1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f9dbe384d9be1581a831191fcf7235a0.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=SeBhNTSxn4XrT590dFBTzd6-Br-DUB7b8aCop9mF02lTJlIqgf0VMenknJh0E8F3ivliohDxa%7EYVHcEaK5a8OjtWyJ9WIuvzBw1aWgR3vE4yFkxMaGEqod9FXPGWad7ZOxxTtpoEhFO3BNLsnqyaS681BFeS90JqKtSwuKmV388SFwqUGI7J-9OrEbu91ycO9XnHzXZ6HNviURNliuHtVUPwQMHvbuLJf1pxn5V2jMoKqO%7Ei73c%7E9PRDyAxETu4elVeZWJNPjepeetQIan2iXEN7dY880ZKYyeWnyOw06zLivKtQndiEmmyQYMwmIhEH0qJt3Y%7Ek9UrcFCIlKHZcdg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ed36c38d1c45575c57f2eff0413d353c
PDF Text
Text
THE GENERAL MEETING
OF
THE THEISTIC SOCIETY
HELD
FREEMASONS’
AT
THE
HALL,
LONDON
ON
Wednesday, July 20th, 1870
AND
STATEMENT
OF
THE
COMMITTEE
APPOINTED BY THE MEETING
bg ©rber of
Committee
LONDON
LONGMANS,
GREEN,
1870
AND
CO.
�LONDON : PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
�CONTENTS.
PAGE
Report of the General Meeting ....
1
Resolutions passed at the General Meeting
71
Statement of the Committee
72
�I
•I
�PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MEETING
HELD AT
ON
WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1870.
MR. WILLIAM SHAEN IN THE CHAIR.
The Chairman.—Ladies and Gentlemen, I will state,
in opening the meeting, the course of business which
has been proposed by the Committee. In the first
place, our Honorary Secretary, Mr. E. II. Busk, will read
a report from the Provisional Committee ; that report
will conclude with a set of resolutions which have been
prepared by the Committee. It will then be my duty,
on behalf of the Committee, to move the reception of the
report. If it is your pleasure, after hearing the report, to
receive it, there are three or four resolutions, which have
been prepared, which will be moved and seconded ; and
upon those any observations can be made and any dis
cussion can be taken.
The Honorary Secretary then read the following
report :—
The Provisional Committee appointed at the meeting
held on June 6, 1870, have communicated with persons
who might be supposed willing to aid in the formation of
a Theistic Society, and now submit the following report
of their proceedings, and of the information so collected
by them.
B
�Q
The Committee met shortly after the meeting, at which
they were appointed, and prepared a circular, in which
was inserted the provisional statement of the objects and
means of the Society, which they were instructed to cir
culate with their suggestions.
The following is a copy of the circular, which was pre
ceded by a list of the Provisional Committee.
1. The objects of the Society are to unite men, notwithstanding any
differences in their religious creeds, in a common effort to attain and
diffuse purity of Spiritual Life by (i.) investigating religious truth ;
(ii.) cultivating devotional feelings; and (iii.) furthering practical
morality.
2. The Society seeks to attain these objects by the following means:—
(1) By holding meetings for the reading of papers, and for
conference.
(2) By holding and encouraging meetings for the united worship
of God.
(3) By helping its members to ascertain and discharge their
personal and social duties.
(4) By the formation of similar Societies with the same objects
in various parts of the British Empire and other countries.
(5) By correspondence with those who may be supposed willing
to assist in the objects of this Society.
(6) By the issue of publications calculated to promote the above
purposes.
This Society is offered as a means of uniting all those who believe
in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, in the endeavour
to supplement their individual efforts towards goodness and truth by
mutual sympathy; to intensify their trust in and love to God by
fellowship in worship; and to aid each other in the discovery and
propagation of Spiritual Truth, that thus they may attain to the more
complete observance of the Divine Laws of Human Nature.
A meeting will be held at the Freemasons’ Hall, Great Queen Street,
on Wednesday, July 20, 1870, at 7 p.m., for the purpose of definitely
constituting the Society. Your attendance at this meeting is requested.
In the meantime you are invited to communicate to the Provisional
Committee your opinion, and any information you can give on the
following subjects :—
a. The expediency of forming the proposed Society.
b. The best name for the proposed Society.
c. The names and addresses of persons or societies likely to be
interested in such a body.
�(1. The number likely to join in your neighbourhood.
e. Any practical suggestions as to the formation, objects, and modes
of action of the proposed Society.
The Committee invited suggestions and information on
various subjects, and have received, in answer to about
2,200 copies which have been circulated, upwards of 100
replies.
The suggestions and information that have been received
may be arranged under the four following heads :—
I. The expediency or inexpediency of forming the
proposed Society.
II. The best name for the proposed Society.
III. The number of persons likely to join in different
towns and districts.
IV. Practical suggestions as to the formation, objects,
and modes of action of the proposed Society.
I. The answers that have been received to the ques
tion whether it is or is not expedient to form the pro
posed Society have comprised every shade of feeling. They
may be roughly classified in the following manner :—
Those who think it expedient (including 5, who
merely express a desire for its formation) . . . 83
Those who think it inexpedient.................................... 17
Those who think the expediency doubtful....
7
107
These numbers do not include the members of the Pro
visional Committee.
The Provisional Committee are of opinion that these
answers afford sufficient encouragement to justify the
formation of the proposed Society.
II. The following names have been suggested for the
o
oo
proposed Society :—
‘ The Association for Promoting Practical Religion.’
‘ The Association for Promoting True Religion.’
B 2
�I
4
4 The Association for the Promotion of Practical Re
ligion.’
4 The Society for the Discovery and Propagation of
Spiritual Truth.’
4 An Association for Developing true Christian Charity
in St. Paul’s Sense.’
4 The Brotherhood of Faith.’
4 The Religious Brotherhood.’
4 The Brotherhood of all Religions.’
4 The Brethren of Progress.’
4 The Progressive Brotherhood.’
■ 4 The Fraternal Union.’
4 The Society of Human Brotherhood.’ 2.
4 The Brotherhood of Love.’ 2.
4 The British Free Church.’
4 The Church of all Religions.’
4 The Church Reform Society.’
4 The Open Church.’
4 The Church of the True God.’
4 The Church of Progress.’
4 The Free Catholic Church.’
4 The Universal Church.’
4 The Church of the Future.’
4 The Church of Religious Progress.’
4 The Church of the Law.’
4 The Church of all Faiths.’
4 The Church Founded on First Principles.’
4 The Universal Church of the Law.’
4 The English Branch of the Bralimo Somaj.’
4 The Friends.’
4 The Progressive Friends.’
4 The Moralists.’
4 The Free Religious Union.’ 3.
4 The Free Religious Society.’
4 The Free Religious Association.’ 2.
4 The Religious Union.’ 2.
�5
4 A Practical Religions Union.’
4 The Religions Alliance Association.’
4 The Religious Society of all People and of all
Nations.’
4 The Religious Liberal Association.’
4 The Society for the Promotion of Religious Liberty.’
4 The Modern Religious Society.’
4 The Rational Religious Society.’
4 The Common Brotherhood Religious Society.’
4 The Theo-Philosophical Society.’
4 The Universalist Society.’
4 The Universal Brotherhood.’ 2.
4 Sons and Daughters of God.’
4 The Universal Family of God.’
4 The Universal Family.’
4 The Christo-Theistic Society.’
4 The Christian Theists.’ 2.
4 The Eisotheistic Society.’
4 The Theistic Brotherhood.’ 2.
4 The Theistic Church.’
4 The Theistic Society.’ 3.
4 The Society of Theists.’
4 The Theistic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.’
4 The Theistic Theological Society.’
4 The Free Theistic Union.’
4 Theistic Christianity.’
4 The Deistic Society.’
Fifteen correspondents, therefore, have proposed names
in which the term Theistic occurs. On the other hand,
nineteen correspondents have declared themselves op
posed to that name, assigning various reasons for their
opposition ; and many others have proposed the other
names above reported, because they prefer them to the
epithet Theistic, which appeared in the heading of the
circular.
�6
III. The Provisional Committee beg to report that
they have received the following information as to the
persons likely to join in the movement.
The Committee have received the names of 245 persons
in various parts of the United Kingdom, as likely to co
operate, of whom ninety-eight have answered, expressing
themselves favourably towards the movement. Of these
persons, eighty-nine reside in the metropolis.
The Provisional Committee beg to report further, that
in addition to the names of individuals which are in
cluded in the foregoing numbers, they have received an
intimation, that at Edinburgh a congregation belonging
to a chapel, of which Dr. Page is the minister, and com
prising about one hundred members, will be likely to co
operate, and that in the same city there are about twenty
other persons who cordially desire such a Society.
These latter people formed a Society under the leader
ship of Mr. Cranbrook, but have become disunited in
consequence of the death of that gentleman, about a
year ago.
Mr. Walter Rew, of Sandgate, is the president of a
society, calling itself the ‘ Social Progress Association,’
and he has informed the Committee, that if the objects of
their proposed Society are sufficiently practical, he will
be happy to propose the amalgamation with it of his own
Association.
The Rev. W. J. Lake, of Leamington, is forming a
society in the Midland Counties, called the ‘Brotherhood
of Religious Reform,’ and has forwarded to the Com
mittee a copy of his programme. He has informed the
Committee that he will work with them, if their objects
are similar. The following is a copy of his programme :—
It is intended to form a Society, to be called ‘The
Brotherhood of Religious Reform,’ whose object shall be
to unite in a common religious fellowship, all who believe
�7
in the fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of man,
irrespective of all other beliefs they may hold, and by
this union of spirit to put an end to religious sectarianism
and to religious strife, and thus to lay a foundation for
the eventual building up of the one great church of the
living God, which shall be wide as the common need of
humanity, and which shall own as its members all who
love God, and who strive to lead a righteous and loving
life.
The operations of this Society will consist—
1. In the promotion of absolute religious equality ; to
be effected in this country mainly by the nationalisation
of the Established Church.
N.B. By the nationalisation of the Established Church
is meant, the abolition of the Act of Uniformity, and
of all compulsory belief or teaching. Also the establish
ment of a parishioner suffrage, by which the residents in
each parish shall be at liberty to select, from properly
educated and qualified candidates, their own minister,
and to determine the form and character of their worship.
