist” (Holyoake) and “eliminationist” (Bradlaugh) camps. Mid-Nineteenth-CenturySecularism as Modern Secularity 33

Holyoake did not mean the mere absence or negation of religion or belief, but rather asubstantivecategory in its own right.Holyoake imagined and fostered the co-existence of secular and religious elements subsisting underacommon umbrella. In this essay, Iexamine the development of Secularism as amovement and creed, but also connect it to modernnotions of the secular and secularity. Ibegin by brieflysketching Holyoake’speriodicaland pamphleteeringcareer in the 1840s, distinguishingitfrom that of another prominent freethinker, Charles Southwell, and showinghow Holyoake eventuallydevelopedSecularism as a moral program – to escape the stigma of infidelity,but more importantlyto moveFreethought toward apositive declaration of principles as opposed to the mere negation of theism. Itreat Holyoake’sSecularism in terms of classcon- ciliation between artisan-basedFreethinkers and middle-class skeptics,literary radicals, and liberal theists. Icontinue by outlining the principles of Secularism as sketched by Holyoake in several formats and across four decades,which also amountstoabrief wordhistory of the associatedterm. Ithen distinguish Holy- oake’sbranch of Secularism from that led by Bradlaugh, especiallyonthe questions of atheismand sexual policy.Iconclude with further remarks regarding the significanceofmid-centurySecularism as ahistoric moment inaugurating modern secularity.

2FromInfidelity to MoralPhilosophy

Aseriesoffreethought periodicals from whenceSecularism emergedbegan as working-class productions aimed at working-class readers and others with inter- ests in the condition of the workingclasses. By the early1850s, the policies of Secularism changed that exclusive basis. In 1841, the formerOweniteSocial Mis- sionary,Charles Southwell – with Maltus Questell Ryall, “an accomplished icon- oclast,fiery,original, and, what rarelyaccompanies thosequalities, gentleman- ly,” and William Chilton, aradical publisher and “absoluteatheist”–founded in Bristol, England, aperiodicalthat its editors claimed was “the onlyexclusively ATHEISTICALprint that has appearedinany ageorcountry,” entitled TheOracle of Reason, or PhilosophyVindicated (Oracle 1842, 1: ii).⁵ Charles Southwell might,with important exceptions, be thought of as the Ludwig Feuerbach of British infidelity in the early1840s, at least as Karl Marx

 Holyoake(1892,Vol. 1, 142) described Chilton as “acogent,solid writer,ready for anyrisk, and the onlyabsoluteatheist Ihaveeverknown.” 34 Michael Rectenwald and Friedrich Engels characterized the latter in TheGerman Ideology (1845).⁶ In this work, contemporaneous with the founding of TheReasoner (founded in 1846), Marx and Engels argued thatthe Young Hegelian Feuerbach was merely substitutingone kind of consciousness for another, “to produce acorrect con- sciousnessabout an existing fact; whereas for the real communist it is aquestion of overthrowingthe existing state of things” (Marxand Engels 1988, 65). Marx and Engels wrote:

The Young Hegelians consider conceptions,thoughts, ideas,infact all the products of consciousness, to which they attributeanindependent existence, as the real chains of men […] it is evident that the YoungHegelians have to fight onlyagainst these illusions of consciousness. Since, according to their fantasy,the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitationsare products of their consciousness,the YoungHegelians logicallyput to men the moral postulateofexchangingtheir present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness,and thus of removing their limitations (Marx and Engels 1988, 36).

An atheistmartyr, the criticism cannot be applied to Charles Southwell without qualifications. His writing constituted apolitical act with material and political consequences. However,the end he hoped to effect was in fact arevolution in ideas, which would, he thought,eventuate achangeinmaterial circumstances – preciselywhat Marx critiqued in Feuerbach (Oracle 1841, 1: 1). My aim is not to engageinanextended comparison of English infidelity and post-Hegelian German philosophy, but rather to underscorethe ironyofSouth- well’sabstraction of atheistic materialism from its socio-historical context in order to contrast it with the direction Freethought was soon to take under Holy- oake. In warring strictlyonthe level thatMarx referred to as ideological, seeing religious ideas as the real “chains of men,” Southwell insinuated that atheism was apurelyintellectual affair,the proclamation of atruth thathas arisenatdif- ferent times in places,includingancient Greece, but that has been continually thwarted by priestsofall ages (Oracle 1841, 1: 28). Soon growingimpatient with the lack of response to his philosophical dis- quisitions (Oracle 1841, 1: 2 – 4, 19 –21,27–9, 35– 7),⁷ however,Southwell opened the fourth number of TheOracle with acaustic and belligerent article entitled

 The differenceswere many, such as the fact that Southwellwas an artisan-class radical, not a university-educated philosophertrained in German philosophy. But Robertson (1930,Vol. 1, 75) compares the atheism in TheOracle to positions developed by Feuerbach. Forbiographical sketchesofSouthwell, see Royle (1974,69–73); and Robertson (1930,Vol. 1, 73).  As Charles Southwelland William Carpenter noted(1842, 2–7), several of these articles (“Is There AGod?”)were also citedinthe indictment as counts of blasphemy. Mid-Nineteenth-Century Secularism as Modern Secularity 35

“The JewBook.” Here, he took aim at sacred text,which proved more dangerous and thus more effective for his purposes:

That revolting odious Jewproduction, called BIBLE, has been for ages the idol of all sorts of blockheads, the glory of knaves, and the disgust of wise men. It is ahistory of lust,sodo- mies,wholesale slaughtering, and horrible depravity,that the vilest parts of all other his- tories, collected into one monstrous book, could scarcelyparallel! Priests tell us that this concentration of abominationswas written by agod; all the world believepriests,or they would rather have thoughtitthe outpouring of some devil! (Oracle 1841, 1: 25).

On the dateofits publication, Southwell was arrested for blasphemyand taken to Bristol Jail.⁸ His trial became a cause celebre in the liberal press (Southwell and Carpenter 1842, iii-iv). His self-defense was unsuccessful, however,and on January15, 1842, he was fined 100 pounds and sentenced to ayear’simprison- ment (Southwell and Carpenter 1842, 102). With Southwell incarcerated and unable to managethe publication, George Jacob Holyoake became the editor of TheOracle. Under Holyoake’seditorship, a changeinrhetoric and tone was immediatelyevident.Holyoake would not change TheOracle’spurpose – to “deal out Atheism as freelyaseverChristianity was dealt out to the people” (Oracle 1841, 1: 1) – but he refrained from such odi- ouslyprovocative and offensivelanguageasSouthwell’s “The JewBook” (Oracle 1842, 1: 67). Eschewing incendiary rhetoric, Holyoake sought sympathyfor atheism on the basisofthe conditions of poor workers and the failure of the Christian state to remedythem. Conditioned by personal loss from material want and its connection to religious observation, Holyoake had been predisposed to lose his faith in divine providence. Forinstance, Holyoake’sdaughter died while he served asentencefor blasphemyinCheltenham Jail in 1841–42.His continual exposure to worldlywant and suffering eventuallyspelled the end of whatever faith he mayhavehad. When Southwell declinedtoresume editorship of TheOracle upon his re- lease from Bristol Jail, Holyoake and companydecided to fold the publication. But anew periodical, TheMovementAnd Anti-PersecutionGazette,was founded on December 16,1843, allegedlytocontinue the mission of TheOracle and to report the activities of the Anti-Persecution Union.⁹ Central to TheMovement was

