1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4fedf4bfc557118c1cd49de85a1152a4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gTofWlBcq1jazvMv6U02O9OwVxFGpKWjJ-UrY36kYQjvg0UbzMvcwJCMUvLAgWCjnon62EONvpFzlLPms9JR1iHEdEdey88TTc2e6CdSWwS3RAIIlRMyUw-gWz3wGScKF%7EDrZdei0x4xxy9not%7EDw05ALmNtV1Ib--4uka1SSQ%7ENTwQTbGwiTsCNs7EEdKsrIuQSVBx4nPXqaqJ%7EFht8eWfm0vy0MwiK59vHjEUkUau3kjgNLquYO0oCqmwwlJm0QPDJdJOnJoOlvHsfD-IXUvdahqdkXJdEKPQx0c%7Ey7NDrXMKJzIkmTYk9Xfp3u6xjT14g-r950hyRCf8kdF6c3g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
76a7c1f6b0aa954e044dd71f6613ef1d
PDF Text
Text
RELIGION:
ITS PLACE IN HUMAN CULTURE.
A LECTURE,
Delivered in the Freemasons’ Hall, Edinburgh,
On Sunday, May 18, 1873.
BY
JOHN MACLEOD.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1873.
Price. Sixpence.
��RELIGION :
ITS
PLACE
A
IN
HUMAN
CULTURE.
LECTURE,
BY
JOHN
MACLEOD.
��RELIGION:
ITS PLACE IN HUMAN CULTURE..
T is now well-nigh two years since first I stood on
this platform, and although I did not feel then so
hopeful of the immediate success of our undertaking,
yet I felt convinced that our movement contained in
itself all the elements on which true and permanent
success depends. I knew it was not an arbitrary
movement propped up by artificial aids, and appealing
for support to low and vulgar motives, but a free and
spontaneous outcome of the intellectual vigour of our
time—the masculine birth, as it were, of the nine
teenth century. It says very much for the intelligence
and manliness of Edinburgh citizens, that some years
ago there could be found among them several men and
not a few women who broke away from the enervating
influence of orthodox Christianity; scorned that soft
sentiment which languishes and sickens at its ancient
altars, and in spite of the obloquy which invariably
awaits the revelation of great truths, asserted the
divine right of their manhood and womanhood—the
freedom of the human soul. Although only a few
years have elapsed since you left that worse than
Egyptian bondage, yet the influence which your con
duct, and that of your noble-minded leader, Mr Cranbrook, has had on society is incalculable. Ten years
ago, few men would believe that society could so
rapidly advance in intelligence as it has' done; that
the tone of our daily press could rise from faint and
scarcely audible mutterings against spiritual tyranny
to a tone of rolling thunder, loud, heavy, and crushing,
against everything that is hypocritical and false; and
fewer still could believe that nearly every clergyman
who has any pretension to a highly-cultivated intellect
and refined taste in every Christian sect or denomina
I
�4
Religion :
tion would, in eighteen hundred and seventy-three, be
following in the lead of Bishop Colenso. I cannot say
that I admire the conduct of a man who signs a
document such as the Confession of Faith, or the
Thirty-nine Articles, and pledges himself by a solemn
oath to maintain every proposition therein contained
against all criticism, if, on finding that some of those
propositions do not harmonise with his better judg
ment and more enlightened reason, he seeks to force
his own meaning into them, and then to inter
pret them, not according to the obvious meaning
of the text, but in accordance with the subjectivity
of his own mind, and the false poetic gloss with which
he can invest them. I say I cannot admire the
conduct of these men; it lacks in manhood and
fearless honesty. Christian dogmas have been dead
these many years, and they cannot now be gal
vanised into life; it is against the analogy of
nature, of science, of history. Christian dogmas are
interesting to us only as the fossilized remains of
ancient life; of life which may or may not have been
bright and useful, but which was certainly inferior to
our own in comprehensiveness and breadth of human
sympathy. I know several men in the churches who
believe no more than I do in the literal interpretation
of their own creeds, or indeed in the Biblical authority
which is supposed to establish these creeds; and yet
these men are contented to remain within their respec
tive churches as the paid representatives of orthodox
Christianity, satisfying their conscience with the old
but miserable subterfuge, which was once the glory of
the Jewish philosophers of Alexandria, and of the
early Christian fathers — namely this, that every
passage and even word in Holy Writ contained two
meanings, a primary and a secondary one; in other
words, a literal and a mystical meaning. It has been
said that a coach and six can be driven through any
Act of Parliament; but ecclesiastical acts are still
more elastic, in the opinion of not a few, for they can
�Its Place in Human Culture.
5
be expanded into dimensions which look anything but
orthodox; and immediately on the pressure being
withdrawn, they contract within limits which, from
their narrowness and convenience of manipulation,
might satisfy the most expert advocate for “particular
redemption,” or “ eternal reprobation.”
We say, then, that when a man ceases to believe,
not only in the distinctive dogmas of his Church, but
even in the so-called “ external evidences ” of Chris
tianity itself—prophecies, miracles, &c., that man does
violence to his own nature, to his entire moral and intel
lectual powers, if he still remains a professed believer
in orthodox Christianity, and a paid advocate of it.
Let such a man scorn to sell his birthright for a little
comfort and ease; let him scorn to sacrifice those gifts
with which God endowed him at the gloomy shrines of
a vulgar superstition; let him stand forth as the
champion of truth, of the light of reason and the law
of conscience; and howsoever the hysterical screams
of weak women and sentimental clergymen may annoy
him, he will find higher sympathy and a more serene
intellectual repose in that unclouded atmosphere
which is breathed by the loftiest spirits of our age.
Nay more, posterity will bless him, and call him noblehearted and brave; and he will shine as a benignant
star on the path of many a weary pilgrim to the shrine
of truth. I have no doubt that many remain in the
Churches from higher motives than those of mere ease
and comfort. They hope, perhaps, or fancy they can
“reform” the Church from within, and render it, if
not attractive, at least as little offensive as possible to
the scientific intellect of the day. Such motives might
be ably defended by those who are honestly influenced
by them ; but, in my opinion, that man places himself
in a false position—and all false positions are weak and
untenable—who professes friendship to the Church and
secretly undermines its foundations. The world cannot
much admire a traitor, even if he should betray a false
cause; men cannot make him a hero who is a spy in
�6
Religion :
his own camp, who reveals to the enemy all the best
modes of attack on a citadel which he pledged himself
to defend. He may do useful work for the world, but
the world will not give him credit for it; his work
lacks all the elements which go to constitute heroism.