2. It will be the business of this Society to investigate
the popular and accredited forms of religious belief, so
that, through the scholarly and scientific methods which
are now able to be employed, the absolute religious truth
may as nearly as possible be attained.
3. It will undertake the formation of public opinion
in accordance with these ascertained results, by the de
livery of lectures, and the promotion of controversy, the
issue of publications calculated to spread information on
these subjects among the people, and by all other likely
and appropriate methods.
4. It will undertake the immediate establishment of
a church or churches for the worship of God, in accord
ance with the fundamental elements of religious belief
before stated, and the maintenance of these by voluntary
effort, till such time as the national church shall be set
�8
free from the compulsory profession of sectarian dogmas
and mediæval creeds, and shall be thrown open, when
the majority of parishioners shall desire it, to the teach
ing and worship which sum up all the essential truth and
duty of religion in the simple requirements of love to
God as our father, and love to man as our brother.
IV. Among the suggestions that the Committee have
received in reply to their request for suggestions as to
the formation, objects, and modes of action of the pro
posed Society, are the following :—
As to the formation of the Society : That there shall
be, independently of the Society or Societies established
in London, a central Committee, which shall have for its
object the formation and encouragement of independent
branch Societies elsewhere, and shall serve as a means of
communication between such Societies, so as to preserve
union without compulsory uniformity of thought or action.
That admission to any of the affiliated Societies shall
be as wide as humanity itself, and with this view, that
there shall be no compulsory entrance fee or subscription.
The following suggestion has also been received, as
many persons cannot attend the meeting on July 20,
1870,—that the resolutions then passed shall be printed,
and votes taken from all the country correspondents who
have advocated the movement, before such resolutions
are finally adopted.
The following suggestions have been received as to
the objects of the proposed Society : —
Several correspondents approve of the statement of
objects contained in the circular.
One has suggested that the first object shall be ex
tended, so as to include the investigation of scientific as
well as religious truth.
It has been suggested that the Society ought to have
in view the two additional objects of :—
�9
I. Furthering education ; and,
II. Helping liberal churchmen.
Several correspondents have approved of the statement
contained in the circular of the modes of action proposed
for the Society.
One correspondent considers them too abstract and
indefinite ; on the other hand, another correspondent
recommends the adoption of as few rules as possible, and
seems to fear that these paragraphs will be found re
strictive.
None of the correspondents have objected to means
No. 1 (the holding of meetings for the reading of papers
and for conference), while several have written in favour
of it.
There has been much correspondence and difference of
opinion with reference to means No. 2 (the holding and
encouragement of meetings for the united worship of
God), the numbers for and against its adoption being
almost equally balanced.
There is a good deal of opposition to means No. 3 (the
helping of its members to ascertain and discharge their
personal and social duties), many persons believing that
it cannot be adopted as a mode of action without in
terfering with the individual conscience. It would appear,
therefore, that some of this opposition was occasioned by
a misapprehension of the aim of this paragraph.
No correspondent has expressed himself as opposed to
means No. 4 (the formation of similar Societies, with the
same objects, in various parts of the British Empire and
other countries) ; several, on the other hand, have advo
cated its adoption. It has been suggested that the action
of the central Committee in London should be supple
mented by the action of influential and energetic mem
bers, who should visit different provincial towns, and
stimulate to action those who feel the want of such a
Society as it is proposed to establish.
�10
Much has been written in favour of means No. 6 (the
issue of publications calculated to promote the above
purposes).
One or two think that the action of the Society in this
respect should be restricted to reprinting already existing
works or articles in periodicals which expound the prin
ciples of the Society.
Several suggest that a periodical or periodicals, monthly
or weekly, should be established for the diffusion of the
principles of the Society, for correspondence, and for the
information of country members.
In addition to the six modes of action proposed by the
circular, the three following modes of action have been
suggested, viz. :—
7. That lists of the members should be prepared and
circulated from time to time.
8. That the Society should assist in the formation of
libraries in various towns.
9. That there should be lectures given at fixed times
and places, accompanied by classical music, sacred or
otherwise.
The Committee have also received a pamphlet, con
taining very valuable practical suggestions, from Mr.
S. Prout Newcombe, of Croydon.
The variety of suggestions contained in the corre
spondence, of which the foregoing statement is an
analysis, as to the organisation of the proposed Society,
makes it desirable, in the opinion of the Committee, that
this subject should be further considered.
They will, therefore, invite the meeting to appoint a
Committee, by whom a scheme for the organisation of the
Society may be elaborated, and who shall report the
result of their labours to a meeting to be held early in
the ensuing year ; and they will request this meeting to
confine itself at present to resolutions by which the
�11
Society shall be constituted and its name determined, in
accordance with the general character proposed to be
given to it by the circular which has led to this meeting.
On the question of name, the Committee wish to report
that, although a majority has agreed upon a name which
will be proposed to the meeting, yet they have not
arrived at any unanimous conclusion. This result was
one that might be expected, having regard to the number
of different names suggested by their correspondents.
The Committee have found in this matter (as will
doubtless be found in many other cases) an occasion for
exercising that mutual deference of each for the opinion
of others which the proposed Society especially seeks to
cultivate, and without which it cannot exist.
The Chairman.—Ladies and gentlemen, I should have
hesitated to accept the responsible post of chairman of
this meeting if it had been intended to be anything in the
nature of a public manifestation; but we are met here
simply to have a friendly conference upon the very im
portant subjects which have been touched upon in the
printed circular which all of you have received, and
which have also been referred to in the report. I trust,
before the end of the meeting, we shall not only have
had a profitable and friendly conference, but really shall
have performed some practical business. Beyond that I
do not think it would be wise for us to attempt anything
at present. The facts which have been stated in the
report show what we have done to elicit opinions, and
what a large amount of sympathy with our views has
been expressed from all parts of England, and that there is
also, as might have been expected, a very wide diversity
of opinion expressed by our correspondents. I think it
is clear that, as we may, on the one hand, draw the con
clusion that a sufficient number of persons feel there
is a good work to be done by a society based on the
�12
principles which we have put forth to justify our proposing
to you that such a Society should now be founded, so, on
the other hand, it would be very unwise at the present
stage of proceedings to put the Society into a fixed and
crystallised condition. We must feel our way, gradually
establishing that which we feel ought to be established,
and leaving, as far as possible, the Society, when formed,
in an elastic state, to assume such a shape and adopt such
modes of action as it may from time to time find best
fitted to attain its objects. Probably many of those who
are here present may not be aware of the steps which
have led to the present meeting, and it may be well for
me, therefore, to refer shortly to them. This movement,
then, owes its origin to the arrival in this country of a
gentleman whom we already rejoice to call our friend—
Mr. Kesliub Chunder Sen. Since he came here, all of us,
I think I may say, who heard him speak at the meeting
held to receive him at the Hanover Square Rooms, or
who have from time to time since that meeting heard
him preach, have felt that in all its essentials the religion
of Mr. Sen was our religion ; and yet, on the other hand,
it is a remarkable fact that he did not find existing in this
country any religious organisation in which he could simply
feel himself to be at home. The feeling on the part of
his friends that there was something wrong in this state
of things led to a series of extremely interesting private
meetings, which were held at his house ; and in the
course of those meetings, the whole of which I had the
pleasure of attending, we found, as was to be expected,
that very similar thoughts had been excited in many
different minds, not only by his visit, but also by many
other circumstances which have occurred of late years.
Everybody seemed to be agreed that, somehow or other,
the religious organisations existing in England have for
the most part failed in their professed object—that reli
gion is, after all, nothing unless it is a uniting principle ;
�13
and yet, while everybody agrees in that opinion, some
how or other the actual religion professed in England
succeeds chiefly in keeping people apart, in marking
them off into separate bodies, and, when they are so
marked off, keeping them entirely asunder.
Then, looking at the subject from another point of
view, we all of us also felt that while, according to the
principles of our religion which we all accept, we ought
to consider ourselves one large human family, yet that, if
we looked into what was passing around us in our great
cities, throughout our country, and throughout the world,
we seemed to be acting in a very curious way when the
matter was considered from a family point of view. The
extraordinary contrast between the professed principles
of the religious organisations of civilised Europe, and the
actual practice of the most highly civilised nations, never,
perhaps, has received a more striking and melancholy
illustration than that which has taken place, even since
this meeting was summoned, in the terrible war which now
has actually commenced, and which, if we are a human
family, is, as all wars must be, a fratricidal war. In
trying to find out what was the cause of the two facts to
which I have alluded, we were pretty well agreed so far
as principle is concerned. With regard to the question
of religious organisations, it seemed to all of us, I believe,
that if we want to let religion do its proper work amongst
us, we must strip off the weeds and briars of multiplied
and complicated dogma which have encumbered and
choked the good seed of central religious truth. We
must get back, if we can, to that which is the foundation
of all religions, and in which we are all agreed. In this
attempt we find very little difficulty in accepting, as a
statement of that upon which we can all agree, the decla
ration that universal religion finds its sufficient foundation
in the two great truths of the fatherhood of God and the
brotherhood of man. Again, looking at the question
�14
from a practical point of view, it seemed also clear that
if we could, instead of wasting our time in barren con
troversies, apply ourselves to deduce from those two
central truths practical laws for the conduct of human
life, and make the entire round of human life impli
citly obedient to the laws which those central truths
teach, we should then not only succeed in giving, within
the range of our own people, the proper work to religious
organisations so founded, but we should also have esta
blished a society in which no friendly stranger, like Mr.
Sen, coming among us could ever feel himself to be a
stranger. It might be very possible—in fact it would be
certain—that among us there would be developed a large
amount of honest and earnest difference as to detailed
truths and subordinate principles of deep interest and
importance. But we thought there would be a very
large number who would feel that a common belief in,
and a common acknowledgment of, the fatherhood of
God and the brotherhood of man is sufficient to form
the basis of a religious union, and that in that religious
union all those who agreed in those two principles might
comfortably, cordially, and fraternally find a place.