 He remained there for seventeen days until an offer of bail was finallyaccepted.  The Anti-Persecution Union was formed primarilyinresponse to the imprisonment for blas- phemous libel of Charles Southwelland grew out of the “Committee for the Protection of Mr. Southwell.” Subscriptionsfor the Union and its establishment wereannounced in TheOracle 36 Michael Rectenwald its departure for freethinkingjournalism. Not onlydid the editors maintain the tonal and rhetorical moderation characteristic of TheOracle after Southwell was removed but also TheMovement launched the “third stage” of Freethought. As Holyoake sawit, the first two stages, free inquiry and open criticism of theology, wereessential, but not constructive.The third stage, however,involvedthe development of morality: “to ascertain what rules human reason maysupplyfor the independentconduct of life” (Holyoake 1896a, 34). The differenceinempha- sis marked what Holyoake laterreferred to as the “positive” side of Freethought, which would not simplydestroy theism, but replace its morality with another, superintending system. With this,Holyoake echoed Auguste Comte, who held that “nothing is destroyed until it has been replaced” (Holyoake 1896a, 34).¹⁰

3The UpwardMobility of Freethought

The successor to TheMovement,The Reasoner was foundedin1846 by Holyoake with the fifty poundshewon for his five entries into the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows contestfor the best new lectures,toberead to graduates into the Oddfellowship (Holyoake 1892, Vol. 1, 204–8). Thepublication became the central propagandist instrument for Freethought. By the time he began the new weekly, Holyoake was aleadingfreethinker.InTheReasoner,Holyoake was not onlyinterested in distancing himself from the old infidel rhetoric but he also had another kind of Freethought movement in mind. While maintaining his right to the profession of atheism, he came to advocate the accommodation of otherthan atheistic views within abroader movement.Unbelievers, deists, monists, utilitarians, and liberal theists might all cooperate,provided thatto- gether they promoted amorality,politics, economics, and science of worldlyim- provement.While aseemingly contradictory position that alienatedand angered some within the Freethought community,itrepresented the differentiation of a religious public sphere, within which belief and unbelief coexisted by means of an overarchingsecularity.Secularism marked anew stageinsecularityitself, evincing arecognition thatreligious belief was unlikelytodisappear. After publishing TheReasoner,Holyoake soon became involved with George Henry Lewes and Thornton Hunt and connected with middle-class literaryand political radicals, and budding scientificnaturalists. They met in agroup called

(1842, 1: 72). MaltusQ.Ryall was its first secretary;Holyoakebecame its secretary by 1843; see Movement (1843, 1: 5 – 7).  See also George Holyoakeand Charles Bradlaugh(1870,iv). Mid-Nineteenth-Century Secularism as Modern Secularity 37 a “Confidential Combination.” Francis W. Newman, whose book TheSoul,its Sor- rows and Aspirations (1849) greatlyimpressed Holyoake, was among those who, includingHunt and the pantheist William Maccall, encouraged the formation of such aclub (Royle 1974,158). William Ashurst bankrolled TheReasoner and under the pseudonym “EdwardSearch,” suggested the words “secular” and “secularist” to describeHolyoake’snew branch of Freethought.Holyoake responded in the sameissue of TheReasoner by calling the new movement “Secularism.” The connections initiated the cross-pollination of working- and middle-class Freethoughtthat resulted in the development of Secularism proper.Adherents included W.H. Ashurst,Francis Newman, Thornton Hunt,GeorgeHenry Lewes, Harriet Martineau, Herbert Spencer,Louis Blanc, and others. (McCabe 1908, Vol. 1, 145;Royle 1974,154–55;Blaszak 1988, 17;and Ashton 2008, 8–9). A few of these heterodoxthinkers would even contributearticles to TheReasoner. Manyfrom this same circle of London writers also metat142 Strand,the home and publishing houseofJohn Chapman, the publisher of TheWestminster Review,the organ of philosophical radicalism (Ashton 2008, 8–9).¹¹ Contributors to the periodical included Lewes, Marian Evans (formerlyMary Ann Evans and soon to adopt the pennameofGeorge Eliot), Herbert Spencer,Harriet Martineau, Charles Bray,George Combe, and, by 1853,Thomas Huxley.Manyofthe Westmin- ster writers showed an interest in the writingsofAuguste Comte “and in his plat- form for social improvement through aprogressive elaboration of the sciences” (White 2003,70). Marian Evans reviewed for the Westminster Robert William MacKay’s TheProgress of the Intellect (1850), awork of Comtean orientation (Westminster Review 1850,54: 353–68). Holyoake came to know Comte’sideas through his associationwith Lewes and Evans, as well through HarrietMarti- neau, who was then preparingher translation of his Positive Philosophy. Holy- oake’scontact with Comtean ideas was essential for the step that he was contem- plating – to take Freethought in anew direction (Royle 1974,156). LikeComte, Holyoake believed that religion had to be either substitutedwith or superintend- ed by a “positive” creed rather than being simply negated by atheism. Martineau approvingly noticed the new direction thatHolyoake was taking Freethought:

The adoption of the term Secularism is justified by its including alarge number of persons whoare not Atheists,and unitingthem for action which has Secularism for its object, and not Atheism… [I]f by the adoption of anew term, avast amount of impedimentfromprej-

 Another,overlapping circle centered on W. J. Foxand the Unitarian South Place Chapel. See BarbaraTaylor(1993, 60 –74). 38 Michael Rectenwald

udiceisgot rid of, the use of the term Secularism is found advantageous (Martineau1853, Boston Liberator,quoted in TheReasoner 1854,16.1: 5).¹²

In 1853, TheWestminster Review rananarticle that included adiscussion of Sec- ularism, stressingthat with Secularism, Freethought had “now abandoned the disproof of deity,contenting itself with the assertion that nothing could be known on the subject” (Westminster Review 1853,60: 129).In1862, the Westmin- ster claimed, as evidence of the failureofChristian orthodoxy,that Secularism had become the belief system of the silent majority of the workingclasses, whatever the number of those who subscribedtoits periodicals or associated with its official organizational structures (Westminster Review 1862, 77:60–97). Here, the author echoed the earlier remarks about Secularism by Horace Mann in his In- troduction to the 1851 census on religious worship (1854,93), albeit with fewer histrionics. By the early1850s, the cross-pollination between the middle- and working- class Freethoughtmovementswas well underway. Holyoake’sreviews and notices of the works of Francis Newman, Lewes, Martineauand others in TheRea- soner,togetherwith his work at the Leader and the notices of his Secularism in the Westminster,completed atwo-way circuit of exchange.

4The principles and wordhistoryofsecularism

Within two decades of its inception by George Jacob Holyoake in 1851–1852, although Holyoake was widelyrecognized as Secularism movement’sfounderand first leader,Secularism had come to be identifiedwith the much more charismat- ic and bombastic speaker,Charles Bradlaugh, and the National Secular Society (NSS), of which Bradlaughwas the first president at its founding in 1866.Previ- ous to the founding of the NSS, Secularism had been aloose federation of local branches headed by Holyoake. By the late 1860s, Holyoake had ceded, some- what unwittingly,his former centrality in the movement.Further,henolonger maintained exclusive control of the term Secularism, which he had coined to represent the movement.¹³ Secularism, boththe movement and the word, had slip- ped from Holyoake’sgrasp for several reasons.First,Holyoake alienated staunch