Place the grand figure of Luther or of John Knox
beside that of Origen or Pelagius, and say which would
you most admire, that of the dreamy spiritual Reformer,
or that of the terrible Iconoclast and matter-of-fact
denunciator? Surely the latter, for it stands alone,
picturesque, bold, and transfigured by the divine
radiancy of truth, seeking no protection from a Church
which he abhors, uttering no “ uncertain sounds ” for
battle, but a peal which was responded to by thousands
of bewildered and benighted souls, who yearned after
a brighter, freer, and happier life.
We want such men now. There never was a time
in which society would more gladly welcome a true
hero than at the present; never a time in which such
a hero would be more worshipped or adored. We feel
so much oppressed by the conventionalities and un
realities of modern life—by its gross materialism on
the one hand, and its downright spiritual charlatanism
on the other, that we should hail with unbounded
enthusiasm any great Thunderer whose flashes of
genius would clarify our social atmosphere, and
purge it of that fulsome incense which daily rises from
the altars of our little gods. In commercial and poli
tical development we are no doubt daily advancing,
and far be it from us to indulge in the cant phraseology
of the pulpit against material wealth and prosperity;
on the contrary, we regard all these as among the
noblest triumphs and achievements of modern science
in its application to the industrial arts. But the
miserable state of our religious institutions, the effemi
nacy and debilitating effect of the instruction there
obtained on the one hand, and the absurd, antiquated
nature of their dogmas on the other, have well-nigh
killed all spirituality out of us.
�Its Place in Human Culture.
7
To a calm outsider—that is, to a man who is not
accustomed to feel intensely on any of the great prob
lems which concern human happiness—it may appear
very strange that we should make any attacks on the
Church, or charge it with any of the social vices of our
age. But a little reflection can hardly fail to satisfy
even the most unimpassioned intellect that we have
good reasons for the attitude which we bear towards
that venerable institution. The religious emotion or
sentiment which arises from reverence, love, and fear
are at once the weakest and the strongest, as well as
the noblest, elements of our nature. When a man’s
religion is made for him—not made to order, as we say,
but ready-made before he was bom—it arrests the
growth of all his mental powers. If he is an ordinary
man he remains a stinted and timorous soul all his life;
it is only when he has that vitality in him, the develop
ment of which into the highest spirituality cannot be
forecast by theology, it is only when he has snapped
the cords which bound down his growing energies, that
he can realize the intense joy of being free to develop
himself religiously. If, then, pure theological training
is so fatal to the growth and development of the indi
vidual mind, it is clear that it must be so to society at
large. Every branch of human knowledge has certainly
advanced more rapidly in proportion as it disengaged
itself from the influence of theology. All the physical
sciences are now free, and no man of any note mixes
them up with crude theological arguments: and mark
the result. More advance has been made' in these
sciences during the last fifteen years than during all
the centuries which preceded them. Political economy
is also free, although in the practical application of it
in our legislative assemblies it is still encumbered by
religious notions, and trammelled by theological pre
possessions. Nevertheless, we may say that political
science is virtually free; and the result is that we have
advanced rapidly in liberal reform during the last teji
or fifteen years,
�8
Religion:
Now, observe the vast difference between the pre
sent state of these departments of human knowledge
which I have just mentioned, and those which are still
claimed by the Church, and conceded to it as its legiti
mate sphere of operation. I mean the general education
of the country, at least in its more elementary aspect,
with which I may couple all those social questions
which bear on the comfort and happiness of the poorest
part of our population, of those miserable outcasts which
crowd together in the east ends of our large cities, de
prived not only of the light of reason and conscience,
but even of the light of the sun. What has become
of the boasted influence of that Christianity which
has been so often eulogised as the great civilizer of
mankind, when thus we behold its territories lying
waste, stricken with plague and famine, with all kinds
of physical and moral disease? O mockery! tell me
not that we are to stand idly by, and see, without
a murmur, our fellowmen perish for want of truth and
light, while white-robed hypocrisy builds its temples
and synagogues, fares sumptuously, languishes for want
of work, and preaches to the poor the Sermon on the
Mount, or threatens them with phials of the Apoca
lypse. Is this not enough to stir you up to mutiny
and rage, not against our social laws, but against those
who have, or who profess to have, the direction of
them?
But it may be asked, if the progress of intellect is
so great in our age, and the advancement of civiliza
tion so rapid as you represent them to be—in other
words, if men of science are the benefactors of mankind,
and the Church a mere stumbling-block in their way,
why do not scientific men ameliorate the worst aspects
of our social life ? I answer, so they have; and so
they are still doing for all those who have the wisdom
to listen to them. They have purified and ennobled
everything they have yet touched, and when that light
they have shed on man’s nature, and on his relation to
the external universe, shall stream down into the lowest
�Its Place in Human Culture.
9
stratum of society, then we shall see a state of things
for which few men venture to hope. We shall see
wretchedness and crime banished out of the world, and
even war itself slain by the mightiness of its own
weapons; for if men of science have not yet been able
to extinguish the unruly passions of mankind, they
have at least been able to bring the implements of war
to such a degree of perfection that they can only hence
forth be used in defence of the most sacred cause, and
can only be taken up when every other means will have
failed for the maintenance of our freedom, and the pre
servation of truth and justice. We shall see also that
great enemy of human progress and liberty, the Church,
branded with shame, and vanishing like a spectral
shadow into eternal silence; we shall see, in short, all
the civilized nations of our earth living in peace and
human brotherhood.
We often hear it asserted, and nowhere more fre
quently than in the pulpit, that pure intellect is not a
safe guide, that we must not confide too implicitly in
its cool judgments. “Intellect,” it has been said, “can
destroy, but cannot restore life.” Now these state
ments, and many such as these, are absolutely without
meaning. They are simply the wise aphorisms—should
we not rather say sophistries ?—of men who have been
trained in scholastic theology, and who have received
their knowledge of the human mind through the
logic of the schoolmen. Yet these neat epigrammatic
assertions take hold of the popular mind, and pass as
current coin, stamped with the authority of some
“great” man, who could not in the least explain his
own meaning, till half uneducated people begin to think
that there is something wicked in “pure” intellect.
So strongly has this feeling taken hold of the popular
mind that many timorous hearts, even in this en
lightened age, tremble with alarm at the least mani
festation of intellect, either in their own heads or in
those of their neighbours. Hence also the suspicion
with which semi-theological writers, and indeed all
�IO
Religion.
writers who have not attained to a scientific habit of
thought, regard what they call the “destructive school,”
by which they mean those men who expose the fallacies
which permeate all the great religions of the world.