We determined to see whether we could at once evoke
a sufficient amount of sympathy with those views to
justify us in attempting to found such a society. We
drew up the circular which has been sent about England
to the extent, as the report informs you, of about 2,200
copies. To those circulars we have received rather more
than 100 replies. If we compare the number of replies
with the number of circulars sent out, it certainly seems
very small. On the other hand, I myself consider that
it is an encouraging, and, on the whole, a satisfactory
result. We had no time, and had no very good oppor
tunity, of making a careful selection of the persons who
should be sent to. We took two or three lists, which
were accessible to us, of persons who had either sub
�15
scribed to some fund or some society which seemed to us
to indicate sentiments somewhat kindred to our own, and
we addressed our circulars to every name appearing on
those lists. It is very likely that the whole subject may
have been quite strange to some of them, and a very large
number of persons in England, and probably elsewhere,
take a long time to answer circulars, so that it by no
means follows that, even of those who have not replied,
the majority do not take an interest in the subject. On
the other hand, those circulars have elicited, as you
have heard, from a large and widely-scattered body, a
considerable amount of real sympathy. I was very glad
to see that the meeting seemed to receive with a welcome
the declaration in the report of the Provisional Committee,
that in our opinion the amount of sympathy we had
evoked is sufficient to justify us in founding the Society.
It will be necessary of course to consider very carefully
how far we shall go to-night, and what we shall declare
to be the nature and objects and modes of action of the
Society. On that point, my own belief is that we ought
to proceed carefully and slowly, and that it is much more
important that every step we take should be such as
will excite as much sympathy as possible among all our
friends, than that we should proceed in a hurry to do
something which might seem to have a more complete
appearance. I am afraid of being in too great a hurry to
draw up rules or to do anything more than declare our
general principles. It is quite clear that among the
friends who have signified their sympathy with us we
shall find a very large amount of difference of opinion,
and, in point of fact, the foundation of that sympathy
conies from two different sides. I shall be extremely
sorry if we are not ultimately able to combine the sym
pathy which has been evoked on both sides. I refer
especially to what I may call the speculative side of the
question—free thought; and the practical side of the
�question—the religious life. A very large number of
people who find themselves dissatisfied with the creeds
and customs of religious organisations express themselves
ready to join any society which, throwing off all shackles
of that kind, simply determines to pursue truth, wherever
truth may lie ; and I heartily sympathise with them, and
shall heartily rejoice if we find in our future Society the
means of assisting every earnest attempt at the investi
gation of truth in the freest possible way.
But, on the other hand, I take a still deeper interest in
the other side of the question, the practical application of
the principles we have accepted to the formation of a
religious life. It seems to me that the social evils of the
day may all be traced to the fact that there is such a wide
divorce between the principles which we profess when
we speak religiously, and the every-day practice of our
lives. I think, therefore, that while, as I have said, I
have the deepest sympathy with and shall always be ex
tremely glad to join in any free investigation of specula
tive truth, it will come more home to us as real pressing
business at the present time to see what we can do in
helping each other to ascertain what are the rules to
which we ought to render our daily lives subject, in order
that we may literally live upon this earth as a family of
God’s children ought to live.
Now, the wide differences which appear to exist and
the various shades of opinion which are prevalent among
our friends have been singularly and rather amusingly
illustrated by the long list of proposed names for this
Society which has been read to you by our Honorary
Secretary. It may be said that it makes very little dif
ference by what name we call ourselves, and that prac
tically the work which we do is the all-important subject.
No doubt that is so in the long run. Yet I am quite
sure that the feeling of our correspondents, which has led
them to lay great stress on the wise selection of a name,
�17
is, on the whole, a true one. Our name will be at
once the flag and the motto we display to the world,
and it is really of importance that we should adopt a
name which, while clearly expressing our principles, shall
attract as much and repel as little as possible. There
are many names which I could heartily accept, if there
were not already attached to them some unfortunate
association ; and I think it is important for us to avoid
any name which has already associated with it thoughts
and feelings and actions with which we should not wish
in any way to be identified. When we discussed this
question among ourselves in committee, even in a meeting
of from nine to a dozen, we found that we had the most
curiously varied associations with several of the names
which have been read to you. Among others I may
mention the term ‘Theistic.’ This term is one which, in
the mind of our friend Mr. Chundcr Sen, signifies every
thing which is most delightful and most religious and
devout. For my own part I have long looked upon it as
a word closely connected with all that I most value in
free religious thought—thought which is free, and, at the
same time, really religious; but yet I find that that is by
no means the case with many of those with whom it is
very important that we should be able to work in this
movement. We find among our correspondents that the
term is distinctly disliked and dreaded by a considerable
number. I mention this because it is the term I should
myself have by far preferred to any other, and yet it is
one as to which 1 have come to the conclusion that it
would be unwise in the Society to adopt it. You have
heard that, among the resolutions to be submitted to you
presently, is one for a name for the Society, and that that
name was not arrived at unanimously by the Committee.
In accordance with a common custom in such cases, it
was understood that we should not come down as a
committee and request you to accept the name proposed,
c
�18
.
but that tlic question should be left entirely free and un
shackled, that it should be discussed here and voted upon
without any weight being given to the accident that
there happened to be in the Committee a majority in
favour of a particular name. Accordingly, an amend
ment to that resolution will be moved. It is an amend
ment to the effect that it would be wise in us, on the
present occasion, to avoid pledging ourselves to any
name at all, and that the name, like the further details of
the Society, should be postponed to be further considered,
first by the Committee, whom we shall ask you to appoint
to-night, and afterwards by a meeting of the Society to
whom the Committee will report. I shall say no more
on that subject now, because it will have to be fully laid
before you at a later period of the evening.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is one point referred to
in the report, upon which there has been a good deal
of misapprehension among our correspondents, and on
which, therefore, I would say one word. It is with
regard to the third of what we have called the means
which the Society proposes to adopt, and which is worded
as follows : ‘ By helping its members to ascertain and dis
charge their personal and social duties.’ For my own
part, I consider, as I have already intimated, that that is
perhaps the most interesting and the most important
subject to which our attention can be directed, and I am,
therefore, extremely anxious that it should not in any
way be misunderstood. Some of our correspondents
have objected to that proposal, on the ground that it
would be impossible to adopt any practical measures for
giving it effect without infringing the rights of individual
conscience. It would be suicidal for a Society like ours,
which intends, as far as it can, to be an embodiment of
freedom with order, to do anything which could be open
to the accusation of infringing the rights of individual
conscience ; and the idea must have arisen, I think, from
�19
the supposition, that, under that head, it was intended to
adopt personal and social regulations which should be
binding upon the members of the Society. Nothing of
the kind has ever been contemplated by the Committee,
and I am quite sure nothing of the kind would be accepted
by the Society. One of the great rocks upon which, as I
think, the existing religious organisations of the country
have split, and are splitting, is what they call ‘ church
discipline.’ I trust that our Society will never attempt
to establish anything in the shape of church discipline.
While, however, everybody is absolutely free to do that
which is in accordance with his own conscience, it
seems to me that we should be abdicating what is the
great privilege of a religious fraternity, if we were to
shrink from discussing the question of personal and social
duties with those who may be willing to discuss them
with us. I trust we shall find it possible in an earnest
and faithful manner to assist each other in the attempt to
investigate in what way the principle of the brotherhood
of man ought to be applied to our daily life, in order to
produce the effects which we feel ought to follow from it,
but which we see around us at the present time do not
follow from it. I hope, therefore, the Society will accept
that as one of the most important branches of its ope
rations, at the same time being extremely careful that
nothing whatever shall be done, which can, in any way, be
said to be even an attempt to infringe individual liberty.
There is only one other point to which I need advert.
I think it would be wise to agree not only that a consi
derable part of the details of the working regulations of
this Society should be left in a provisional state, but that
we should express, in the constitution of the Society, the
idea that we can never expect to arrive at perfection,
and that the Society itself, therefore, is one of indefinite
progress. I, with some of those who are now present,
took a part in the attempt, which has come to an untimely
c 2
�20
end, to found what was called the ‘ Free Christian Union.’
From the first it seemed to me there were fatal errors in
the constitution of that Society, and I think the most fatal
of all was the declaration that any attempt to change
the programme, or the statement of the principles upon
which the Society was founded, should be considered
ipso facto a dissolution of the Society. In my view,
no Society is worthy of permanent existence which does
not embody in itself the idea of progressive development.
I do not, of course, mean that we are always to be
seeking change, but that we should always feel that
what we hold is good only until we see something better.
I should very much prefer to see in the constitution of,
our Society a distinct declaration, that once in five years
or once in a certain term of years, the whole constitution
should be submitted to the members of the Society for the
purpose of seeing whether suggestions could not be made
for improvement, rather than to see there anything like
a declaration, that, when we have once come to a con
clusion, we are to bind ourselves for all future time to
that conclusion, and that not only we ourselves for the
rest of our lives, but also those who may come after us,
are to agree with our present opinions.
I will not detain you, ladies and gentlemen, any longer.
I must express my great thanks for the kindness with
which you have listened to what I have said, and I will
now in conclusion move that the report which has been
read be received.
The resolution was then put to the meeting and carried
unanimously.
The Rev. J. E. Odgers.—Mr. Chairman, ladies and
gentlemen, I feel that the motion, which I have to re
commend to the meeting, follows with peculiar fitness
after the speech which has been just delivered, and is, in
point of fact, but the natural consequence which will
�21
suggest itself to every person who has heard you, Sir, with
sympathetic feeling. The resolution which I have to
propose is this—‘ That in the opinion of this meeting it is
desirable to form a Society to unite men, notwithstanding
any differences in their religious creeds, in a common
effort to attain and diffuse purity of spiritual life, by,
first, investigating religious truth ; secondly, cultivating
devotional feelings; and, thirdly, furthering practical
morality.’ I trust, Sir, that thus far the feeling of the
meeting will support both you and myself, and that the
applause which followed the statement in the report, that
the Committee felt justified in the formation of this Society,
is but the token of a wide and large sympathy both in
this room and outside it. For myself, I am only a country
minister, and I feel at present the strongest hope, from
this meeting, from the words you have uttered, from the
collection of opinion which has passed through the hands
of the Committee, that we may have a Society which shall
furnish those who labour for the principles of attaining
and diffusing spiritual life with a strong motive for ac
tion ; and by those means we shall bind those who
spiritually labour into one common bond of sympathy,
and give them at once that breadth of view and that as
surance of brotherly spirit of which they oftentimes feel
sorely in need. At the same time I rejoice to find that
this sympathy is a sympathy of spirit, and does not ne
cessarily involve an agreement in dogmatic propositions—that this Society proposes to take in all those who cordially
have those three objects in view, notwithstanding any
difference in their religious creed. While we are labour
ing, perhaps each in our several spheres, to support the
thought which is trusted to us, to cultivate and encourage
the life which we most deeply approve, and are perhaps
joined with some dogmatic body for the spread of the
theological views which commend themselves to us,
putting our hands to the plough as far as we can, and
�22
striving by association to make the truth, dear to us, per
fectly common to all mankind,—I feel that there is a need,
not only beyond that, but rendered necessary by those
associations, that we should go somewhere where a larger
and wider field would be open to us, where we should
escape at once from the doctrines which do attend sincere
individual labour in the search after, and propagation of
truth, and also which, in a double measure, attend the
religious associations of those who dogmatically agree.