 The quotecirculated widelyand was found as far afield as the ScriptureReader’sJournal (1856:363 – 64).  Holyoake’sinability to hold swayoverhis neologism maybeseen as parallel to Huxley’s later difficulty with “agnosticism”,which Huxley had coined in 1869torepresent his own creed in the contextofthe Metaphysical Society. Mid-Nineteenth-CenturySecularism as Modern Secularity 39 freethinkingatheists, who essentiallyrefusedhis construal of Secularism, while they nevertheless operated under the rubric and remained important advocates for the movement.ConfidenceinHolyoake’sleadership wasundermined as his disputed business practices,aversion to centralized organization, and compara- blymeasured rhetorical approach werecriticized and challenged (Grugel1976, 54–55). The founding of the secularist National Reformer in 1860,with Bradlaugh as co-editor,along with the establishment of the NSS in 1866 with Bradlaughas president,did much to officiallyreduce Holyoake’sprominence within Secular- ism. Further,the Knowlton affair of 1877 (discussed below) calcified the rift between the Holyoake and Bradlaughcamps, evoking the censure of the latter by the former.¹⁴ Yetthis disapprobation was aconsequenceofthe significant media attention paid to Bradlaughand Annie Besant on the occasionoftheir trial for obscenity,which further associated Secularism with Bradlaugh. Bradlaugh’s electiontothe House of Commons for Northampton in 1880 and his eventual seating in 1886 augmented his renown (Crosby 1997, 177– 78). After the critical earlyyears, Holyoake intervened on the behalf of Secular- ism on manyoccasions,for example to write the PrinciplesofSecularism Briefly Explained in 1859,topen ThePrinciplesofSecularism in 1870,todebate Bra- dlaughinMarch of 1870,and with Charles Watts (Sr.), G. W. Foote and others, to (unsuccessfully) challengethe presidencyofthe NSS in the wake of the Knowlton affair(Holyoake 1859;Holyoake 1870;and Holyoake and Bradlaugh 1870). Despite these efforts, Secularism was often regarded in the terms provided by the older infidelity,asreintroduced by Bradlaugh. That is, it was understood as the equivalent of atheism.Yet,asIshow elsewhere(Rectenwald 2013,46.2: 231–254; Rectenwald 2016,107– 134), it was to Holyoake and his version of Sec- ularism that the scientific naturalists looked for arespectable and useful example of Freethought as they named, developed, and promoted theircosmology. Late in the century,Holyoake sought to reassert his priority whereSecular- ism was concerned – to solidify his legacyasits founder,and, yetagain, to insist upon its original principles. In 1896,inEnglishSecularism, AConfession of Belief, he left aretrospective index of tendocuments thatheregarded as foundational for Secularism’sinception and establishment (Holyoake 1896a, 45 – 49). Other than the first two articles, the Preface to TheMovement and the lectures to the Manchester Order of Odd-fellows,the documents had been published in The Reasoner. Holyoake clearlydemonstrated that TheReasoner had been at the cen- ter of the movement.Hereminded readers that he wroteall of the foundational texts,other thanthose that wereaddressed to him: “These citations from my own

 See TheSecular Review and Secularist (1877,1:22–23,65–66,77, 78,85–86,93, 142, and 189). 40 Michael Rectenwald writingsare sufficient to show the origin and nature of Secularism” (Holyoake 1896a, 48–49). While an exclusive textual focus is by no means sufficient for un- derstandingthe culturalmeaning and significance of Secularism, these texts nevertheless testify to the essential character of the Secularist creed as Holyoake sawit. Further,such areadingrepresents an exercise in “wordhistory” or “historical semantics.” As Gowan Dawson and Bernard Lightmanpoint out,drawing on Thomas Dixon’s TheInvention of Altruism (2008), “the relation between words and concepts is never simply neutral, and the changingfortunes of aterm have significant implications for the construction and communication of the ideas it might entail” (Dawson and Lightman 2013,3;Dixon 2008). In the caseofSecu- larism, the fateofthe wordinvolvedits appropriation by others in the Free- thoughtmovement and especiallythe largerSecular camp headed by Bradlaugh. This appropriation had significant implications concerning the meaning and un- derstandingofSecularism proper,and has impacted the meaning and significance of modern secularism in general. It has led to confusion such that modern secularism is understood primarilyasthe absenceornegation of religion and belief. The first principle of Holyoake’sSecularism was materialism, as enunciated in TheMovement: “Materialism will be advanced as the onlysound basis of ra- tional thought and practice” (Movement 1843, 1: 117), which “restrictsitself to the known, to the present,and … to realise the life that is” (Reasoner 1846,1:i). The remainingpoints weremade in TheReasoner,and included some of the first usages of the words “Secular” and “Secularism” as denoting and describinga new system of knowledge and morality.The twelfth volume of TheReasoner openedwith an article entitled, “TruthstoTeach,” which undertook to “indicate some of the objects which this journal endeavors to explain and enforce.” The first two pointshad been made in TheOracle and TheMovement,and in earlier volumes of TheReasoner:

1. To teachthat Churches,inaffirmingthe existenceofaBeingindependentofNature, af- firm what they do not know themselves – that they whosay they have discoveredDeity as- sume to have found what he has evidentlychosen to concealfrommen in this life by en- dowingthem with finite powers …–that whoever bids us depend upon the fruition of a futurelife maybetrayusfromthe use of this world. 2. To teachmen to limit,thereforeasamatter of truth and certainty,their affirmations to what they know – to restrict,asamatter of self-defence, their expectationstothat which their experience warrants (Reasoner 1852, 12: 1).

In this article, laterrecognized as foundational to the incipient Secularism, one of TheReasoner’sstated aims was to set limits on knowledge claims. Such limits would involvethe restriction of knowledge to “that which experience warrants.” Mid-Nineteenth-CenturySecularism as Modern Secularity 41

Theologywas deemed a “science of conjecture” in affirmingwhat can onlybe believed without knowledge,given the “finite powers” of the human faculties. With these principles, Holyoake soughttoremoveFreethoughtfrom the field of conjecture, and to confine it,asstatedinthe second point,tomatters of “certainty,” or what could be known givenour limited faculties.Under this principle, science was deemed the sole “Providence of Man,” which could be relied upon as an insurance against “false dependencies” (Holyoake 1854,5–6). With this announcement of aims, TheReasoner did not make the denial of deity necessary for the would-beSecularist.Knowledge for the benefit of humanity was separatedfrom conjecture, which had not proven its benefits in the realm of experience. TheReasoner did warn against the affirmation of deity and afuture life, giventhat reliance on them might “betray us from the use of this world” to the detriment of “progress” and amelioration. However,itwarned onlythat such conjectureshould be left behind for the purposesofpursuing knowledge and improvingmaterial conditions.Likewise, belief wasnot adisqualification for the pursuitofknowledge or progress,onlyapossible obstacle.One’sbelief in the supernatural was amatter of speculation or opinion to which one was entitled, unlesssuch belief precluded positive knowledge or action. This rhetorical and philosophical turn represented the cleanest break hitherto from the previous dogmatism of earlier Freethought considered as equivalent to atheism, while also marking the nascent Secularism as aprecursor of agnosticism and scientific naturalism (Rectenwald 2013,46.2: 234; Marsh 1998, 240). While Holyoake was inconsistent on this point and included atheism as the “negative aspect” of Sec- ularism as late as 1854,hereiterated the distinction between Secularism and freethinkingatheism often. Forexample, in March of 1858, he argued that:

[t]o make Atheism the Shibboleth of the Secular party would be to makeSecularism an atheistic sectarianism as narrow and exclusive as anyChristian Sectarianism. The principles of Secularism aredistinct both from Atheism and Theism, and there can be no honest, useful, wide, and liberal party without keepingthis point well understood (Reasoner 1858, 23:81).