What, “destroy life?” Pure intellect cannot destroy,
it rather creates. As well might you say that Kepler
and Newton destroyed the mechanism of the heavens
when they flung back the astrological and superstitious
veil which hid their grandeur for ages from the intel
lectual vision of mankind; as well might you say that
these master minds destroyed the life of the soul
when they only purified its vision, and revealed to its
awakened consciousness the majesty of those laws
which embrace in one grand universal sweep the whole
of infinite space, as say that the results of modern
science (which are certainly the achievements of pure
intellect), when brought to bear on the creeds of former
ages, will be more detrimental than beneficial, more
degrading than ennobling, to the free spirit of -man.
No. Intellect does not destroy, but constructs; and in
proportion as the intellect is pure and unprejudiced, its
work is more enduring, because more free from error.
“Dry light,” says Bacon, “is always the best.” Dry
light, or light unclouded by the passions and emo
tions of the man, or by the prejudices of early train
ing; that is, pure light, fed by the warmth of a large
human heart. I do not say that the intellectual powers
ought to receive exclusive attention from us, and be
cultivated at the expense of other elements of our
being, such as the moral and religious sentiments; but
I do say that unless the intellectual or rational part of
our nature is supreme, unless it is free to exercise itself
without prejudice on all human problems, we never
can be safe guides to others, for we are ever liable to
be carried away, either by the impulse of excited
emotion or by the whims of an undisciplined imagina
tion. Need I remind you that it was not pure intellect,
but intellect perverted by the undue cultivation of the
religious sentiment, which caused all those frightful
�Its Place in Human Culture,
n
ecclesiastical persecutions and massacres which deluged
Europe with human blood during the Middle Ages ?
Need I remind you of the fact that religion, when not
subordinated to the light of reason, destroys every
vestige of natural love and affection in the heart of
man; that, to use the language of Christianity, it “sets
a man at variance against his father, and the daughter
against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against
her mother-in-law,” and that it makes a man’s enemies
those of his own household1? This one sentiment,
morbidly cultivated, has caused more blood to be shed
in Europe since the establishment of Christianity than
all other passions put together. It nursed the madness
and fury of the Crusaders, it kindled those dismal
funeral piles which consumed the wretched bodies of
thousands of poor women who went by the name of
“witches,” it was at the root of the French Revolution,
and bore its full purple blossom in the massacre of
Saint Bartholomew.
It is clear, therefore, from the experience of the
past, that we need not trust to the power of religion
for the improvement of the individual or the elevation
of the human race. Everything that has hitherto been
done in that direction has been effected, not by means
of religion, but in spite of it—not by the aid of the
Church, but by repudiating her pretensions and ignor
ing her authority. Do we then say that all religions
should be abolished1? By no means. The religious
sentiment is a radical part of our nature, and it is as
natural for a good man to be religious and pious as it
is for a flower to blossom. If great crimes and most
lamentable human sufferings have too frequently fol
lowed in the wake of religious organizations, we must
also admit that there is a kind of inspiring power in re
ligion which gives moral force and character not only
to individuals, but to nations. In the absence of that
mental and moral culture which the higher education
confers, the religious sentiment is the strongest motive
that can influence a man to deeds of self-sacrifice and
�12
Religion:
noble heroism. Uneducated men cannot appreciate
philosophical arguments, they cannot follow out a train
of thought which involves a logical and analytical
power of reasoning; but they can easily understand
figures and metaphors, and all those personifications of
natural phenomena which assume a bodied form in the
imagination. A child can understand the meaning of
a Sinai in flames, and of a God delivering his laws to
a rebellious world amid thunder and lightning; he can
understand and realise with intense vividness the
Undying torment of those lost souls which are supposed
to bum for ever in fires unquenchable; for the im
agination, which is nothing more or less than the image
of the external world reflected in the mind, is vivid
and in full play long before the reasoning faculty is
called into active exercise. Every uneducated man,
every man who not only has not mastered the elements
of physical science, but who has not the mental capacity
and culture necessary for the appreciation of the results
of philosophical and historical criticism, I say every
such man is, all his life, precisely in the position of a
child. Early impressions, whether he has received
them direct from external nature or from early training,
are to him a part, indeed the whole, of his being. They
are incorporated in his very organization, and sooner
than surrender them he would surrender his life. If
you reflect for a moment how much pain and suffering
are endured by the best minds before they can emanci
pate themselves from the errors of imagination, and
from the bondage of superstition; if you consider
how frequently it happens that the superstitions of
early childhood return in old age when the mind
shows symptoms of decay, you can then appreciate the
enormous difficulties which men of science had to en
counter; you can understand the strength of the motive
power which opposed them; and you will wonder rather
that they should succeed at all, than that their success
should be so slow. We know that when the errors of
imagination are regarded, not as mere “airy nothings”
�Its Place in Human Culture.
13
which, have no foundation in fact, but as the veritable
revelations of Divine truth; when there is no longer
doubt in the religious mind, but faith and profound
conviction, then these errors, or delusions—as we call
them—become so powerful, that their authority over
the reasoning faculty is absolute, and from which there
is no appeal. Now, observe, that it is on faith and
absolute conviction of their Divine authority all reli
gions are founded. Every religion under the sun
claims a “ Divine Authority.” “ God spake these
words and said ” is the fundamental doctrine of them
all; and “ their motive-power over humanity has been
in proportion to the absoluteness of the belief they
commanded,” or in proportion to the conviction and
certainty they inspired. But though we know that
this high claim which is common to them all is itself
a mere delusion, yet such a claim is always necessary
to ensure their success—to unite men together in one
Faith, and to inspire them with enthusiasm for one
great work; for in the unity of one Faith all minor
differences merge and are lost sight of.
But, you may ask, if all religions have hitherto
been founded on false premises, to which of them
would you give the preference—to which of them
would you adhere ?■ I answer in the words of Schiller
—“ To none that thou mightest name. And wherefore
to none 1 For Religion’s sake.” Religion in itself, as
it is commonly understood, is useless, and worse than
useless, unless it is founded on a sound moral basis.