Therefore, I look forward with the greatest pleasure to
joining and supporting, as far as in me lies, an association
where those, who theologically and religiously differ, may
come, and, taking their stand upon the first article of any
religious creed, however dogmatic, namely, 41 believe
in one God, the Father Almighty,’ may there get glimpses
of sides of religious life which have hitherto been closed
to them ; may find further views of religious truth shining
in on their minds as to those who are, generally speaking,
in time and place separated from them, and return to
their individual work of ascertaining and maintaining the
truth, and spreading, by teaching and example, practical
morality, with their minds refreshed by heartfelt com
munion with others, who bid them God speed across the
barriers of divergent theological theory, and, at the same
time, gaining that outlook into ultimate truth which the
naturally prophetic tendency of the mind does gain for
itself after having every opportunity of hearing the sincere
enunciation of opinion, which is at the present time broken
and varied as the truth reflects itself through the souls of
individuals.
I therefore submit most heartily, and with the strongest
individual feeling, this resolution to the meeting, and I
trust that what I have said will not be thought unprac
tical in itself, or as warring against the practical aims and
objects of the Society. If I, looking at it from my own
point of view, put the speculative side—the subjective
�23
side—first, I do not wish in the least to depreciate any
enumeration of practical ends, however various they
may be. The letters which I have received from my
own correspondents when I have sent them the circulars
of this Society mention very many practical aims, all of
which are in themselves most desirable, and may well
call for religious co-operation; but, at the same time, I
feel that these are early days to speak of the practical
aim of the Society. The great thing is to feel that we
are individually working only for those particular aims
which are dear to us who have communion, in the
highest and deepest sense, with others who are far off,
who are working for the same objects that we all pledge
ourselves to work for, and I feel at the same time that
ends will present themselves—they must follow out of
such communion of thought as I trust will be charac
teristic of this Society, and that we shall gain from this
Society ardour and heartiness of spirit, that we shall re
turn not pledged to any kind of mechanism or organisa
tion which is to hide the fact, that whatever good we do
must come from the determination and aspiration of the
soul, and will, therefore, be strengthened both for thought
and for work by the Association, the formation of which I
most heartily commend to this meeting. Therefore I beg
to propose to the meeting the resolution which I have
already read.
The Chairman.—Ladies and gentlemen, I have the
greatest possible pleasure in saying that this resolution
will be seconded by Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell. I must be
allowed to say that, not only because Dr. Elizabeth
Blackwell is a valued personal friend of my own, but
because her taking part in this meeting I look upon as a
practical illustration of a great principle.
Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell.—Ladies and gentlemen, I
second this resolution. Its object is union—the union
of all those who heartily love God. It is union for a
�24
practical purpose, viz., the attainment and diffusion of
pure spiritual life; a life which will express itself by
earnestly striving to carry out God’s Will in every action.
There is great necessity for such union. God has given
us enough glorious truth—moral, religious, and scientific
—to regenerate the world, if we would but put that
truth into practice; but we do not know how to shape
into deeds the teaching we get from pulpit, lecture-room,
and book ; this is not taught us. We allow ourselves to
float down the current of evil customs, shutting our eyes
to some, growing indifferent to others, because alone we
do not know how to avoid doing what everybody else
does. We thus become partakers in all the evils that exist
around us, and drunkenness, immorality, destitution, dis
honesty, crime, all have their roots in our own daily life.
There is no escaping from this terrible but grand brother
hood which binds us all together. Single-handed we cannot
resist the overwhelming force of social evils, but united we
may. With the strength of union we may insist upon a
truer education for our children; wTe may teach prac
tically habits of simplicity and industry to youth ; we
may carry out business honesty ; wTe may create a purer
social atmosphere around us. Such effort to regenerate
practical daily life, it appears to me, is the common
meeting-ground of all religious persons. We, with an
earnest Christian faith, can here joyfully meet all those
who love God and seek to obey his laws ; and in this
united effort to realise God’s laws we shall found the
Universal Church. I have great pleasure, therefore, in
seconding this resolution.
The Chairman.—I would now invite any lady or gentle
man to express any opinion on this matter. I hope it
will not be considered necessary, in order that an opinion
may be expressed, that it should be different from those
which we have already heard, for we should be just as
glad to hear additional reasons on our side of the ques
�25
tion, as wo should be ready to hear any opinion not
agreeing with ours. We should be very glad if those
friends from a distance, especially, would say what they
think on the matter.
Mr. F. Wilson.—Sir, I should just like to ask a ques
tion of the gentleman who proposed this resolution, and
it is this—how can people who differ in theological
matters agree to assemble under the proposition he
suggested ? We must have an individual and responsible
idea common to all the members of the Society, or else
the thing cannot work. We must have a centre, and
then you may widen the circumference to any extent
you please, but this centre must be universally recog
nised as a substantial starting-point.
The Chairman.—I don’t know whether Mr. Odgcrs
would wish to answer that question himself, but I must
say I myself consider that it is impossible for men to
unite for any good purpose, unless they also unite in
some common definite belief. On the other hand, I am
certain, from practical experience, that it is very possible
to unite people who combine with that common belief
quite an indefinite amount of theological difference. I
think, therefore, there is no reason at all why we should
despair of uniting in our Society people who, agreeing in
the two principles which we have adopted, namely, the
Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man, yet add to
those principles a very indefinite amount, and possibly a
wide amount, of divergent belief on other points. Cer
tainly we should wish that the question whether they
could or could not unite with ns should be determined
by each individual for himself or herself.
Mr. Wade.—Sir, you were good enough to send to me
a circular stating to me the objects of the proposed
Society. I must say I was much puzzled to give an
answer to the questions which were asked, and I came
here to-night to hear some further elucidation from you.
�26
But I am puzzled now to know in which direction any
superfluous energies one might have can be thrown,
which might not be given to any existing free Chris
tian Church. I had hoped, sincerely hoped, since I
gathered from the Chairman that the old Free Christian
Union is dead, or must die, that we might probably
strike out some new course which, in consequence of the
desire for union among the various churches, and among
those outside the churches, might have drawn together
numbers of persons who, religiously speaking, have no
homes. The Chairman said we need not be agreed as to
a name to-night, but that is to be left open, and then the
following speaker who proposed the first resolution
ignores practicalities altogether. So far as I could follow
him, we might just as well be a corporation to propagate
moonshine as to ignore practicalities. Will you give me,
if you please, something upon which to act ? You ask
me to join you. Will you give me some definite notion
of what this Society is doing, or proposes to do, over and
above what any other Christian church is doing and may
do, such a church as that of Mr. James Martineau or such
as that of Mr. Conway ? We are asked to join with some
other rational beings in doing some work which those
churches are not doing. Show me, if you please, in what
way I can put my hand to the plough. My friend, who
spoke to the resolution, invited us to lay hold of, not a
real plough, but some speculative plough which he had in
his mind. Will you show me a real plough, which I can
lay hold of and work some great furrows, but do not let
us drive off into mere generalities, for that is the rock on
which many associations have split. I am a member of
the Free Christian Union, and I have asked what am I to
do in it. I have got no answer beyond paying my sub
scription to the Society from year to year, and receiving
a pamphlet, which of course, I am delighted to have. If
there is no work to be done, what on earth is a union re
ll
�27
quired for? Ought it not to do something to put into
practice that which stands as the second article of your
creed, that is, love towards man ? Surely that is not a
very difficult thing to do. Either you have got some
thing to do beyond what the other churches are en
deavouring to do or you have not. If you have, let us
know it. If you have not, what good will this Society
do ? If you will be so good as to enlighten my ignorance
on that point I shall be glad. I believe I do not stand
alone in that matter by a good many. We should be
glad to hear, since the mover of the resolution said he
ignored practicalities, some one who would tell us in
what way we can unite to do a work which is not being
done by any other Christian church in the country.
The Chairman.—I think I may make one very short
reply to the kindly criticism, with which we have been
favoured by the gentleman who has just sat down. In
the first place, I did not understand Mr. Odgers to ignore
practicalities. In the printed statement which is before
the meeting, there are three objects stated. The first
is, investigating religious truth. The second, cultivating
devotional feelings. The third, furthering practical
morality; and in the last paragraph those same general
objects are slightly modified and altered in their order.
They are there stated as follows : that the ‘ Society is
offered as a means of uniting all those who believe in the
Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man, in the
endeavour to supplement their individual efforts towards
goodness and truth by mutual sympathy;’—that corre
sponds with that which is put third in the paragraph
above, namely, ‘ furthering practical morality.’ Then, ‘ to
intensify their trust in and love to God by fellowship in
worship ;’ that is, in other words, the second object stated
in the first paragraph, namely, ‘ cultivating devotional
feelings.’ Then, ‘ to aid each other in the discovery and
propagation of spiritual truth, that thus they may attain
�28
to the more complete observance of the Divine laws of
human nature.’ That which is there put last corresponds,
I take it, to that which is put first in the first paragraph,
namely, ‘ investigating religious truth.’ I think the only
difference between the mover and seconder of the
resolution was, that Mr. Odgers distinctly stated that he
was more drawn by his sympathy for what is stated
first in the first enumeration of the objects of the Society
and last in the second enumeration of those objects,
namely, ‘ investigating religious truth,’ and less to the
practical part; whereas Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell stated that
her great interest was in furthering practical morality,
which is put last in the first and first in the second enu
meration of the objects of the Society, namely to supple
ment individual efforts towards goodness and truth, by
mutual sympathy.