He latersuggested that Secularism considered both theism and atheismas“be- longingtothe debatable ground of speculation” with their “theories of the origin of nature.” Secularism “neither asks nor givesany opinion upon them, confining itself to the entirelyindependent field of study – the order of the universe.” Holy- oake could note in hindsight thatsimilarly, “Huxley’sterm agnosticism impliesa different thing [than atheism] – unknowingness without denial,” but “unknowingness withoutdenial” was fundamental to Secularism from its inception. (Holyoake 1896a, 36–37). 42 Michael Rectenwald

With the third object of “TruthstoTeach”–“to teach men to see that the sum of all knowledge and duty is secular – that it pertains to this world alone” (Reasoner 1852, 12: 1) – Holyoake could rightlyclaim to have been an in- novator,ifnot aneologist; “this was the first time the word ‘Secular’ was applied as ageneral test of principles of conduct apart from spiritual considerations,” Holyoake claimed (1896b, 51). The Secular principle was in effect an ontological demarcationstratagem, dividing the metaphysical, spiritual, or eternal from “this life”–the material, the worldly, or the temporal: “Secularity drawsthe line of demarcation between the thingsoftime and the thingsofeternity” (Rea- soner 1852, 12: 127). The “secular” for Holyoake designated the onlydomain whereknowledge could be gained and effective action taken (Reasoner 1852, 12: 34). Like Karl Popper’slaterdemarcation of science from pseudoscience and metaphysics in the Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), Secularism deemed that whatever could not be “tested by the experience of this life” should simply be of no concern to the scientist,moralist,orpolitician. The “Secularist” was one who restricted efforts to “thatprovinceofhuman duty which belongstothis life” (Reasoner 1852,12: 34). AccordingtoHolyoake (1896a, 47), this was the first time the word “Secularist” was used to denote an adherent to a “new wayofthinking” – to represent one who avowed Secular principles. In fact,W.H.Ashurst,writing to TheReasoner under the pseudonym “EdwardSearch,” first suggested the words “Secular” and “Secularist” to describe the new branch of Freethought that Holyoake was developing,and one who aligned with it.Inthe same article, Holyoake coined the term “Secularism” to describe “the work we have always had in hand” (Reasoner 1851,11: 88). Secularism wasadvanced not onlyasanepistemologybut also as amorality and politics. With his fourth aim, Holyoake argued for the “independent origin” of morality.Rather thanbeing basedonreligious doctrine, the sourceofmorality was nature –“the real nature” of human beings – and its warrants weretobe found in the consequences of actions, “natural sanctions of the most effective kind” (Reasoner 1852, 12: 1). Never astrict Benthamite, and harking back to the social environmentalism of Godwin and Owen, Holyoake based morality pri- marilyonthe purported goodness of human nature itself, and onlysecondarily, in conjunction with practical results. Without abasis of natural goodness, asecular system would be unable to warrant motivesfor right actions (Holyoake 1854, 6). Intelligence, an aspect of human nature developed by knowledge,was re- quired in order to discriminate between good and deleterious effects. The results wereevaluated by intelligenceaccordingtoutilitarian ethics, which in turn resulted in moral knowledge that influenced future actions. Politics was simply moralitywrit large.Thus, amoral and political science was advanced, comprised of aguiding principle and ascientific method. Mid-Nineteenth-CenturySecularism as Modern Secularity 43

In its claims for apolitical science based on human nature,Secularism was similar to the Positivism of August Comte. However,Holyoake never suggested, as did Comte, that once discovering the social laws, human beingsmust subject themselvestothose laws in an act of acquiescence, which has been seen as Posi- tivism’sconservativecharacter.For Comte, the laws for conduct werenot neces- sarilyinhuman nature alone, but in a “social physics” based on human nature. Comte avowedlyaimed at establishing a “social physics” in order to avert social and political chaos by positing asocial lawfulness consistent with physical reg- ularity.¹⁵ The fifth point urgedthe trust of nothing but “Reason” for the establishment of all knowledge.The concept of reason was, as usual,avery slippery one. Its meaning could reallyonlybecompletelyunderstood by referencetowhat it ex- cluded – in all cases, religious and other metaphysical speculation. It was not primarilydistinguishedfrom imagination as in Romanticism, but rather from the unsubstantiated belief of theology. Reasonwas figured as the logical treat- ment of experience, relying on “nothing which does not come within the rangeofphenomenon, or common consciousness,orassumes the form of a law” (Reasoner 1852, 12: 130). Thepoint was to deriveknowledge by means of the intellectual processing of empirical data as opposed to accepting apriori convictions. Free inquiry and discussion comprised the sixth aim. Only those statements withstanding the test of “universal free, fair and open discussion … the highest test of vital truth … can be trusted, “ Holyoake argued (Reasoner 1852, 12: 1). “[O] nlythat theory which is submitted to that ordeal is to be regarded, as onlythat which endures it can be trusted” (Reasoner 1852, 12: 130). In the requirement that all propositions stand the test of criticism and “testing,” the sixth object resem- bles Popper’scriterion for science – the subjection of statements to possibledis- qualification or falsification in an agnostic field of testing and discourse. These principles represented the “positive aspect” of Secularism. At least until 1854 and possiblylater, Holyoake wavered slightlyonthe dividing line between Secularism and earlier Freethought; Secularism’s “negative side,” which was to “protest against specific speculative error” (theism), was occasionallyre- vived. The twosides sometimes remained together underSecularism as a “double protest” (1854,5). However,the tendencyofthe Holyoake camp was to jettison the protest and to emphasize Secularism as anew kind or stageofFreethought – that is, to assert Secularism’slimitation to the field of positive knowledge and

 In an introduction to her compilation of Comte’smajor works, Gertrude Lenzer (1975,xxxiii), described Comte’sform of materialism as an “anticipatory conservatism.” 44 Michael Rectenwald to posit asubstantive morality,asopposed to or exclusive of the negation of deity and theology.