If the ethical part of religion is false, and, as it is in
many cases, revolting to our moral sentiment, then we
ought to abhor it with our whole heart, and to listen
to no fine disquisitions concerning its “ External and
Internal Evidences.” But is not Christianity founded
on a sound moral basis ? By no means. Paul makes
Faith the standard of human virtue, a position which
directly leads to the monstrous principle, that “ What
ever is of Faith is no sin.” How many noble hearts
that single dogma has crushed ! How many has it in
�14
Religion:
spired with ignorant zeal to perforin deeds of violence
and pitiless inhumanity; and how many, on the other
hand, has it reduced either to absolute despair or to
blasphemous rebellion against everything which hu
manity holds sacred ! I am well aware that, in the
mind of Paul, Faith meant something purer and in
finitely more exalted than it does in the mind of either
an ignorant man who has received but little moral
training, or of a superstitious man who has but mean
and vulgar ideas of God. Faith was to Paul religiously
what pure intellectual contemplation was to Aristotle
philosophically—it was to him the unity and harmony
of all thought, where the mind rests in undisturbed
repose, and enjoys the purest mental pleasure attain
able by man. It was to him, in short, the gravitating
force which unites in everlasting harmony the entire
spirituality of the universe, without distinction of
age or sex, of Greek or Roman, of Jew or Gentile.
But what is Faith in the mouth of the ordinary theo
logian? It is—“.Believe this formula, believe that
dogma; believe our interpretation of all the religions
and philosophies under the sun ; or, without doubt,
thou shalt perish everlastingly !” I need not say, that
to make Faith, in this peculiar acceptation, the standard
of moral virtue, is simply to banish all virtue and
intellect out of the world. We know that Faith
inspired the sublimest virtues, such as in the case of
Paul himself; but alas, we also know how often it has
inspired the most terrible crimes. Indeed if we make
Faith the standard of human virtue (observe that I use
the term in its strict theological sense), if we make it
the fundamental doctrine of religion, we shall find the
purest specimens of religious men among the inmates
of a lunatic asylum. We shall find there men who
believe absolutely and without doubt in all the dogmas
of that religion in which they were originally trained
—men who see visions and hear voices confirmatory of
their belief, and who would willingly go to the stake
as martyrs to their faith. It is indeed a most remark
�Its Place in Human Culture.
15-
able fact that either religious enthusiasm, or religious
despondency is characteristic of almost all forms of
insanity. I cannot afford space to enter upon the
rationale of this singular phenomenon, but I may state
generally that if parents and teachers were more careful
in not filling up the minds of children with “vain
opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imagina
tions, as one would say, and the likeif they could
avoid the teaching of fable, and took more pains to
store the youthful mind with a knowledge of facts, and
to inspire it with a love for Nature and for Art, I
firmly believe that the number of our asylum patients
would soon diminish. What was the cause of so much
insanity in Europe during the earlier part of the Middle
Ages, when nearly all the religious world was dancing
mad with paralysis, epilepsy, St Vitus’ dance, and
other nervous diseases which are generally character
istic of the insane ? Was it not owing to the unnatural
mode of living peculiar to those times ; to the morbid
and vicious habit of dwelling exclusively on the
emotional part of human nature, and to the utter
ignoring of facts, and the profound contempt for
physical nature which such a habit cherishes ? Indeed
all nature was then regarded as a thing accursed, and
the first men who ventured to study her secrets, and
to explain her laws, were either imprisoned for heresy
or burnt for witchcraft. This battle between school
divinity and physical science has not yet ceased; it is
still carried on with a good deal of the old spirit in
some corners of the world. The iniquitous barrier,
however, which the imaginations of men had set up
between God and Nature, between the natural and the
supernatural, has been broken down; the outworks 'of
Christianity itself—its so-called external evidences—
have been levelled to the ground, and although a few
obscure individuals may be seen here and there endea
vouring to rebuild their Zion out of the debris of the
old ruins, yet their labour is in vain. Men of science
look on with infinite pity for such a waste of intellect,
�i6
Religion:
and of misguided ingenuity; literary men smile at them
for the small amount of culture and taste which their
works display; and even our intelligent working men
stand idly by, amused as they would be by the labours
of little children when they build their sand castles in
the face of a returning tide, while every wave from the
great deep, in its own majestic, irresistable manner,
overwhelms and sweeps them away for ever. Nature
is once more restored to her proper place; if we build
anything likely to endure, it must have its foundation
in her—if we wish to be enlightened intellectually and
morally we must live and act according to her eternal
laws. But “ a mixture of a lie,” says Bacon, “ doth
ever add pleasure ;” and it is quite true that men must
live, and cannot help living, on the mere shadows of
thought till they have' learned to begin with first
principles. “ A mixture of a lie doth evei' add plea
sure.” Now, eliminate the lie from our theologies,
apply the scientific method to our orthodox religion,
and the whole thing will shrivel up and vanish like
vapour before the sun. Religions are ■ built on what
Bacon calls a “lie.” Certain things are assumed as
axiomatic truths which not only cannot be proved, but
which are most repugnant to our enlightened reason,
a,nd on these barbarous assumptions our expert meta
physical theologians rear a superstructure of syllogisms
which makes one feel sad to look at. We will not
waste our time in exploding these superstructures,
whether they be Catholicism, Protestantism, Calvinism,
Mahometanism, or Christian Unitarianism. We will
not even turn aside to discuss such childish problems
as these—“Whether the Bible is the Word of God?”
“ Are miracles possible?” “ Can prayer alter the course
of nature?” We need not answer these—Science has
answered them long ago. When men are bewildered
by the conflicting voices of so many churches, when
they see the old mythologies dying out, and every
religion one after another strangled in the grasp of
science, they do not ask, “what are miracles?” or
�Its Place in Human Culture.
17
“ what pi’ophecies are yet to be fulfilled ?” but they fall
back on first principles, and in a kind of half-despairing,
half-defiant spirit, they ask if there is a God at all, and
if Religion is not altogether a great imposture. They
see the intellectual force of the age overwhelming
everything that goes by the name of “God” and “Re
ligion,” and they wonder why any men should be so
foolish as ever to have believed in such a God or in
such a religion. All other questions, except the great
fundamental ones, “ What is God—what is Religion,”
are idle and impertinent. It is my duty, as your
teacher here, to work out these two problems from week
to week to the best of my power. It is my duty, and
it will be my infinite pleasure, to reconcile so far as I
am able the conflicting aspects of human thought, to
explain to you the significance and end of human life,
to throw some light on its dark enigmas, and to make
you feel the happiness and exquisite joy which are the
certain heritage of every man who lives righteously—
true to himself and true to his fellowmen.