Then, with regard to the question, whether our friend
should join us or not; of course we invite everybody to
join us who wishes to do so. But for my own part I do
not imagine that we shall be joined by a great many of
those who are in the happy position of belonging to a
society which entirely satisfies them. If any member of
the Portland Street congregation, or the South Place
congregation feels that either of those particular churches
completely satisfies all his desires for religious fellowship,
let him remain and be satisfied. We do not seek to
render him dissatisfied, but it is a fact which we find
existing, that there is a large number who do feel dis
satisfied, and who want something more. We offer our
organisation as an attempt to find out among ourselves
the causes and nature of our own dissatisfaction, and the
best practical mode of getting satisfied. Whether any
particular individuals, ladies or gentlemen, should join us
or not is, as I said before, a question which must be left
entirely for themselves to settle. For my part, I think
the enumeration of means under the second head of our
�29
printed circular holds out a prospect, if we can succeed in
getting the Society formed, of a good deal of practical
work which is not much done by any existing church
that I know of. The very first is this, ‘ Holding meetings
for the reading of papers and for conference.’ I am not
aware of any church that attempts anything of that kind
—certainly, neither of the two which have been referred
to does so. Then, secondly, ‘ Holding and encouraging
meetings for the united worship of God.’ That of course
is done by every church. But, taken in connection with
our avowed intention to endeavour to unite those who
belong to the various great branches of monotheistic
theology—Christians, Brahmos, Jews, Parsees, Mohamme
dans, it offers a work that has not yet been attempted, as
far as I know, by any existing church, whether orthodox
or free. Then, thirdly, ‘ Helping its members to as
certain and discharge their personal and social duties.’
No doubt the minister does something towards helping
the members of his congregation to ascertain and dis
charge their duties; but there is very little mutual
fraternal help arising out of the fellowship of the
scattered congregations with which I am acquainted in
London. Those three objects, to say nothing of corre
spondence and the issuing of publications, seem to me
to point out a very large field of practical work. I am
glad that all these questions should be asked, because the
more carefully the matter is considered the better it will
be for us. But we can only lay before you, as I said
before, that which is in our own minds and hearts ; and
if you find that you are perfectly satisfied without any
thing we have to offer, we cannot ask you to join us.
If, however, what we do place before you does seem to
you to be attractive, and to hold out some hope of
useful action on your part, then we ask you to join us.
Mr. Edward Webster.—Sir, I wish to make a few ob
servations with reference to what fell from the gentleman
�30
at the other end of the room (Mr. Wade). I would, in the
first place, ask those who are present, whether an Asso
ciation of this description is, or is not, a necessity of the
age, or rather of the intellectual religion which is so
rapidly spreading throughout the country ? If it be not
a necessity, then this Association will exist but a very
short time, notwithstanding the ability with which I am
quite sure its concerns will be conducted, from what I
have already heard from the Chairman to-night. But if
it be, as I for one undoubtedly think it is, a necessity of
the age, then you will go on, and you will establish
practically the most important religious principles that
have ever yet been communicated to the world. It
is impossible for any person who is at all connected
with the current literature of the age—with what is
going on in general society—I may say, in all ranks of
society, from the highest to the lowest—not to be aware
that doctrines and rules, in connection with religion,
which only twenty-five years ago were received as in
violable, arc now openly questioned—openly questioned,
not for the purpose of depreciating Christianity or re
ligion, but for the noble and exalted purpose of arriving
at truth, and that truth the most important of any. What
are we, and whither are we going ? what is to become
of the undying soul which every one in this room pos
sesses ? Hitherto science has not been applied to religion.
Look at all the religions of the world, and you will find
that science has had nothing whatever to do with them.
But that wondrous intellect of man, which has given us the
electric telegraph, which has enabled us as it were to fly
more speedily than the dove—that intellect is now being
applied to religion, and the consequence is, that there will
be new revelations of the dispensations of Almighty God
to man, and what hitherto have been considered penalties
and punishments will be found to be constructed upon
laws, spiritual, physical, and moral, absolutely perfect in
�31
their conception, and which have never required, and
never will require change, or amendment, or superses
sion, but by certain operations, slow to us but sure, are
effecting the ultimate social and religious civilisation of
the world. Gentlemen, union is strength ; and to tell
me that we are to stop because we cannot this evening
fix upon a name, is absurd. We shall have a name soon
enough, and such a name, I hope, as will unite very
many in supporting this Society. I do not hesitate to
say, and I am not a very young man, that the institution
of this Society has caused me more satisfaction than the
institution of any Society I ever heard of. Its importance
cannot be exaggerated. There is as yet no religion intro
duced into the world, which answers the conceptions of a
highly intelligent, highly cultivated, and highly benevolent
man. Therefore, Sir, I give you all the support I can, and
I most heartily hope that this Society is the commencement
of a thorough religious civilisation, and that it will end in
establishing universally, not only the worship of God, but
the brotherhood of man. Then, Sir, we shall not hear of
men armed to the teeth, and applying that noble mind
which God has given us, not for the purpose of insuring
human happiness, but for the purpose of destroying each
others’ lives. Christianity, as developed, has totally failed
to regenerate mankind. Eeligion founded on man’s in
tellect only will regenerate it, and that religion I trust
you are going to inaugurate this evening.
Mr. James Burns.—Mr. Chairman, and friends, I do
not rise to criticise the objects stated in the programme
of this Society, but rather to suggest something of a
practical character. I am already connected with a body
of people in this kingdom, numbering perhaps 20,000,
who are already endeavouring to do what this Society
contemplates. I see a number of those persons in this
room, and from them we can have practical suggestions
and sympathy. Now, Sir, there are several things con
�32
nected with religion. In the first place, there is senti
ment. We hear a great deal too much of that. In the
second place, there is faith; there is a great deal too
little of that. Then we have corresponding belief. Re
ligion is full of belief, but we put action out of view.
Then again, we have got dogmas or principles, but we
have not got objects. We cannot get all people to believe
alike, because every man will believe in accordance with
his culture and organisation. But there is one thino- we
can get all people to do, and that is, to move with one
beneficial object, namely, human happiness—an object of
all minds above idiocy. But we can never get two
minds to entertain the same conception of the same thing.
Even as to colours, if the organisation of vision is defec
tive, many persons entirely differ. I have to tell you,
ladies and gentlemen, that this Society is the expression
of that which has been going on among some people for
many years past, and all the things considered in your
programme are already at work in this kingdom. We
have Sunday meetings, where papers are read, and where
there is free conference. We have churches, where
there is no toll at the door, and no card for admission on
the platform. Again, we have religion in this country
which may be called scientific religion. What is meant
by that ? Simply, that there is no belief in a religion
which is not founded on facts. A scientific religion re
quires to be based upon man, and not upon God. What
do we know about God? We know nothing about God
further than what He has revealed of Himself, through
human consciousness. Let us realise the great fact of
human consciousness, and then I say all that we know
about God or anything else we can know only by careful
and intelligent investigation, and there are many things
which we can never tell with any degree of certainty.
To try to do so is unphilosophical, and can lead to nothing
but dogmatism. Why should we have dogmatism at all,
�33
where there is intelligence? Intelligence supersedes
dogma. Let us never name the word again, because it
is the sunken rock on which every ship has foundered
which has professed to take mankind to a religious haven.
What do we require to know ? We want to know what
constitutes human happiness. We want to know what
are the objects of human existence. Suppose it is im
mortality. The great object of scientific religion is to
liscover the fact of immortality—what becomes of men
after they leave off their mortality ? In what condition
lo they exist, and what is the relation of the present life
so the future life ? If you can answer those questions,
you know how to found a scientific religion, because you
?annot have a religion made up of mere morality;
morality is not religion—morality is only the performance
>f the various duties of life—
The Chairman.—Allow me, Mr. Burns, to suggest to
7ou that we are rather wandering to subjects which will
>ccupy a great deal of time, and I should like to
‘onfine the discussion to the resolution, which has been
noved and seconded, and to know whether or not we
hould adopt it.
Mr. A. C. Swinton.—Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlelen, among the objects of the proposed Theistic Society,
s stated in the prospectus issued by the Provisional
ommittee, is, ‘ To unite men, notwithstanding any differnces in their religious creeds, in a common effort to
ttain and diffuse purity of spiritual life.’ The question
now feel it my duty to put, in the presence of this
ssembly, is, Does this proposed Association mean to live
ccording to the divine laws of human nature, as that
reat example among men, Jesus Christ, lived? If so, of
>urse it must thoroughly renounce the present un•otherly system of life, and all that pertains to it. And
ch Theist, as a true child of God, and in His name,
ill proclaim by every deed of his daily life the falseness
D
�34
and criminality of the present system—a system based
on animalism, by which the millions of our actually de
serving fellow-creatures are forced by those who are
more powerful and cunning than themselves to be life
long slaves, and are thereby persecuted in the cruellest
manner, body and soul, to the present injury, and far
greater sin, of both oppressor and oppressed. If, there
fore, this proposed Theistic Society, despite its name and
provisions to the contrary, does not mean to supplant
this brutalising wrongdoing by the pure spiritual life its
Committee proposes to practise, then I say that far more
than is at present done by all the anti-Christian Churches,
and people falsely called Christians, is its dishonour of
God and its mockery of humanity. A few freed souls
have been striving to plant on earth that spiritual life
which the gentle and all-loving Nazarene, amid the
greatest opposition, many centuries since, heroically
proved to the world all might live, if they determined to
cast aside sensual selfishness, which blinds them, and
trust to the guidance of the divine soul within each one
of us for happiness, ever increasing and eternal. More
of these efforts may be heard of from me at the close of
this meeting, if it is desired, or of the Editor of the
‘Alpha,’ 15 Southampton Row, Holborn.
Mr. J. Baxter Langley.—Mr. Chairman, ladies, and
gentlemen, I rise with very great hesitation, because I
feel the question which I raise is one upon which there
is a great difference of opinion among those who desire
earnestly to co-operate in a religious movement of the
kind to be inaugurated here. The word ‘devotional’
occurs in the resolution, and I am sure it will convey to
many minds, as it did to mine, the idea of prayer
in public worship and prayer in the sense of petitioning
to the Deity. I believe that there are a very large num
ber of persons who are animated by religious sentiment,
who nevertheless believe that prayer in that sense is not
�35
part of our religious duty, and that it places both man
and God in a wrong position. Therefore I know that,
supposing the resolution were carried with the word
‘ devotional ’ included in it, it would drive away from you
many of those whom I should like to see united with
you—namely, those who philosophically object to the
word ‘ devotional ’ as relating to a form of prayer. I
simply wish to raise the question, whether that word
must be regarded as an essential part of the resolution.