5Atheism, sex, and secularism

On 5April 1877,aswas widelyreported in the press,Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaughwerearrested and chargedwith printing and publishing “acertain in- decent,lewd, filthy, bawdy, and obscene book,called ‘Fruits of Philosophy,’ thereby contaminating,vitiating,and corruptingmorals” (Mills, Stone, Wilson, and Bulwer 1878,607). Besant and Bradlaughwould stand trial for the publication, atrial that would gain enormouspublicity and bring significant,and for some, unwanted attention to the Secularist movement.For Besant and Bra- dlaugh, the Knowlton affair,asitcame to be called, represented atest of a free press,aswell as the defense of “adiscussion of the most important social question which can influenceanation’swelfare” (Knowlton, Bradlaugh, and Be- sant 1877,vi). This discussion involved the doctrineofpopulation and the right of afree people to criticallyexamine the issue of birth control. Although the trial ended in February 1878 in an acquittal on the grounds of atechnicality exploited by Bradlaugh, the savvyformerlegal clerk, the trial put contraception onto the breakfast tables of the middle classand associateditwith Secularism. Dr.Charles Knowltonwrote and first published Fruits of Philosophy, or the Private CompanionofYoung Married People in 1832 in Massachusetts. The pamphlet was aneo-Malthusian pro-birth-control manual detailing the physiology of human sexualityand the means of couples for limiting the sizeoftheir families. In the “Philosophical Proem” introducing the text,Knowlton argued that the practice of sexwas aphysiological and moral necessity;hereasoned from Ben- thamite principles thatany moderate expression of sexual passion thatdid not resultinmisery added anet pleasure to the world and thus was to be encouraged. Furthermore,the sexual instinct would not be curbedinthe mass of hu- manityaccordingtoMalthusian abstentionism. Onlypractical measures to limit procreation – new methodsofcontraception – could solve the predicament resultant from the sexual instinct on the one hand and the tendency of population growth on the other (Knowlton, Bradlaugh, and Besant 1877,9–11). Al- though the pamphlet was released anonymously, Knowltonwas arrested, tried, and convicted of obscenity,serving three months of hard labor in East Cam- bridge jail. Fruits of Philosophy was importedinto Britain and publishedbythe radical disciple of Richard Carlile, James Watson, who took over Carlile’spublishing ventureswhile Carlile was in Dorchesterjail. Watson also became Holyoake’s Mid-Nineteenth-CenturySecularism as Modern Secularity 45 publisherand in 1853 Holyoake bought Watson’sstock and sold it under the Sec- ularist banner.Asnoted by Bradlaughand Besant in theirchroniclingofthe Knowlton affair in the Publisher’sPrefaceoftheir republication of the work, Fruits of Philosophy was listed in Holyoake’s “Freethought Directory” in 1853 (Knowlton, Bradlaugh, and Besant 1877,iii). TheReasoner had sometimeslisted the birth control pamphlet among the bookssold by Holyoake’sFleet Street House for Watson (although Holyoake had never explicitlysupported the publication).¹⁶ Fruits of Philosophy was published for atime by Austin Holyoake, George Holyoake’sbrother,inconjunction with the National Reformer,and when Watson died, the plates for all of his publications, including Fruits of Phi- losophy,werepurchased from Watson’swidow by Charles Watts, who published the work until 23 December 1876 (Besant,1885, 83). As apublisher of Fruits of Philosophy,itwas Watts who, in January 1877,was first chargedwith printing and publishing an obscene book. The legal attention attracted by the work wasprobablydue to several factors, not the least of which included new drawingsinserted by Watts, and his loweringofthe price (Besant 1885, 31). But another factor was the passageinAugust 1857 of the Obscene Pub- lications Act, which made acourt’sinterpretation the new test for obscenity.Ac- cording to the new Act, apublicationcould be deemed obscene if it demonstrat- ed – as argued successfullybyLordChief Justice,Sir Alexander Cockburn in 1868 in the celebrated case of Regina v. Hicklin – a “tendency … to deprave and corrupt thosewhose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands apublication of this sortmay fall” (Green and Karolides 2005, 232). Obscenity,that is, was now legallyinthe eyeofthe beholder,rather than based on something “objective” in the text itself. Thelaw apparentlyembold- ened prosecutors and facilitated arrests. Further,given this new definition of obscenity,the accused was effectively guilty until proven innocent (Dawson 2007, 116–61). After his arrest,Watts met with Bradlaughand Besant,who agreed to sup- port him in his defense and to raise money for his trial. But upon further reflec- tion, once out of Besant’sand Bradlaugh’scompany, Watts decided not to defend the right to publish the book and to recanthis not-guilty plea and enter aplea of guilty as charged. Upon his trial, Watts was fined 500 pounds and released (Be- sant 1885, 81). Besant and Bradlaughnot onlyimmediatelycut theirbusiness ties with Watts, who had been their publisherfor the National Review and other works but alsothey decided to republish Fruits of Philosophy under the banner of their newlyformed publishing partnership, the FreethoughtPublishing Com-

 See, for example,the advertisement “Books on Free Inquiry” (Reasoner 1854,17: 95 and 256). 46 Michael Rectenwald pany(Besant 1885, 80). While they found much wantinginFruits of Philosophy, the right of publication, they argued, was amatter of principle. Bradlaughand Besant reasoned that if they failed to assert “The Right of Publication” of a book that was not obscene but was also ascientific text,then the Freethought movement would be damaged and the cause of afreepress severelycompro- mised (Besant 1885, 82). Not everyone in the Secularist movement agreed with this decision to republish, least especiallyHolyoake, who (unsuccessfully) attempted to removeBra- dlaughand Besant from the Executive Committeeofthe National Secular Society (NSS) (Besant 1885, 133). In 1877,inthe midst of the Knowlton affair, Holyoake was invited by Freethinkers to chair acommittee chargedwith reviewing the rules of the NSS. The commission challenged the position of president itself, a position thatBradlaughhad held from the beginning of the organization. The failuretorid the NSS of the presidency and thus to unseat Bradlaughled to the formation of the British Secular Union (BSU) in August 1877,anew organization of the Secular movement established in oppositiontothe Bradlaughian NSS and supported by the new periodical TheSecularReview as its official publication (Royle 1980,18).¹⁷ This organization, Isuggest,was the result of more than the Knowltonaffair; it registered along-standing alienation between Holyoake and Bradlaughand their respective camps. But the secession of George Holy- oake, Charles Watts, and otherSecularistsfrom the NSS, and theirfounding of the BSUinthe wake of the Knowlton affair, solidified an alreadysignificant breach within the Secularist movement,one that now appeared to ossify around the issue of sexuality. In his studyofDarwin and respectability,GowanDawson devotes achapter to obscenity legislation in connection with Darwinism, treatinginsome detail the relationship between the Darwinian scientific naturalists and the two branches of Freethought,which MichaelMason has referred to as the “anti-sensual progressive” (Holyoake) and the “pro-sensual” (Bradlaugh) Secularist camps (Dawson 2007,116–61;Mason 1994). Dawson suggests that the primary divisionbetween the Secularist camps was predicated on differences over sexual policy and birth control.According to Dawson, Bradlaughand Annie Besant’s republication and legal defense in 1877–1878 of Knowlton’s Fruits of Philosophy became the primary reason for the split between the Holyoake and Bradlaugh

 The final division of the Secularistcamps as aresultofthe Knowlton affair is at quiteodds with LauraSchwartz’sassertion (2013,200) that Holyoake “remained neutral on the question” of the republication and defense of the Fruits of Philosophy. In fact,Holyoakewrote specificallyto disavowthe textinthe pressand seceded fromthe NSS to form anew secular union, the British Secular Union (BSU) in the aftermath of the controversy. Mid-Nineteenth-CenturySecularism as Modern Secularity 47 camps. Birth control and sexual policy, Dawson argues, “werebyfar the most divisive issue[s] within the British Freethought movement in the nineteenth century” (Dawson 2007,119). In figuring sexual policy as the fault line dividing the two Secularist camps, Dawson overlooks the well-documented, fundamental division within Secular- ism. This division, as Royle points out,not onlytook holdbetween the major two camps of Secularism, but also within them (1980,120). The primary split dated to the early1850s and went to the definition of Secularism itself.Differen- ces in sexual policymay be understood in large part in terms of this fundamental split.From the beginning of the movement and creed,Holyoake had differenti- ated Secularism from the older Freethoughtmovement,shifting its emphasis from a “negative” to a “positive” orientation. Philosophically, this entailed what he and others sometimescalled a “suspensive scepticism,” which included not onlydenying atheism as arequisitecommitment but also definitively disa- vowing anydeclarative assertion on the question of deity (Grant and Holyoake 1853,56and 200). As Holyoake argued (rather misleadingly)inthe celebrated debate with the Reverend Brewin Grant in 1853, “[w]e have always held thatthe ex- istenceofDeity is “past finding out,and we have held that the time employed upon the investigation might be more profitablydevoted to the studyofhuman- ity” (Grant and Holyoake 1853,8). In terms of strategy, as we have seen, this position meant cooperationbetween unbelievers and believers; the invitation to join the Secularists extended not onlytoChristian Socialists such as Charles Kingsley and his ilk but alsotoliberal theistswith reformist politics, such as Francis M. Newman and James AnthonyFroude. In terms of principle, it meant that Holyoake’sSecularism, as opposed to Bradlaugh’s, was specifically not atheist. Manyleading Freethinkers rejected the construction that Holyoake had put on Freethought with his Secularism, as well as his aversion to centralized organization and purportedfailures in organization. These included, as we have seen, Charles Southwell; but the defectors also included Holyoake’sbrother Austin, Robert Cooper, and most importantly, Charles Bradlaugh. With Bradlaugh’smeteoric rise to prominenceinthe Secular field in the 1860s, the divide between the Secularist camps became more pronounced. In 1850,Holyoake had chaired aFreethought meeting and invited the youngBra- dlaugh, at the mere ageofseventeen, to speak on “The Past,Present,and Future of Theology” (Courtney 1920,105). By the late 1850s, Bradlaughhad found in the Investigator avehicle for his trenchant atheism. In 1858, he had been elected president of the London Central Secularist Society,assumingthe position Holy- oake had held for nearlyadecade. By 1860,hehad become founderand co-editor of the NationalReformer. Yetinanattempt to close the ranks of the Secularist 48 Michael Rectenwald body, in November 1861, Bradlaughinvited Holyoake to join the National Reform- er as aspecial contributor.Holyoake accepted, and even signed aletter entitled, “One Paper and One Party,” published in the periodical. Beginning in January 1862, he was responsible for curating three pages – either of his ownwriting, or from his associates. But in February,acorrespondent to the paper complained of the paper’sdiversity of opinion and asked what the National Reformer definitively advocatedregardingreligion. Bradlaugh’sanswer effectively marked the end of Holyoake’sinvolvement: “Editorially, the National Reformer,astoreli- gious questions, is, and always has been, as far as we are concerned, the advocate of Atheism.” The consequencewas afall-out between Bradlaughand Holy- oake that included afinancial dispute, with Holyoake apparentlydemanding a year’ssalary,after having onlyserved threemonths in his capacity as “chief contributor” (Bonner 1895,128–30). By 1870,the lines wereevenmoreseverelydrawn. In adebate between Holy- oake and Bradlaugh(chaired by Holyoake’sbrother,Austin, by then an acolyte of Bradlaugh’s), the topic was the place of atheismwithin Secularism. In effect, George Holyoake denied that Bradlaughwas aSecularist at all. Further,Bra- dlaughadmitted that, accordingtoHolyoake’sdefinition – adefinition, he suggested, that the founderofthe movement had aright to maintain – Holyoake was right that he should not be called aSecularist (Holyoake and Bradlaugh 1870,10). Nevertheless, by then the President of the NSS, Bradlaughasserted that Secularism necessarilyamounted to atheism –“Ihold that Atheism is the logical resulttoall who are able to think the matter out”–and that Holyoake’s reasoningwas simply flawed (Holyoake and Bradlaugh1870, vii). Holyoake, for his part,remained as firm as ever that Secularism did not “include” atheism, but concomitantly, that it did not “exclude” atheists (Holyoake and Bradlaugh1870, 19 –20), apoint which Bradlaughconsidered illogical (Holyoake and Bradlaugh 1870,11). Holyoake further suggested that making atheismacondition of Secular- ism was to delaythe work of Secular improvement indefinitely, while atheism made its clean “sweep” of theological notions:

Mr.Watts [then still aBradlaughsupporter] goes on to state [in the National Reformer], “The province of Secularismisnot onlytoenunciatepositive principles,but also to breakupold systems which have lost their vitality,and to refutetheologies which have hithertousurped judgment and reason.” Here is an immensesweep. None of us will live to see the daywhen the man whohas made it,will be able to give us the secular informationwhich we arewait- ing to receive now (Holyoakeand Bradlaugh1870, 19,emphasis added).

Instead of advocating the undertaking of such “an immense sweep,” Holyoake contendedthatSecularism should be established independentlyoftheologyas acreed having positive principles of its own, and that the work of secular im- Mid-Nineteenth-CenturySecularism as Modern Secularity 49 provement should be undertaken at once. He quoted acontributor to the Nation- al Reformer (again, his brother,Austin), who had asserted that it was “impossible to advocate Secular principles apartfrom Atheism … There is no man or woman who is willingtolisten to Secular views, knowing they are intended to set up a system entirelyapart and devoid of all religion.” George Holyoake did not spare his brother criticism:

Youset up Secular principles for their own value. Manypersonsare Secularists whocan see religion even in this. Theprovision is not to set up athing “devoid of all religion,” but to set up athing distinct in itself,and youhavenomoreright to sayitisset up apartfromthe religion, than the clergyman has aright to say, when youset up Secular knowledge apart from his creed, that youintend thereby to set it up devoid of religion or public piety (Holyoakeand Bradlaugh1870, 8 – 9).

We see here that by Secularism Holyoake meant asubstantive doctrine, not the mere absence or negation of religion or religious belief. Forthis reason, it could (logicallyorotherwise) stand parallel to (or above) religious systems. Moreover, he was even willingtoallow Secularism to be construed as areligion in its own right.This was amore acceptable optionthan includingatheismasanecessary element of Secularism. Furthermore, whenever the question of sexual policy was raised,the issue of atheismwas never farremoved. In the 1870 debate between Bradlaughand Holy- oake, for example, Holyoake had distinguishedbetween what he called “positive” and “negative” atheism. While the former was “aproud, honest, intrepid, self-respectingattitude of the mind,”“Negative Atheism” consisted of “mere ig- norance, of insensibility, of lust,and gluttony, and drunkenness, of egotism or vanity” (Holyoake and Bradlaugh1870, 47). With this distinction,which he registered seemingly out of the blue, Holyoake was in fact acknowledging along- standing association of atheism with immorality,inparticularwith sexual prof- ligacyand othersensual licentiousness.His definitions represented anot-so- subtle chastisement of the Bradlaughcamp for its neo-Malthusian advocacy in the National Reformer – its recommendations of preventive checks to procreation (birth control). Moreover,Holyoake also apparentlycommented on the position of his brother,Austin, whose own neo-Malthusian pamphlet, LargeorSmall Families,had appeared in 1870.While Bradlaughdenied knowledge of any such “Negative Atheism” or anyone who practiced it (Holyoake and Bradlaugh 1870,56), givenhis well-known neo-Malthusianism, it must have been clear to those familiar with the contentiousfield of Secularism what Holyoake meant by the phrase “Negative Atheism.” In the Publisher’sPrefacetothe 1877 edition of Fruits of Philosophy,the edition that led to the obscenity indictments brought against Bradlaughand Annie 50 Michael Rectenwald

Besant,Bradlaughand Besant chargedHolyoake and companywith hypocrisy, suggesting that he and Watson had sold and profited by the book for decades. If they had considered the book obscene all the while, then they had carelessly “thus scattered obscenity broadcast over the land” (Knowlton, Bradlaugh, and Besant 1877,iv). Likewise, whydid they not stand behind the republication of the book?Holyoake’sdisapproval of the decision by Bradlaughand Besant to republish and defend the book had been registered by the time they wrotetheir publisher’spreface, givenHolyoake’sdisavowals in the press (Royle 1980,92). It was clear that Bradlaughand Besant werealreadyacutelyaware of Holyoake’s position. Neo-Malthusian doctrine necessarilyinvolvedSecularistsofthe Holyoake camp in amoral quandary.Should birth control applystrictlytothe moderation of familygrowth within the confines of marriage? If not,might it encouragesex- ual profligacy?Given his concern for Secularism’srespectability,Holyoake had always recommended moraldiscipline and reservation. Although possiblyhav- ing some sympathyfor neo-Malthusian practices within marriage, having supported more liberal laws for divorce, and despite his contact with Hunt and Lewes, he had for decades effectivelyskirted the issuesinvoked by Freethought in connection with sexual policy.¹⁸ Further,with roots in the communitarianism of Owenitesocialism, the implications of Malthusian political economyhad always been unpalatable. Thus, the Knowlton affair thrust him into aconfrontation he would have rather avoided. The Knowlton affair had connected Secularism with neo-Malthusianism, potentiallyembarrassing Holyoake, and not onlyfor the associations with immoralitythat he feared. Not onlydid neo-Malthusian doctrine, per se,conflict with his socialist predilections but also the problem of sexual conduct exposed theoretical and practical contradictions within his kind of Secularism; Holyoake’srefusal to place primary importance on the elimination of Christian theologyand morality,his insistence on suspending judgment regarding Christian values that supposedlydid not conflict with secular progress – this abdication of normativity was impossiblewhere sexual conduct was concerned. To be strictlyconsistent theoretically, aUtilitarian and neo-Mal- thusian moral code for sexualitywould have signified widespread use of contra- ceptivesand such extensive sexual activity as afforded anet pleasurable return for all concerned, regardless of the legal status of the partners. YetHolyoake never advocated such aposition. Certainly, as Michael Mason has observed, “[t]he exalted status of rationality in the advanced thought of the eighteenth cen-