I have thus far spoken of religion as a formulated
creed, or as a “ Body of Divinity,” which can be learned
out of books. Religion in this sense is what we com
monly understand by Systematic Theology; it is the
logical arrangement of metaphysical notions which
men have formed of God and of the universe. I say
the logical arrangement, for if we grant the soundness
of the premises which are assumed by theologians,
we have, logically, no fault to find with their “ sys
tems.” But a more liberal education, and a more
intimate acquaintance with the physical laws of
nature—in other words, both culture and science
have long since convinced us of the futility of all
conclusions which are based on mere metaphysical
speculations. Now it is clear to every man who is in
the least acquainted with the inductive mode of
reasoning, that all religions hitherto given to the
world are based on false premises. Let us take
Christianity as that form of religion with which most
�i8
Religion:
of us are best acquainted. First of all, the existence
of a personal God is assumed as an unquestionable
fact, and although we make no objection to this
position, we have no reason whatever to accept as
final and ultimate the psychological analysis which
theologians have given us of His nature and character.
In other words, we have no reason to believe in their
Science of God, for it is really not science but meta
physics. It is again assumed that God has once and
for all given to mankind a Revelation of Himself,
which contains, in the words of the Catechism, all
“that man is to believe concerning God, and what
duty God requires of man.” But we find that this
“ Revelation,” contained in the Bible, contains many
things which no intelligent man can believe con
cerning God, and that it inculcates duties which are
either impracticable in modern society, or simply
barbarous. To make the matter worse, and render
it still more bewildering, this so-called Revelation
contradicts itself on so many important points that
theologians have always found it necessary to write
large folios on the best method of “ reconciling” and
“ harmonising” the more glaringly contradictory pas
sages. And finally, we are gravely asked to believe
all this on the strength of prophecies which were
never meant by their writers to be prophecies at all,
and on the strength of miracles which, if they had
taken place, could only prove that the government of
the world is a mere blunder.
Now all this is theology, that is, the Science of
God, which ecclesiastics have evolved out of their
own imaginations; and we shall have frequent occa
sions to see that it is to theology, and not to religion
properly so-called, physical science is opposed. Nor
is science opposed to the Bible as a religious, any
more than it is opposed to Homer as a poetical, book.
Our position, which I may state in one sentence,
is this:—True culture has outgrown the barbarous
character which theologians ascribe to God. But
�Its Place in Human Culture.
19
theologians say that this character of Him. is revealed
in the Bible; therefore true culture has outgrown the
belief in Revelation. Science has also revealed to us
the majesty and immutability of natural laws. But
theologians say that in some dark periods of human
history, in certain rude ages when men had no con
ception of the grandeur of the universe, or of the
method of its creation and evolution, these laws were
capriciously interfered with by some supernatural
power; therefore scientific men refuse to believe in a
God who would “palter with them in a double sense,”
and reveal himself by what are called “ miracles.”
The question, then, is not between science and
religion, but between science and theology; not
between science and the Bible, but between science
and so-called Revelation.
What, then, is religion ?
Religion has been defined as a “self-surrender of
the soul to God.” This is quite a theological defini
tion, and a very feeble and sentimental one it is. It
proceeds, of course, on a knowledge of the Science of
God which theologians have developed in a cloud of
metaphysics. Matthew Arnold defines religion as
simply “ morality enkindled, or lit up by emotion.”
If this is not the whole truth, it is the nearest to the
truth that has ever been given, and it coincides
exactly with all that I have ever thought on the sub
ject. Morality is the groundwork of refigion, the
very life and soul of religion, and without morality all
religion is a false glare. It is for this reason that I
admire Aristotle more than Plato, because he is more
definite and clear in his rules of conduct. Religion is
to morality as poetry is to prose; and it is curious
that as Aristotle defined poetry to be imitation, so
Thomas a Kempis calls his religious meditations,
Imitations. Poetry has, like all the ideal arts, intellec
tual beauty for its object; religion has moral beauty
or holiness for its object. And both are imitations,
that is, imitations of ideal excellence. If, therefore,
�20
Religion:
religion—I mean true personal religion—be moralitylit up or enkindled by emotion, it is very clear that
the purity of religion must necessarily depend on the
moral enlightenment of society, or, in other words,
that religious development depends on moral develop
ment. This explains again how men are often a great
deal better than their theology; for as theology is
simply the religious experiences of past generations
fossilized in dogma, it is quite inadequate to the
expression of the religious experiences of succeeding
generations, which have far surpassed them in moral
and physical science. Hence it is that the life and
conduct of modern Christians are so very different
from what one would expect to result from their
theology. But the truth is, they have outgrown
Christianity, and they are not aware of it.
Again, we might say that religion, or the religious
sentiment, is one aspect of mental development, or
one phase of the collective thought of mankind. This
aspect is presented to us in bolder relief during a short
period in Jewish history, just as the ideal and fine-art
aspect is presented to us during a short period in
Greek history, and as the positive, and legal or poli
tical, aspect is presented to us in Roman history.
The Semitic race gave to humanity the religious
impulse and aspiration; the Greek and Latin races
gave to it respectively the sense of ideal beauty and
the method of government. Since the revival of
learning, all these elements have been tumultuously
struggling to blend and coalesce in the mind of the
great Indo-European races, and although the effer
vescence caused by the contact of these elements is
gradually settling down, although, in other words,
these various aspects are beginning to look more
approvingly on each other, the gloomy aspect of
Judaism through Christianity still frowns on science,
and its attitude would seem to indicate that many
hard blows will be exchanged between them before
science and so-called religion can understand each
�Its Place in Human Culture.
21
others temperament, and embrace as friends. It will
be part of our duty to reconcile, not science and
theology, for they are irreconcilable, but the scientific
and the religious aspects of thought. It will be our
duty also to show how the religious mind can be scien
tific, and the scientific mind religious; and how the
perfection and completeness of our nature depend,
not on religion alone nor on science alone, nor on
morality alone, but on the completeness by which we
are able to absorb into our very being the spirit of all
the three. It is then only we can be said to live
nobly, and in the front rank of our age, when we open
our souls freely for the reception of all light and
truth, whencesoever they come; it is then only we
can be said to think and act religiously, when we can
radiate that light and truth around us to bless and to
cheer our fellowmen, and to make them feel that life,
when lived truly, is indeed a joyous thing. Already
we see the collective wisdom of mankind rounding
itself into a perfect orb, and we can infer from the
light which it already sheds what shall be the bril
liancy of its full shining. What the destiny of our
race shall be—to what unknown shores the tide of
history rolls—are questions which we reserve for the
last lecture of our course on history. It is enough
for us at present to know that it does roll on, gathering
strength in its course; that it has come down to us
laden with all the wealth of human thought to which
all the nations have been tributaries; that it has
overwhelmed, and buried for ever, everything that
has resisted its progress, and that even now it roars
at the walls of our temples and at the gates of our
palaces; and that we see it pass by us bearing on its
bosom all that we have of real knowledge, of truth
and holiness, to scatter them as seeds for future
harvests in some happier climes, and under purer
heavens.