If so, it will exclude myself and those with whom I
am accustomed to co-operate among the advanced
Unitarians.
The Chairman.—We have been desirous so to pre
pare our resolutions as to cause as little difference as
possible ; but I have no doubt it would be quite im
possible to draw up any resolution, and it would be use
less if we could succeed in doing it, which would exclude
nobody. There must be a certain amount of community
of feeling, as I have said already in answering a previous
question. I can only say that the phrase which has been
objected to expresses one of the main objects of the
Society. The cultivation of devotional feeling was a sub
ject which was well considered and very deliberately and
unanimously adopted by the Provisional Committee;
and on the part of that Committee, I have no hesi
tation in saying that they intend to adhere to that phrase.
With regard to what it applies to, or what it means, I
have no authority to enter into that question at all; each
person must judge for himself as to the phrase itself.
The Committee who have called this meeting, and who
have hitherto acted in this movement, heartily adhere
to it.
Mr. E. D. Darbisiiire.—Sir, I feel very much interest
in the programme which I hold in my hand, but I have
very great doubts as to the object of the proposed
Society, much as we have heard of it. I have taken
p 2
�much pains to form my own opinion upon those subjects
mentioned in the circular. I am in doubt at this moment
whether the object of the Society is to unite men or to
make a common effort to attain and diffuse purity of
spiritual life. If the object of the Society is to unite men,
I am afraid the Committee, in their efforts to unite, will
lose that precision of thought, and that resoluteness of prin
ciple, which always disappear from attempts at compro
mise. The object of the Society, so far as I have heard
from the speakers to-night, is a common effort to attain
and diffuse purity of life ; not to unite men. We do not
care for the mere fact of uniting men. The mere fact of
uniting men is of no use. If they are heartily unanimous
in their object—if they are prepared to pledge them
selves to join together—if they hail with the sincerest
thankfulness the authority of the moral law, recognising
similar devotion on the part of their members, whom
they did not know before, as they themselves feel—they
will gather strength from knowing that others have the
same aspiration and the same longing with themselves,
and they will earnestly unite for such a purpose. That
is all our resolution proposes, as it seems to me—that the
Society shall be formed for a common effort to attain
purity of life, and not to unite men.
The Chairman.—Mr. Darbishire is. undoubtedly quite
correct in what he has said. The object of the Society is
a common effort, and it is to unite men only so far as is
necessary to carry out that common effort. Of course
there can be no common effort without union. The
object of the union, no doubt, is not as an end, but
simply as a means — the end being the common
effort.
The resolution was then put to the meeting, and
carried, with four dissentients.
�37
Mr. Vansittart Neale.— Mr. Chairman, ladies, and
gentlemen, the resolution which I have been asked to
propose is, that the name of the Society be ‘The Uni
versal Religious Association.’ Before I address myself to
the resolution distinctly before you, I wish to disclaim,
in my own name, any notion that I am speaking for any
body except myself. I infer it is one of the charac
teristics of the Society which I hope to see formed, that
in it we should feel that we are not bound by the
opinions of other people ; that we do not pledge our
selves to accept the opinions of all those with whom we
may be associated in this Society, or whom we may ask
to join in the Society ; nor are we to ask them, or require
them, to accept our opinions. But we do ask, and we
hope it may be possible to show, that there should be a
common basis of union, defined, distinct, and practical,
so far as such union can be practical, upon which we may
act, preserving to ourselves that individuality of opinion
without which I myself am convinced it is perfectly im
possible that mankind could ever arrive at a general
acceptance of any religious truth as something in which
they commonly agree.
Now, Sir, as to the name. I have heard, what I was not
aware of before, that it is intended to propose that the
question of the name to be given to this proposed Society
should be deferred for further consideration. I confess
my own opinion is that it would be a great mistake to do
so. Unless it should appear to-night that there is an
irreconcilable diversity of opinion as to what the name
ought to be, I think that the not adopting a name would
be as much as to say we do not ourselves clearly under
stand what we want, we have no distinct idea what the
Society is to exist for, and therefore it is impossible for
us to give it any title which would enable any other
people to tell what it is we ask them to join in. I myself
have a very distinct idea of a principle up >n which I
�38
think it is possible to form the Society, and perhaps I
may be allowed very shortly to fall back upon what has
already been said as to the question which has been
asked, because I think the conclusive answer has not yet
been given—I mean the question as to what such a
Society as this can do which any other free Christian
Church cannot do. I say the answer to that question is
this : it can unite those persons who, having a deep reli
gious feeling, cannot join any Christian Church. That is
what it can do. It can unite the gentleman wrhom I
have the honour to see to-night on my left (Mr. Sen) ; it
will unite the Mohammedan and the Parsee; and it will
unite gentlemen like the author of ‘ The Phases of Faith ; ’
it will unite numbers of those who are now balancing
between Pantheism and the acceptance of that which we
have called Theism. It may unite all those who cannot
and will not join any Christian Church, and in doing that
you will do much to make all those who are members of
Christian Churches understand what it is they ought to
aim at. That is the principle on which I would support
this Society. That is what I think this name, which I
propose, expresses. I think it is apparent, from the list
of names read to you from the report to-night, that there
are at least three different views or heads of what the
name for such a Society as this should be, all of which, I
think, are mistaken ones. There are certain persons who
think that the Society should come out with a definition
of what they call absolute or universal religion, and thus
place itself in a species of critical antagonism to all ex
isting forms of faith. I think that would be a very great
mistake. The object of the Society, I consider, is to bring
men into that state of mind towards each other in which
it may be possible for them thoroughly, fairly, and calmly
to investigate and to judge of what there is which is true
and what there is which is not true in different religious
faiths. Until they have brought themselves into that
�39
state of mind they cannot be in a state of mind to define
in a satisfactory manner what are the religious truths
which they themselves coincide with, and which they
seek to inculcate. Again, there are certain persons who
would suggest apparently that the Society should put
itself under the protection of some existing religious in
stitution, or under some form of Christianity. Here again
I consider we should start upon a great mistake if we did
that. I myself do accept individually that truth as to
which others differ ; for I do accept, and hold, and believe
in the truth of that which has been considered by many
persons to be altogether contrary to reason, that which
has been the foundation of what is called the Catholic faith,
upon which Christianity has been historically founded.
I accept it entirely, although I am not going, of course,
to occupy the meeting with any discussion upon that
point. But I consider that there is no religion, there is
no faith, there is no religious dogma whatever, which
is not influenced by the myths and legends or notions
with which it has been associated. No society which
could hope to bring man generally to the acceptance of a
faith that should extend all over the world can exist at
all if it does not leave itself open to the true, careful,
calm investigation and examination of all those matters
that may be contemned, or may be insufficiently founded
on facts in the existing creeds. Then again there is
another idea which has been prevalent to a certain extent
in America—namely, that the Society is to meet and say,
‘ We hold a number of very different opinions, and we
simply agree to come together and tell each other that
we differ.’ I think that would be an extremely unsatis
factory foundation on which to form the Society. I
cannot imagine that the Society would attain any valuable
action if it were to adopt that as its sole basis. What is
it that the Society ought to stand upon ? I consider that
the Society aims at doing this : it aims, or should aim,
�40
according to my idea, to unite men within their different
faiths by leading them to feel that all of them are, to use
a Biblical phrase, the sheep of one Master, although they
may be separated for the present in many different folds ;
to lead them to believe that there is a spirit common to,
pervading all religions, even those which we most gene
rally condemn as false religions ; there is a spirit per
vading them all, which is the profound spirit of religion,
a part of which each one of the special creeds has
more or less ambiguously given utterance to, but to which
it is our object to bring them back, saying to men, ‘You
remember that all your own acts, all your own dogmas,
all that you, in your own particular religious creeds, may
endeavour to insist upon, they are only helps, and should
be regarded only as helps, to the development of a com
mon foundation which may be said to be the manifesta
tion of the really divine and universal religion of man.’
I consider that every religion has, more or less, been
founded upon trust in God. It is perfectly true that the
idea of trust has been embarrassed by a great deal of
distrust; it is quite true that men are continually talking
as if they were, and imagined themselves to be, in an
tagonism to God, and God in antagonism to them, and
they suppose that it is necessary to put an intervening
mediator between themselves and God, in order to relieve
that antagonism which they imagine exists. But this
mediator and the system of mediation have been intro
duced because they have got in their minds, in spite of
all this intellectual trust, a profound feeling of distrust in
the Being who is the Author of their own lives and the
Author of this wonderful world, and because they wish
to get rid of and relieve any element of distrust, and to
give vent to the confidence in the Being on whom their
lives depend.
Then I say that every religion has, more or less, sought
to affirm fellowship among men. There again we have
�41
the same sort of error. That fellowship lias been limited
to the fellowship of some particular nation, or the fellow
ship of those belonging to some particular sect, or hold
ing some particular set of opinions. There has been a
failure in establishing a feeling of fellowship among men
by having a common relation to the Great Being to whom
they owe their existence. The third great element has
been this : that religion is a matter of revelation ; it is
not an invention of man’s imagination only, but that it is
something which man, through his imagination, appre
hends as the action of God towards him, by means of
which man is brought, through the action of God, to the
apprehension of those deep and spiritual truths upon
which his whole life depends. Here again we have had
the same sort of mixture of error with truth which we
have found in other cases. Here again it is our object
to eliminate that error. Men have generally supposed
that the idea of a revelation was something authoritatively declared at some part of the remote past, and
which for ever after was to be accepted upon certain
grounds with the same evidence. There is another and
grander idea of revelation, wdiich has been imputed to
the Roman Catholic Church—the revelation of a con
tinuous progress, or something going on from the begin
ning of the world, and which will never terminate till the
world itself is terminated—a continual manifestation of
God to man by means of which man is brought into a
more thorough appreciation of his relation towards God,
and, therefore, his relation towards himself. It is the
belief in this system of revelation of continual progress
which I say we substitute for the idea of the authorita
tive revelation, and it is that which completes the scheme.
The third great principle which lies at the bottom of all
religions, and which it is the object of this Society to call
forth and bring out in its purity------ I do not wish to
occupy your time much longer, but these considerations
�42
appear to me very essential to bring before the Society
(although I have been able to do so only in a very im
perfect manner), in order to make you share my convic
tion that the Society has a distinct object on which it
may be formed, and which it may express by its name.