 The debates in TheReasoner in 1855 over George Drysdale’s TheElements of Social Science (1854) reveal Holyoake’sequivocation. Mid-Nineteenth-Century Secularism as Modern Secularity 51 tury had alasting influenceonall radical and reformingcreedsinthe nineteenth,” includingSecularism (Mason 1994,284–85). But,arguably, the utilita- rianism of Holyoake’sSecularism was buttressed by and dependentupon pre- vailingChristian values, what Masonrefers to as “classic moralism,” at least wherehuman sexuality and social reproduction wereconcerned. Arguably, Holy- oake’sposition on sexuality owed less to anti-sensualist rationalism inherited from the Enlightenment than it did to the observance of Christian-based propri- ety.AsJohn Stuart Mill put it to Holyoake in aletter in 1848:

[T]he root of my difference with youisthat youappear to accept the present constitution of the family&the whole of the priestlymorality founded on &connectedwith it – which morality in my opinion thorough[ly] deserves the epithets of “intolerant,slavish &selfish” (Mill, Mineka, Priestley,and Robson 1963, 741).

That is, Holyoake’sSecularism had not established an entirely unalloyed social science in place of or independent of religious systems. Rather,inhis attempt to erect asubstantivecreed alongside (or above), but not necessarilyincontradic- tion to Christianity,¹⁹ his Secularism had implicitlyassumedstandardsfor sexual conduct having little or nothing to do with its own stated principles. In terms of secularity, this meant thatHolyoake’sversion of Secularism never entirelydiffer- entiated itself from the religious sphere.

6Conclusion:Secularism versus the standard secularizationthesis

Secularism, as Holyoake conceivedit, opened up aspace whereworking-class and genteel radicals, atheists, theists, and, anachronisticallyspeaking, agnostics, could potentiallycooperate for the material improvement of humanity,especiallythe workingclasses. But manyFreethinkers, both those of his own gener- ation and those to follow (see Richter and Shook, this volume), differed with Holyoake’sconception of Secularism and either rejected it outright,ormodified it for their own purposes. As Ihavesuggested, the major division between the Holyoake and Bradlaughcamps was basedprimarilyonthe question of atheism, but alsoincluded differences over Malthusian political economyand apro-birth

 Secularismdid include the contradictory ambition of replacingreligious belief and morality with secular values. This tension is explored in the epilogueofmybook (Rectenwald 2016,197– 201). 52 Michael Rectenwald control sexual policy derivedfrom it.Sexual policy and atheismwerenot so easi- ly disentangled; the mere mentionofone often implied the other.Finally, sexual policy represented acontradiction within Holyoake’sSecularism and, thus, illus- tratedthe extent to which Holyoake had failed to establish asecular system as fullydifferentiated from the religious sphere. Remarkably, the two different senses of Secularism thatIhave discussed, at least wherethe primary distinctionisconcerned, survive to this dayinthe forms and understandings of general modern secularism (and,sodoes confusion between them; see Langston et al. this volume). Under Bradlaugh’smodel, the mission of secularism is evacuative,the category of the secular is negative,and secularization is understood as progressive and teleological. Secularism amountsto agradual, but eventual emptying of religion from the public(and in some cases, even the private) sphere. That is, Bradlaugh’sSecularism amounted to abelief in what we now understand as the standard secularization thesis.²⁰ On the other hand, under Holyoake’smodel, Secularism is constructive,the category of the secular is positive and substantive,and secularization is understood as an in- creasinglydeveloping,complex plurality of belief, unbelief, and suspension between the two, along with other creedal commitments.Aswehaveseen, Holy- oake represented Secularism as apluralistic, inclusive,and contingently constructed combination of willing theists, unbelievers, and agnostics. He did this by positing improvement in this life as acommon aim of believers and unbelievers, leaving metaphysical questions largely out of the question. In this, I argue, Holyoake tacitlyacknowledgedthe unlikelihood that Enlightenment rationality,extended into the nineteenth century,would utterlyeradicate religious belief. As he put it in the 1870 debate with Bradlaugh, the completeevacuation of religiosity would require such “an immense sweep” thattoattempt it was tan- tamount to insanity and resulted in the gross negligence of pressingsecular mat- ters.Holyoake grasped asense of secularityasinvolving recognition and coop- eration between religion and its others, avision of the public and political spheres not unlike that which Jü rgenHabermas has recentlydescribed as “post-secular” (2008, 25.4:17–29). Rather than (or even while) expecting its dis- appearance accordingtoamodel of secularization (or Secularism), that is, the secularist had best accommodate religious discourse within apublic sphere no- table for its uneven and forever incompletesecularization. In fact,secularization and Secularism represented just this incompleteand permanent unevenness.

 David Nash (2004,1:302– 25)suggests that such a belief is in fact commonamongcontem- porary sociologists and others whomaintain the standardsecularization thesis,regardless of empiricalevidenceand theoretical disputationtothe contrary. Mid-Nineteenth-Century Secularism as Modern Secularity 53

Once Freethought entered this positive phase,however – one of positing a substantivemoral and epistemological value system, as opposed to merelyan- tagonizing religious believers and negatingtheism – it could develop into a new,moreinclusive,sophisticated creed and movement.EdwardRoyle (1974, 160 –62)has suggested that this development should be understood in terms of akind of limited ecumenism, as the transformation of areligious sect into adenomination. However,such an interpretationfails to grasp the secular as acategory distinct from and yetnecessarilyrelated to and dependentupon the religious (seeShook, this volume). With Holyoake’sSecularism, Freethought was not,orwas no longer,anentirely religious movement per se. Instead, by vir- tue of ademarcation principle that removed from consideration Christianity’s metaphysical convictions, the secular began aprocess of differentiation from within the religious sphere. With Secularism, Freethought no longer contended for metaphysical sovereignty preciselyonthe grounds of theologyitself. Or to put it another way, with mid-century Secularism, some Freethinkers began to understand secularity differently. Rather thanpositing the category of the secular as the mere negation or absenceofreligion and belief, thus keepingitsecurely within the religious ambit,secularity(called Secularism by Holyoake and com- pany) was understood and described as adistinct development,anew stagere- sultinginanoverarching condition thatembraced unbelief and belief, the secular and the religious, and not the negation of one by the other. LauraSchwartz puts it thusly for the benefitofcontemporary historiography:

Oncesecularism is approached as asubstantive rather than anegativecategory – as some- thingmorethan simplyanabsenceofreligion – it becomes possible to see how religion mayindeed playarolewithin asecular worldview without simplycollapsingsecularism into the wider category of religion (Schwartz 2013,20).