Smith & Brown, Printers, Edinburgh,
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Religion: its place in human culture.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Macleod, John
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 21 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: A lecture delivered in Freemasons' Hall, Edinburgh, on Sunday, May 18, 1873. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Smith and Brown, Edinburgh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT113
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Religion: its place in human culture.), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Culture
Religion
Religion and culture
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/940a2e51f8f73fa20c8bef74757c3d9c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cAEaIcqTfh7khhXQMBWWlPU529EERNB33C1l8bUfXI2pfCD0Tib4UctgnE3eZ4AysHpoORPHMH1AbaOpnpPPK2lCeCduxSgHA-4eHK4tCy-RX8uCsnXWzqe%7E90X1SfzWtIRi1uvczDVaQZy1bQS792jXB2RrmA0P0XWAuO57G64socFz2ZBo%7EBfv4o6fvsX0YIriIXH1wGsHn-vvxzxTMeWF3YMw%7Es5tGnhfjPqwYMVflg8i72w-7LUNAddjpYL1L0QEgaGJGIgcn4qw73mi5FiG-DnQIKmj72O-AiTP9ZpIMQW4rg8mj%7E2ToPlbNy7bt2-%7Ee3pdTkHALXUtxcxEjA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
21a83b7f5619dc36624a94f677e0766c
PDF Text
Text
CT
I
OGb
’ RECENT
THEOLOGICAL ADDRESSES.
& STerinn
JOHN MACLEOD.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Pi •ice Threepence.
��RECENT THEOLOGICAL ADDRESSES.
HEOLOGY is a subject which appears to have a
strange fascination for
minds. It is sub
Tject discussed with moremostless eloquence, anot only
or
in divinity halls, but in city taverns and country
inns; in the clubs and palaces of the wealthy, as well
as in the cottages of the poor. And even in our
asylums you will meet with as many theological
opinions as there are patients; for it is a curious
circumstance, that in all forms of insanity theology
plays a very prominent part. Those patients, for
example, who are classed among the hypochondriacs,
and suffer from melancholia, live in perpetual fear of
hell; and those, again, whose symptoms are the ex
alted delusions of the insane, are known best by their
religious exaltation. The former, always wretched,
live in religious terror ; the latter, apparently happy,
believe themselves to be divinely inspired—to be, in
short, the prophets and Messiahs of their generation.
For this, as well as for other reasons, scientific men
study mental phenomena from a physiological point
of view, and endeavour to cure mental diseases by
restoring the healthy action of cerebral organisation.
I do not wish you to infer from this, however, that if
there were no diseased brains there would be no
theology ; but, I think I may say, that if there were
no unhealthy cerebral action, there would not be so
many conflicting theological “opinions.” When we
survey the whole field of theological disputes, and
�6
Recent Theological Addresses.
observe how diametrically opposed, even members of
the same church are to each other, we may well feel
surprised, how in this age people can be so intellectu
ally blind as to believe in those manifest sophistries
with which divinity professors endeavour to illumine
each others’ souls. How is it possible, we might ask,
that those professors of divinity who have recently
displayed their ingenuity in flatly contradicting each
other, and themselves—how is it possible that they
can either believe in themselves or in each other ?
We can, no doubt, understand how a man can impose
upon himself; but we feel rather surprised that he
can so. easily impose upon others. Here, to begin
with, is Professor Calderwood: he is, we believe,
what is called an intuitionist in philosophy; and yet
observe how he contradicts the very spirit of his own
philosophy in his strictures on the late Mr Mill’s cha
racter. A living dog is better than a dead lion; and
those who bark loudly at Mr Mill’s memory, would
not dare to open their mouths against him when liv
ing. Mr Calderwood, like others of the same class,
attributes Mr Mill’s want of religion to early training •
but if, as Mr Calderwood says, the religious and
moral sentiments are intuitive—born with a man, in
dependently of any training—why does he make
early training answer for so much in the case of Mr
Mill ? Or, if he attributes so much to early training,
then on what ground can he expect the conversion of
the “ heathen ” to Christianity ? To be sure, the .aid
of miracles can be called in, and divine intuition can
be propped up by divine grace! If Mr Calderwood
could appreciate the results of modern science: if
even he would study the ethics of Aristotle, he cer
tainly would renounce the metaphysical jargon of the
middle age.
But this is only by the way. Let us now turn to
those five professors of divinity who have favoured us
with their highest efforts—who, indeed, have piped
�Recent Theological Addresses.
7
unto us on their pastoral reeds, but piped so much
■out of tune that we could not dance. We have had
two “ addresses ” from Glasgow, two from Edinburgh,
and one from St Andrews; and really, with the ex
ception of the one from St Andrews, those “ad
dresses ” are like the effusions of city missionaries to
audiences of uncultivated boors—not like what we
should expect from men who profess to grapple with
■the thought of the nineteenth century. All the men
we refer to belong to the same church, and we should
reasonably expect them to agree on matters of faith
•and religion ■, but in point of fact we find that, with
all due solemnity, they contradict each other. Here
is Dr Caird, in that sublime, melo-dramatic style of
his, declaring that a trained theologian is a trained
bigot; and we can fancy the mock-solemnity with
which he denounced “ narrowness.” But Dr Dickson
immediately retorts that a trained theologian is the
final court of appeal in theological matters. Dr Charteris, in his mild, cautious, and amiable manner,
•says that he thinks society cannot subsist without
dogmatic theology, but that it might be considerably
simplified in the way of curtailment and elimination.
Then we have another thunder-peal from St Andrews,
warning us of the falsehood of extremes; for did not
Aristotle say long ago that all extremes are false—
that the “ mean ” only is the law of our being ? But
then, what does the priest of “ The Sacred Heart” say to
all this ? In the name of an infallible Pope, he de
clares that there are no extremes in religion—that
religion is a thing absolute without relativity, and
that absolute dogmatism is its legitimate expression.
The first question a man of science and a man of cul
ture would ask is—are these men in earnest, or are
they mad ? Do they all profess the same religion, or
are they rival sects worshipping so many rival gods ?
Surely the proverb, that “ doctors differ,” has never
been more exemplified in the history of theological
disputes than in these latter days.
�8
Recent Theological Addresses.