I think the name suggested is one which meets all those
views as well as any name that can be suggested. ‘ The
Universal Religious Association ’ expresses, I think, all
those convictions. It expresses by the word ‘ universal ’
a desire to take in all mankind, that we regard the pro
cess of revelation as something carried on among all
nations throughout all ages, and that we go to all of
them, in order to invite all to join us, and gather from
all of them those signs and features of truths which they
have adopted. Again, it is to be a religious association.
It is to be a union of trust in God; and it affirms the
fellowship of men one with another, which is the second
great principle upon which true religious faith is founded.
I say, therefore, that this name seems to me to express
the object of the Society, such as I conceive it to be, as
fully as any name could express it; and I have, there
fore, no hesitation in recommending to this meeting that
that name should be adopted.
Mr. Andrew Leighton.—Mr. Chairman, I will consult
the desire of the meeting by exceeding brevity, and I
will simply formally second this resolution, reserving to
myself the opportunity of making any remarks at the
close of the discussion if it should be necessary, but not
otherwise.
The Chairman.—As I know there is an amendment to
be moved to this resolution, perhaps it would be con
venient that that should be proposed before any general
discussion takes place.
Mr. Edward Henry Busk.—As you, Sir, have called
upon me to move the amendment at once, I certainly
will do so. Taking as I do so great an interest in this
�43
Society, I move any amendment upon a resolution which
the Provisional Committee has thought fit to bring before
the meeting to-night with the greatest regret. It is from
no wish to force upon the Committee, or upon the Society
which this meeting has declared its desire to found, any
name of my own selection. It is, perhaps, not even
from any feeling that the name which the majority of the
Committee desire to recommend to-night is in itself very
objectionable, but it is from a great desire on my part to
prevent the Society from being misconstrued unneces
sarily by those who have not joined it. The name itself
may seem a very unimportant matter; but, in fact, the
name is the only thing which comes before persons who
are not members of the Society. The name to them re
presents the Society. It is a very important thing, there
fore, that the name should represent the object of the
Society, and, as far as possible, be kept free from being mis
represented and misunderstood. At the same time, it is
not at all important, in my view, that a name should be
speedily fixed upon. We have already passed, almost
unanimously, a resolution which states in very distinct
terms the objects which it is proposed that this Society
shall have in view. It cannot, therefore, be said that, in
thus declining to choose a name to-night, this meeting is
forming a Society without having any distinct object. It
has three very distinct objects ; but at the same time the
name, the short placard which will set before the external
world the objects which we have in our hearts and minds,
is a thing, in my judgment, requiring careful considera
tion. It is not, of course, my place to make known to
the meeting everything that has passed in committee, but
I think I may inform the meeting that the list of names
I have read in the report only came before the Committee
last Monday, and they had then and there to select a
name. Therefore I do think there was very little time
for thought as to the best name to be selected. There
�44
was not unanimity at our committee meeting, as you,
Sir, have said ; and I feel that the subject of choosing a
name is so important, as compared with the fact of being
without a name for four or five months, that I do earnestly
entreat the meeting to consider whether the choice of a
name ought not to be deferred until we have had a longer
time to consider. It is in itself a matter of detail, and,
as the chairman has already informed you, it is the inten
tion of the members of the Provisional Committee to brine»o
before this meeting a resolution to the effect that it
should be referred to a Committee to complete the or
ganisation of this Society, to form rules as to member
ship and as to the management of the Society, and various
questions of that kind which cannot be gone into at a
meeting of this general nature. I therefore move the
amendment, ‘ That this meeting do not commit itself to the
choice of a name, but that the choice of a name be re
ferred, together with the other details of completing the
organisation of the Society, to the Committee,’ which I
hope this meeting will soon appoint.
I will not detain the meeting one instant more. I
wished merely to put before you, as shortly as possible,
the extreme importance of the choice of an appropriate
name, and the desirability of not taking any step which
we should at any time wish to retract, and which we
should regret having taken hastily and without due con
sideration.
Mr. Armstrong.—I beg leave to second the amend
ment, not exactly in the same interest in which it has
been moved by Mr. Busk, but because a name has been
running in my own head which has not been mentioned,
and which I cannot help thinking would recommend
itself to a large number of persons; and, in order that
that name may have a chance of being considered by
the Provisional Committee, I rise to second Mr. Busk’s
amendment. I suppose that the liuc of thought and
�45
feeling which has led the gentlemen forming the Pro
visional Committee to call us together to-night has
been, at any rate, a certain dissatisfaction with the
general lines of religious thought existing around us.
Thought on serious matters seems at the present day to
be running chiefly in two channels: the one is the
ancient channel which regards certain dogmatic beliefs,
whatever they may be, as essential to salvation, and
insists that all men must come to one dogmatic belief in
order that they may be saved; the other is the reaction
on that old belief, which is beginning to overthrow all
distinctively religious thought, and to teach us that man
need not look to anything higher than himself for instruc
tion and light, and that all that has been accustomed to
go by the name of religion may be entirely abandoned.
I apprehend the desire of the Committee would be to
take a medium course; and while rejecting the notion
that any special dogmatic belief, be it Ritualistic, Evan
gelical, or otherwise, is necessary to salvation, nevertheless
they would contend that some religious belief, or, at any
rate, some religious life, is necessary to salvation in its
highest sense—that salvation is an assimilation with the
Divine Being, whom they believe to govern the universe;
and the great religious work before us is to draw man
nearer to that Divine Being. Whether these thoughts
ran in the mind of the Committee or not I cannot tell.
I can only judge from the internal evidence which I find
in the prospectus. I have only endeavoured, as I sup
pose all who received this circular have, to get out of my
brain some name to express this object. I entirely agree
with Mr. Busk, that our name is an exceedingly im
portant point. By our name we shall stand or fall ; by
our name we shall be judged by Saturday Reviewers and
all that tribe ; and if they can find anything to ridicule
in our name, we shall find it hard to contend against it.
But of the names our secretary read, every one con
�46
tained either the word ‘ Religious’ or the word ‘ Theistic.’
Objections have been urged to both those names, the
objection to ‘ Theistic’ being, I presume, that, however
grand and noble the word may be in itself, it may give
rise to certain prejudice, and is not generally understood
in its proper and primary sense. A Theist is a person
who believes in a God. Nevertheless, I have spoken to
many Christian persons of various Churches who were
quite shocked at my notion that they were Theists. I
think, therefore, it would be well if we could find some
other name than ‘Theistic’ by which we could express
our objects, and which there would be no objection to
our adopting. On the other hand, the objection to the
word ‘ Religious,’ to my mind, is that there are things
professed as religious which I, for my own part, am not
inclined to recognise as religious in the proper sense of
the word. The Secularists and the Positivists tell us of
Secular religion and Positive religion. I have no objec
tion either to Secularists or Positivists. I believe many
of them are good and earnest men, but at the same time
I do not think we should find it practicable to work in a
religious association with them. I do not think we
should find we had a common aim and object, and I
doubt whether a society such as that would be found to
be practically useful. I would, therefore, suggest that
the Committee do consider the word ‘ Monotheistic.’ The
word is a very long one, and it may sound too learned.
At the same time I think it combines all that one under
stands by Theism, without having any accretion around
it such as gathers around the word ‘Theistic.’ I sup
pose you do not contemplate being Polytheists, and
therefore I do not think, by adding the word ‘ Mono ’ to
‘ Theistic,’ that you will practically narrow your Society
at all. Monotheistic may seem to be a word out of place
in England; you may say that, by taking the name of
Monotheistic, it is implied there is a Polytheistic Society
�47
against whom we are engaged. But this Society is
not an English Society; it is not even a European
Society; but it is to be a world-wide Society, if the
world will join us. Polytheism is not yet eradicated
from the world ; it still exists in many countries in the
East; and I think by adopting such a name as Mono
theistic we should avoid all prejudice such as gathers
around the word ‘ Theistic.’ We should be distinct and
precise, and not misunderstood by any party ; not lay
ourselves open to ridicule, but express exactly what are
the objects of the majority of the members of the Pro
visional Committee. I have great pleasure, therefore, in
seconding Mr. Busk’s amendment.
Mr. Owex.—Sir, I would support the amendment, and
merely observe that the suggestion made by the last
speaker is one I approve of, although I should like it
better were the title to be ‘ Monotheistic Brotherhood.’ I
was heartily pleased and delighted when I read the pro
spectus, and I thought if a name could be selected in
which both points might be embraced, that of the father
hood of God and the brotherhood of man, it would be
very desirable. I think this comes nearer to it than any
name which I have yet heard. For that reason I sup
port, or rather endorse, what the last speaker has said. I
regret to find that there should be any division to-night.
I believe that in spirit we all agree. I think Mr. Swinton
ought to be satisfied with what this Society intends to do.
It is what I have desired to see for a long time—namely,
a broad platform where any man might stand upon equal
terms with others. I have had much experience with
different denominations, those who profess the popular
Evangelical views and others, and I do not question the
reality of their convictions and enjoyment, although I do
not agree with them. I say there is a reality among
them, and I respect them, and I want to be able to stand
>n the platform side by side with them. I give them
�48
credit for their sincerity, and can understand them when
they say they can realise acceptance with God. I can
appreciate the worthy stranger to whom I have listened
with satisfaction and delight, though introducing views so
different, when he took for his text, ‘ God is love,’ and
when he illustrated that love by referring to the return
ing prodigal. I thought then it was time we had a
movement such as is now being inaugurated, and I hope
those of my friends who have not gone cordially with the
votes will reconsider it, and will not act in opposition, but
in concert. There will be opportunities afforded for con
ference and for the reading of papers, and the Society
will afford them an opportunity of submitting any views
which they may desire to bring before us. I have very
frequently said, and I wish you to bear it in mind (and I
have been labouring outside for many years in attempt
ing such an object), that the things you are now suggest
ing I have attempted to do. I have referred to the
Catholic Church. They have one grand idea, but their
mistake is that they want every one to be of one mind.
But cannot we have all under one Shepherd? Cannot
we have all in one fold, and be looked upon as one
Church ? As things are now, a premium is paid on
hypocrisy. We want each man to be true to himself.
In opening associations like this there will be every
scope offered for humility, as there is a bare possibility
that we may be wrong. When we establish a Society
like this, if any member has anything to communicate,
he will be in a position to do so more than he is now,
when the different sects stand at daggers’ points.