Schwartz is of course speaking to our understanding of secularity, invoking Charles Taylor’srejection of and alternative to the standard secularization thesis – of secularization as continual “subtraction” (Taylor 2007) – and applying this new conception to the period. However,this understanding of secularityshould not onlyguide our research but also should be recognized as preciselythe conception that was dawning on Holyoake by the late-1840s, and what he conscious- ly understood as developing with Secularism. This was in fact how Holyoake had envisaged Secularism proper at mid-century. 54 Michael Rectenwald

Bibliography

Periodicals

Boston Liberator The Movement Our Corner:AMonthlyMagazine of Fiction, Poetry,Politics, Science, Art, Literature The Republican ScriptureReader’sJournal The Nineteenth Century: AMonthlyReview The Oracle of Reason, or PhilosophyVindicated The Reasoner And Herald of Progress (Various subtitles hereafter) The Secular Review and Secularist The Westminster Review Weekly Dispatch

Primaryand SecondarySources

Ashton, Rosemary. 2008. 142 Strand: ARadical Address in Victorian London. London: Vintage. Berger,Peter L. 1999. The Desecularization of the World:Resurgent Religion and World Politics. Washington, D.C.: Ethicsand Public PolicyCenter. Besant, Annie. 1885. “Autobiographical Sketches,” Our Corner: AMonthlyMagazineof Fiction, Poetry,Politics, Science, Art, Literature 5: 83. Blaszak, BarbaraJ.1988. George JacobHolyoake(1817–1906) and the Developmentofthe BritishCooperative Movement. Lewiston, NY: The EdwinMellen Press. Bonner,Hypatia Bradlaugh and John M. Robertson. 1895. CharlesBradlaugh: ARecord of His Life and Work. London: TF Unwin. Bush, M. L. 1998. What Is Love?: RichardCarlile’sPhilosophy of Sex. London: Verso. Campbell, Colin. 1871. TowardASociologyofIrreligion. London: Macmillan. Chase,Malcom. 2007. Chartism: ANew History. Manchester and New York: Manchester UniversityPress. Courtney, Janet E. H. 1920. Freethinkers of the Nineteenth Century. New York: E.P.Dutton. Crosby, Travis L. 1997. The TwoMr. Gladstones: AStudy in Psychologyand History. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress. Dawson, Gowan. 2007. Darwin, Literatureand Victorian Respectability. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. Dawson, Gowan and BernardV.Lightman. 2013. “Introduction.” In Victorian Scientific Naturalism: Community,Identity,Continuity,edited by Gowan Dawson and BernardV. Lightman, 1–23. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Dixon, Thomas.2008. The Invention of Altruism: Making Moral Meanings in Victorian Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grant, Brewin and George Holyoake. 1853. Christianity and Secularism: Report of aPublic Discussionbetween Brewin Grant… and George Jacob Holyoake,Esq. London: Ward. Mid-Nineteenth-Century Secularism as Modern Secularity 55

Green, Jonathon and NicholasJ.Karolides. 2005. Encyclopedia of Censorship. New York: Facts on File. Grugel, Lee. 1976. George Jacob Holyoake:AStudy in the Evolution of aVictorian Radical. Philadelphia: Porcupine Press. Habermas,Jürgen. 2008. “NotesonPost-Secular Society.” NPQ: New Perspectives Quarterly 25.4: 17–29. Holyoake, George Jacob. 1854. Secularism, The Practical Philosophyofthe People. London: Holyoake&Co. Holyoake, George Jacob. 1859. PrinciplesofSecularismBriefly Explained. London: Holyoake & Co. Holyoake, George Jacob. 1870. The Principles of SecularismIllustrated. London: Austin &Co. Holyoake, George Jacob. 1892. Sixty Years of an Agitator’sLife, 2vols. London: T. F. Unwin. Holyoake, George Jacob. 1896a. EnglishSecularism: AConfession of Belief. Chicago: Open Court Pub.Co. Holyoake, George Jacob. 1896b. The Origin and NatureofSecularism; Showing that Where FreethoughtCommonlyEndsSecularism Begins. London: Watts. Holyoake, George Jacoband Charles Bradlaugh. 1870. Secularism, Scepticism, and Atheism: Verbatim Report of the Proceedings of aTwo Nights” Public Debate between Messrs. GJ. Holyoake &C.Bradlaugh: Held at the New Hall of Science … London, on the Evenings of March 10 and 11, 1870. London: Austin. Huxley,Thomas H. February1889. “Agnosticism.” The Nineteenth Century: AMonthlyReview 25.144: 169–94. Huxley,Thomas H. March 1889. “Agnosticism:ARejoinder.” The Nineteenth Century: A MonthlyReview 25.145:481–504. Huxley,Thomas H. June1889. “Agnosticismand Christianity.” The Nineteenth Century: A MonthlyReview 25.148: 937–64. Knowlton, Charles, Charles Bradlaugh, and Annie Besant. 1877. FruitsofPhilosophy: An Essayonthe Population Question. Rotterdam: v.d. Hoeven &Buys. Lenzer,Gertrude. 1975. Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings. New York: Harper &Row. Lightman, Bernard. 1989. “Ideology,Evolution and Late-Victorian Agnostic Popularizers.” In History,Humanity and Evolution: Essays for John C. Greene,edited by James Moore, 285–310.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Lightman, Bernard. 2002. “Huxley and Scientific Agnosticism:the StrangeHistory of aFailed RhetoricalStrategy.” BritishJournal for the History of Science 35.3: 271–89. Mann, Horace. 1854. Census of Great Britain, 1851: Religious Worship in England and Wales. London: G. Routledge. Marsh, Josh. 1998. Word Crimes: Blasphemy, Culture, and LiteratureinNineteenth-Century England. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Marx, Karl.1998. The German Ideology: Including Thesis on Feuerbach. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Mason, Michael. 1994. The Making of Victorian Sexual Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCabe, Joseph. 1908. Life and Letters of George Jacob Holyoake,2vols. London: Watts & Co. 56 Michael Rectenwald

Mill, John Stuart, Francis E. Mineka, F. E. L. Priestley,and John M. Robson. 1963. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. (f.e.l. Priestley [Subsequently] J.M. Robson, General Editor.) (Vol. 12, 13. the Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1812–1848. Edited by F.E. Mineka.),33vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; London: Routledge&Kegan Paul. Mills,William, Arthur P. Stone, Arthur Wilson, and James RedfoordBulwer.1878. The Law Reports,Vol. 3. London: Printed for the Inc. Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales, by W. Clowes and Sons. Nash, David. 2004. “Reconnecting Religion with Social and Cultural History: Secularization’s FailureasaMasterNarrative.” Cultural and Social History 1: 302–25. Owen, RobertDale. 1875. Moral Physiology, or,aBrief and Plain Treatise on the Population Question. Boston: J. P. Mendum. Popper,Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: BasicBooks. Rectenwald, Michael. 2013. “Secularism and the Cultures of Nineteenth-Century Scientific Naturalism.” BritishJournal for the History of Science 46.2: 231–54. Rectenwald, Michael. 2016. Nineteenth-CenturyBritishSecularism: Science, Religion and Literature. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Robertson, John M. 1930. AHistory of Freethoughtinthe Nineteenth Century. New York: GP Putnam’sSons. Royle, Edward. 1974. Victorian Infidels: The Origins of the BritishSecularistMovement, 1791–1866. Manchester: UniversityofManchester Press. Royle, Edward. 1980. Radicals, Secularists and Republicans: Popular FreethoughtinBritain, 1866–1915. Manchester:UniversityofManchester Press. Royle, Edward. 2014. Chartism. New York: Longman. Schwartz, Laura. 2013. Feminism: Secularism, Religion and Women’sEmancipation, England 1830–1914. Manchester,U.K.; New York: Manchester University Press. Simpson, J. A.,and E. S. C. Weiner.1989. The Oxford EnglishDictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Print. Southwell, Charles and William Carpenter.1842. The Trial of Charles Southwell: (editor of “the Oracle of Reason”)for Blasphemy, BeforeSir CharlesWetherall [i.e. Wetherell] Recorderofthe CityofBristol, January the 14th, 1842. London: Hetherington. Taylor,Barbara. 1993. Eveand the New Jerusalem: Socialismand Feminisminthe Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Taylor,Charles. 2007. ASecular Age. Cambridge: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press. Warner,Michael J., Jonathan VanAntwerpen, and Craig J. Calhoun, eds. 2010. Varietiesof SecularisminaSecularAge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. White, Paul.2003. Thomas Huxley: Making the “Man of Science.” Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.