Some curious people have waited patiently for Dr
Wallace’s “ address but whatever others may think
of it, I find not much there to distinguish it from
those of his brethren. The same confusion of thought
which characterises those of Glasgow, is characteristic
also of our Edinburgh divine, which he may attribute,
however, to the ambiguity of language and the prone
ness of men to misunderstand him ! There is certainly
a confusion of thought and a confusion of metaphor in
some of the doctor’s utterances. Take the following,
tor example: “ The point at which ecclesiastical
history commences is, when the church comes forth a
completely moulded organism from the matrix of
apostolic activity, with a specific constitution and a
definite deposit of faith, to mingle with the other
forces that conspire to give form and direction to
human progress.” Now, if this is intended to present
a definite image of the church, I fear that, to most
minds it will appear as extravagant as those winged
creatures, half animal, half human, dug from the
ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, and so graphically
described in the Apocalypse. We have, within the
limits of this short sentence, references made to
obstetrics, geology, physical forces, and apostolic activity.
But this confusion, as we have said, may have arisen
from the imperfection of language as a vehicle of
thought, although we suspect that a redundancy of lan
guage rather than of thought, is the besetting sin of
the Theologians. Notwithstanding all this, there are
evidences in Dr Wallace’s address, of vigorous and
manly thought, as well as of a philosophical breadth
of mind; and there can be no doubt that when he
has studied history scientifically, that is by the method
of filiation, he will discover the operation of many
“ forces ” in the evolution of European civilisation
which will enable him to see that the Christian
Church is one of the latest forms in which the
religious instinct of mankind had been manifesting
�Recent Theological Addresses.
itself, and not by any means, as he thinks at present,
a divine incarnation formed in “ the matrix of apos
tolic activity.” He will also see, what so many of his
brethren refuse to see, that there is nothing absolutely
new in Christianity at all, except the organisation of
the church—and even that organisation was but the
ghost of the old Roman Empire. Now, we should
have no objection to the church if it were put in the
same category as all other human institutions are,
and regarded simply as a product of human progress ;
for in that case it might, like other institutions, be
improved or entirely recast. But the position the
Church takes up is this : “ The Church is the kingdom
of God on earth, founded by men divinely inspired.”
We ask for the proof of this, and we are told that
“ Christianity is a revealed religion, that it has a
special divine authority, and that the Church is
founded on that authority alone.” Now, when we'
examine the claim of Christianity to be a revealed re
ligion, we find that it is exactly similar to the claims,
of all other religions, whether ancient or modern ; and
when we examine into the intrinsic merits of its
ethical code, which certainly must be the test of all
religion, we find nothing there but such as existed in
all former religions. Even the Cross, of which so
much has been made by the Christian Church, is not
a new feature in Christianity: it was the emblem of
e amongst the Ancient Egyptians and Babylonians,
and was worshipped with as much veneration by the
inhabitants of Chaldea as by Dr Caird and Dr Dickson.
But there is something worse than all this; the
documents by which the Church seeks to establish her
claim to be a divine institution, are the Old and New
Testaments. We examine these documents and find
that they are in all matters of importance, contra
dicted by the most elementary results of modern
science. And again, the history of the Chur ch as a
whole, leaving out of account the saintliness of
�40
1
Recent Theological Addresses.
individual characters, for that can be produced as
evidence in favour of the most barbarous creeds,—I
say the history of the Church, as a whole, does not
bear out its claim ; on the contrary, it is the deadliest
evidence against it; for no institution has ever been
formed on more tyrannical principles than the Chris
tian Church.
Now, the reason we dissent from the Church is, not
because the Church is a bad thing in itself, but because
its claims and pretensions outrage common sense; and
these men who spend their lives in advocating claims
which they cannot help knowing to be mere delusions,
are simply conniving at error, and tampering with
truth. I am aware that most Christian ministers
believe, and indeed it is an established principle
among the Jesuits, that one may lawfully employ
error or deceit, or propagate a delusion, if by so
doing, a “useful end” can be secured. I remember
distinctly with what profound contempt I listened to
an “ exposition ” of this principle in one of our
divinity halls, and I determined then, that whatever
might happen to me personally, I should never lead
men to mistake falsehood for truth, even if it should
gain their “salvation.” “Not to undeceive is to
deceive. The giving or not correcting false reasons
for right conclusions, false grounds for right beliefs,,
false principles for right practice, the holding forth or
fostering false consolations, false encouragements or
false sanctions, or conniving at their being held forth
and believed, are all pious frauds.” And what man,
with a soul in him, can do all this even if he were
backed up by a shower of gold from the “Baird
Trust ? ”
Let us examine one argument which is so frequently
resorted to by the so-called advanced theologians.
They say : “ Here is the Christian Church—she is a
great historic fact, and has shaped the course of events
during the last eighteen centuries, and in the present
�Recent Theological Addresses.
11
her teaching is at the basis of our social life and in
stitutions.” We accept these facts, at least with some
■qualificationsj and we admit that religion has, in all
ages, been the most powerful element of cohesion in
•society—that element which binds, or ought to bind,
humanity together in reference to their common origin
and common relation to the universe. But that is one
of the chief reasons why we cannot accept orthodox
Christianity, no more than we can accept Buddhism
or Mahomedanism as the ultimate exposition of that
relation in which we stand to the entire order of
things. How can the piety of modern times be forced
into the nine-and-thirty articles of Christendom ? Is
not Christianity, like all other religions, ancient or
modern, a mere fragment of thought born in an age
when the universe itself, as well as man’s relation to
it, were clearly misunderstood'? And although the
ethics of Christianity, elevated by long experience and
increasing intelligence, still survive in our social rela
tions, just as the laws of Justinian survive in the basis
of our civil legislation, or the civilisation of Phoenicia
survives in our mercantile law and colonial activity,
yet that is no more reason why we should accept
Christianity as the ultimate expression of religious
thought than it is a reason that we should regard the
Institutes of Justinian as the court of final appeal in
all our civil causes. Both have no doubt been the
growth of ages of experience, and hence their autho
rity ; we are thankful for all they have bequeathed to
us, but there have been larger growths since; and it
would be as absurd to make Christianity, in its ortho
dox sense, represent the modern religious thought ot
Europe, as it would be to make the Institutes of Jus
tinian represent the more enlightened principles of
modern jurisprudence. In what sense does Dr Caird
of Glasgow, for example, represent the “ pillar saints'?”
■or why should he be asked to wear a dress of goats
.skins because that kind of clothing has some historical
�12
Recent Theological Addresses.
connection with piety ? Or if Dr Dickson is supposed
to represent the Apostle Peter, or Dr Charteris repre
sent the Apostle John, wherein lies the resemblance ?
There is none, either in mode of thought or in manner
of living. They believe, no doubt, in the practical
moral precepts which are at the foundation of the most
primitive social organisations ; but in matter of faith
and rational conviction Dr Caird differs as much from
Dr Dickson as they both differ from the Apostle Peter.
