What they want is a theory,--of plausible aspect and easy application,--which might serve to quell these rising thoughts, and allay their foreboding fears; and just such a theory they may seem to find in the proverbial maxim of Secularism, "Work _in_ this life, _for_ this life." We are not sure, however, that even with such men the zeal of the new _propaganda_ will be altogether successful.

It may seem to some to be out of place, and may even excite a sense of the ludicrous.
"Just fancy for a moment," says the author already quoted, "some missionary of this principle going into the Royal Exchange at London, or the Stock Exchange at Leeds or Bradford, or the Cloth-halls of any of our manufacturing towns, summoning around him the merchants and the brokers, and then beginning with much earnestness and point to urge them _not_ to live for eternity, but to be very careful about the present life: insisting that it was very, very doubtful if earth were not all,--the present existence the whole of human existence; and that therefore until there was more certainty they had better make the most of this; be industrious and prudent, and make themselves as comfortable as possible; get as much money as they could honestly, and by no means let any dread of retribution hereafter fetter them in any of their actions here.

Why, these merchants would turn away laughing and saying, 'Either the man is mocking us, or he is mad: that is just what we are doing with all our might.' They would see at least that Mr.Holyoake's teaching is very different from that of Him who said, 'Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.

Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
But seek ye _first_ the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.' 'For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul?
or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ?' And marking that vast difference, they will feel, at least, that no man is entitled to address them as rational beings in the style of Secularism, unless he can give them an _absolute assurance_ that there is and can be no future state of existence,--that the _present_ is man's _only_ life, and that death is an eternal sleep." But does Mr.Holyoake give, or pretend to give, any such _assurance_?
"We do not say," he tells us, "that every man ought to give an _exclusive_ attention to this world, because that would be to commit the old sin of dogmatism, and exclude the possibility of another world, and of walking by a different light from that by which alone we are able to walk.

But as our _knowledge_ is confined to this life, and testimony, and conjecture, and probability are all that can be set forth with respect to another life, we think we are justified in giving _precedence_ to the duties of this state, and of attaching _primary_ importance to the morality of man to man." It is not _certain_, then, that there is no future life; it is even _possible_ that there may be one; the supposition is not in itself incredible, it may even have "testimony, conjecture, and probability" in its favor:--some attention to it, therefore, cannot be forbidden without "committing the old sin of dogmatism, and excluding the possibility of another world;" but its comparative uncertainty is urged as a reason for "giving _precedence_ to the duties of this state, and attaching _primary_ importance to the morality of man to man." The question would seem to be, not whether _any_ attention should be bestowed on a future life, but whether it should be less or more than the attention which we bestow on the present world.