O reverend fathers, it will not do; you might havelearned from your own creed that new wine cannot be
put into old bottles ; and you can no more recall the
theology of Augustine and Calvin, of Paul and Peter,
than you can recall the civilisations of Egypt or
Phoenicia, of Greece or Rome. You can no more force
the human mind to accept your creeds than you can
make men wear goat skins, although we admit both
were historically connected with piety.
But what shall we say of Principal Tulloch ? His
references to Mill, Arnold, and Strauss, are interest
ing, and show that he is a man who can appreciate the
highest culture of our age, and at the same time fear
lessly confront its greatest difficulties. We have no
thing here of the rhetorical mock-seriousness of Glas
gow, which evades difficulties by fine epigrammatic
leaps. We have reasoning—not dogmatic, but philo
sophical, and conducted in almost a scientific spirit.
In our age, as in the age of Diogenes, it is a rare thing
to meet with an honest man; and in the light of
science, how many theologians could be called honest ?
For my part, however, I am willing to regard Prin
cipal Tulloch as a very honest and a very excellent
man—a man of thought, of refinement, of culture. I
am glad also to see that he agrees with an opinion
I expressed here a few Sundays ago — viz., that
when the history of this century will have been
written, the name of Strauss will be one of the most
prominent in it. But I hasten from this to another
�Recent Theological Addresses.
ij
point. Principal Tulloch says that Dogmatism is
the sin of our age, whether it be dogmatism in theo
logy, or dogmatism in unbelief; and no doubt this
is true. Dogmatism is a hateful thing, either posi
tive or negative. Extremes meet; but are dog
matic theology and a rational unbelief really ex
tremes? Bacon has said that “extremes belong to
divinity!” can, then, “ divinity ” itself be the ex
treme of something else opposed to it ? Aristotle would
not say so, for he would ask where is the “ mean ? ”
Take the fundamental dictum of theology, the exist
ence of a personal God, and on the other hand the
negative conclusions of modern science that the
existence of a “ personal ” God is unthinkable. Are
these two positions extremes in the philosophical sense?
If so, where is the “ mean ? ” If my reason proves to
me that the “ facts ” of theology are mere figments,
what is extreme in saying that they are so ? The priest
of “ the Sacred Heart ” is more consistent, and says,
there can be no extremes in “ religion; ” and in this
he is also more philosophical, if he means that atheism
and theism are not extremes, but simply negative
and positive states of mind, having no mean state.
But if he means there are no extremes in “ divinity,”
■or, as it is called, theology, then the Roman priest is
quite mistaken. Say, for example, that I believe in
the existence of God, well, there is nothing extreme
in that mere act of belief; but if I ask another to
believe this and that about his personality, his nature
and character, then the conclusions I endeavour to
thrust upon him are extremes, because my views may
be entirely false in reference to his nature, and what
ever he considers false or even doubtful, I have no
right to make the basis of moral action. Now, the
entire order of nature clearly shows that all so-called
revealed theology is a mere figment—a vulgar delu
sion—since it breaks in upon the eternal laws of
nature, and breaks up the history of the human race
�14
Recent Theological Addresses.
"by a kind of supernatural kataclysms, and interposes
between me and God men specially favoured or divinely
inspired, such as prophets and saviours, priests, and
even divinity professors. As a man, as the “ offspring’’
of the Most High, I refuse to entertain this vulgar,
oriental idea of God, which would transport Him to a
great distance from me—as a great monarch sitting
upon a throne, and which would place between Him
and me a great “ cloud of witnesses,” like the favour
ites of a despotic prince. I refuse to allow any other
human nature to stand between me and the mind of
God; and when “prophets” and “saviours” and
“ divinity professors ” tell me that they have re
ceived a divine revelation, I grant the fact, but at the
same time I ask, is your revelation a revelation to met
If there is only one God, and He is the Father of usall, why should I be satisfied with your revelation
when I am directly in communication with the same
source myself? “Oh,” these court favourites will
say, “Oh, you must believe in election 1 We are
God’s elect.” Then away with your “ revealed theo
logy ;” if you are the enfranchised of heaven, and 1
am a mere serf, not entitled to a vote, I stand upon
the ultimate fact of my consciousness—the equality of
my nature with yours,—and again I say, I refuse toaccept as a fact the “ divine right ” of prophet, priest,
or king.
But the truth is that all so-called revealed theology
is a false extreme, and when it ceases to be so, it will
cease, like the “ divine right of kings,” to exist.
And what is the opposite extreme ? It is no theology
at all; and these both are false. But what is the
mean ? It is the study of nature and of her laws
which leads us up to the knowledge of the source of
our life—the being, or power, or energy, or whatever
it is, upon whom we are absolutely dependent, and in
whom we live, and move, and have our being. Our
theology, if you wish to call it so, is simply the study
�Recent Theological Addresses.
15
of those eternal laws amidst which we find ourselvesplaced, whether they be the cosmic laws outside our
selves or the moral and mental inward laws according
to which we must seek the development of our nature,
and establish the harmony of the inward life with the
outward universe. Let us, therefore, help each other
as much as we can in understanding our true place in
nature, our relations to her, our responsibilities and
duties as moral beings ; but let no one dare mock us,
whether he call himself prophet, priest, or king, by
informing us that he has a “ divine right ” to lord it
over his fellows. If men knew how much they lose
by depending upon others for mere “ opinions,” if even
divinity professors knew how much happiness arises
from the free and fearless exercise of the mind in its
search after Truth, they would never more vex the
ears of this wearied world with this eternal monotone
of “ orthodoxy,” and the oft-exploded figments of
revealed theology. Theology, like the ivy which
entwines itself around the oldest ruins, has in all
ages attached itself, with death-like grasp, to those
systems of thought which are crumbling away. As
long as these systems stood—as long as men believed
in special revelations, and in the cosmogonies which
these revelations sanctioned,—theology was safe.
But those systems are perishing, or have already
perished; and although antiquaries in mental philo
sophy still regard them with pardonable veneration,
nevertheless we must leave them to decay, for they can
no more be restored than the primitive civilisation of
Chaldea can be recalled, or be made to supersede
that of the nineteenth century.
John Macleod.
TUKNBULL AND SPEARS PRINTERS, EDINBURGH,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Recent theological addresses: a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Macleod, John
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "The following Lecture was delivered in Freemason's Hall, Edinburgh, on the 23d November, 1873 and was occasioned by the Theological Addresses of our Scotch Professors of Divinity to their students at the opening of the session 1873-4". Printed by Turnbull & Spears, Edinburgh. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1874
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT163
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Recent theological addresses: a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theology
Conway Tracts
Theology