Air. E. Webster.—Sir, I think it would be wise to post
pone the final resolution of this Society with regard to
the name, because I think the name in itself is very im
portant indeed. Moreover, I should object to the name
that has been mentioned, because it is too vague. ‘ The
Universal Religious Society ’ would not carry to ordinary
�49
minds the true nature of this Association. I presume, of
course, when the Society comes to be organised it will
have some system of public worship, because, unless it
applies to the spiritual sentiment of human nature, it will
at last merely become an institution for the circulation of
papers on theological subjects. Man is, by nature, a
gregarious creature, and more especially in matters con
nected with religion, and unless you have some system of
public worship I venture to predict your Society will
ultimately fail. The words ‘ Religious Association ’ do
not point to religious public worship at all. If you had
some such name as this, 4 The Church of God for all
People of all Nations,’ the word 4 Church ’ would in
this Christian country carry with it an idea of public
worship. I do not mean to say that that is a better
name than that which is mentioned in the resolution. I
should like to know very much from our Asiatic friends
what the meaning of the word 4 Theistic ’ is, as understood
in that part of the world, but the word throughout
Christendom has a certain definite meaning. I mention
that now for the purpose of showing my reasons for
voting for the amendment. I think the name has never
been sufficiently considered, and I am not content with
the name that has been mentioned, because it is much
too vague.
Mr. Charles Pearce.—Mr. Chairman, brothers, and sis
ters, I shall support the amendment, but not for the same
reasons for which my friend opposite (Mr. Armstrong)
supported it; and, before I make a very few remarks, I
should like to clear away one or two difficulties which
probably his remarks have made. He suggested a name
in his own mind as one which was suitable to this
Society—that is, Monotheistic, if I understood him aright,
because in the world there were many gods, or rather
there was worship of what are supposed to be numerous
gods. Without entering into any theological discussion,
E
�50
I desire simply to carry your minds back some 4,000 years
since, and to remind you that all the efforts of Moses
were to destroy the worship of gods and to enunciate the
worship of the one true God. Therefore I earnestly
hope you will dismiss from your minds at once any idea
of adopting such a name. We do not want to have this
country and the world embroiled, as were the nations
around the Children of Israel, for the purpose of putting
down the worship of many gods. Our brother’s obser
vations would not apply, for he said we have Positivists
and Secularists ; and I do not think that the name pro
posed, of ‘The Universal Religious Association,’ would be
a name under which we could unite with Positivists and
Secularists. I gathered from his remarks (I do not wish
to do him any injustice) that he would not unite with
Positivists and Secularists. Now, if he did say so, he at
once condemns himself as being unfit to join this Associa
tion. For I take it that if we believe in the fatherhood
of God and the brotherhood of man, if a man be a
Positivist because he has by using his intellect become a
Positivist, he is still a child of God and still a brother ;
and it is just the same if he be a Secularist. I say, all
honour to the noble Secularist of Manchester who chal
lenged his lordship the Bishop to meet him on some fair
platform. They are men and they are brothers.
Now I will state my reason for not agreeing with the
name ‘ Universal Religious Association.’ My reason is
simply this, that no one attempts to define religion. Mr.
Vansittart Neale says, if we ask what is the meaning of
the term ‘ religious,’ we must criticise all religions. Of
course we must. There is only one religion, and that is
very easily found if you are desirous of finding it—it is
the religion of love. It was professed by Jesus Christ
1,800 years ago. It was professed by Confucius nearly
3,000 years since. It was professed by Brahma and
Buddha. It was professed by all the Reformers. We
�51
do not want the religion of love hampered up with doc
trines or dogmas at all. Then we must say what is the
meaning of the word ‘ religious.’ If you can apprehend
thoroughly your relationship to God, or to the cen
tral source of life, call that central source by any name
you please, if you once recognise that from the central
source you issue, then you are a child of the central
source; and every man, woman, and child, no matter
where they are, or in what condition or circumstance,
are your brothers and sisters, and that is the religion of
love. I only support the amendment upon the name to
night that there may be some time to think of the name.
The name proposed is a very fine name, and it is one of
the most suitable you could think of, if you could only
well define in your own mind what religion is. When I
sent in my reply, I thought no name was so suitable as
‘ Theistic Union,’ if Theism were thoroughly exemplified.
I only oppose the carrying of the resolution and support
the amendment that you may think over it, and come
better prepared at the next meeting to vote as to the
name to be given to this Association.
Now let me ask you just to consider one statement.
You say you are here with the desire to associate to
gether as brothers and sisters in forming this Association,
and if you form it under the title of a ‘ Universal Religious
Association,’ you accept the definition of religion that it
is your duty to God, knowing your relationship to Him,
and you accept the duties which devolve upon you when
you meet your brothers. This is important ; and please
to listen to it fairly and in the same spirit in which I offer
it to you. Do you think that the Divine Being is a
respecter of persons? No, you do not. Do you think
the Divine Being gives one man 800,000/., and gives
800,000 men nothing a year ? Certainly not, and He
never intended it. If we are going to work, and not to
talk, one of our efforts will be to carry into daily life that
E 2
�52
precept laid down by the Nazarene Carpenter, ‘ As you
would that men should do unto you, do ye also unto
them.’
Mr. Baxter Langley.—I should like to say a word
or two with regard to the name to be given to the Asso
ciation. I am still in hopes that, as the Society was itself
open to discussion and consideration, it may hereafter
amend the first resolution and adopt some other prin
ciple. I submit for your consideration, and with due
respect, that you will find by experience that you cannot
do by the resolution what I had hoped you intended to
do. I wish to say one or two words as to this Society
being called ‘ The Universal Religious Association.’ I want
to show you, in one or two brief sentences, that it cannot
be universal if you adhere to your first resolution. As I
understand, we came here together to-night to bring as
large a number as possible into religious association ; and
the gentleman at the bottom of the room, very early in
the meeting, said with great force, as I thought, that the
Society must offer something beyond that offered by other
Churches. The question is whether, having adopted the
platform you have to-night, and having determined to
adhere to it, you are not, by calling yourselves ‘ The Uni
versal Religious Association,’ placing the Society in an
equally absurd position as if you called yourself the
Catholic Church. With all respect to the gentlemen who
have spoken, I hold that there are a very large number
of Secularists who are tired and worried to death with
discussions, disputations, and debates upon dogmatic reli
gion who would gladly have welcomed a meeting of this
kind if it had been of such a nature as to present a
platform which was unobjectionable to them. I believe
it was quite possible to adopt a platform which, while it
would have included those connected with Christian
Churches, would yet have been so adapted to the wants of
the age as to have included all those men who are animated
�53
by deep religious feeling and desire religious co-operation.
The orthodox Churches are admitted to have failed, and
a great number have admitted that many of the heterodox Churches have failed. It is a fact that I very
much regret. Having been identified with the Unitarian
Churches, I can say that they are comparatively desolate
and deserted. They are only filled when there is some
man of remarkable ability and eloquence who calls to
gether a congregation simply by the dramatic character
of his eloquence. They have all been rendered desolate
by the fact that they have determined to have as a basis
of worship that there should be a certain creed ; that
lies at the root of the whole of this evil. If you could
adopt such a platform as would be truly universal
then you would bring in a very large number of
people—some of those speculative persons who have
been alluded to in terms hardly so respectful as ought to
have been used—you would bring in a large number of
earnest Secularists who desire to join in what is commonly
known as Christian work and benevolent enterprise.
Now, what are the two ideas which you have embodied
in your programme which would prevent, I believe, the
possibility of this union ? I know that many persons
adhere to the idea of a personal God as being essential
to true religion. I am not an atheist myself, but I claim
that there is a religious spirit existing in the minds of
those who differ from me and from you on that essential
point. I believe there is an enormous amount of useful
effort to be carried on in the world without any dogma
of that kind. And it is a dogma with regard to the
personal existence of the Deity. The other idea to which
I have alluded is that which may be said to have been
embodied in George Coombe’s ‘ Constitution of Man ’—a
work written by a man of the highest ability, of great
earnestness, and of deep religious feeling. His chapter
on Prayer has been adopted and accepted by a large
*
�54
number of persons calling themselves Christians. If you
are to adopt the two ideas to which I have referred, you
cannot get a basis of union which will embrace persons
other than those embraced in the existing Churches;
the Church in South Place includes a very large
number of persons who go the length to which I have
referred to-night. There are other persons who go the
same length among Unitarian ministers. There are very
broad and liberal views preached from their churches,
and I would point to Mr. Mark Wilks, of Holloway, where
discourses of the most profound character are delivered
from the pulpit. It is a matter of grave importance
that you should not hastily take a name because it adds
one more difficulty which you will throw in the way of
adapting yourselves to the wants of the present age. I
am convinced myself, from my knowledge of the common
people (not such as those we see in this room to-night),
many of whom hunger and thirst after some notion of
this kind—I am quite sure you will not bring them on
your platform unless you are careful to avoid the difficul
ties attaching to other Churches, one of which I think
you have thrown in your way by adopting the resolution
you have to-night. I beseech you, therefore, not to
throw a further difficulty in the way by adopting an un
suitable name, because if you do it will only add one more
to the difficulties already existing.
The Chairman.—I think it must be quite clear that
the meeting is not prepared, at any rate unanimously, to
accept a name to-night. On the other hand, we are ex
tremely anxious to get to the next resolution, to which
our friend Mr. Sen will speak. Under those circum
stances, I have the permission of the mover and the
seconder of the resolution to withdraw the resolution
in favour of the amendment, and if that is done we
may at once dispose of this question, and shall be able
to proceed with a more interesting discussion.
�55
Mr. Leighton.—I desire to say one word before you
withdraw the resolution. I was myself asked to second
this resolution on coining into the room to-night, but
have had no time for its consideration. From the
general sense of the meeting, I think it would be desir
able that further consideration should be given. I am
quite willing, and am glad that the mover of the resolu
tion is also, that it should be withdrawn. I want the
meeting to give their sanction to the proposition that the
name, whatever it be, shall be made as broad as possible
—to include all humanity. The question I have been
considering in my own mind is whether even the term
Theistic, broad as that is, would not exclude some who
ought to be included. The religious sentiment is a com
mon principle; all people have it, Secularists as well as
others; and some Secularists I have found to be morp
intrinsically religious than many professing Christians. A
name, therefore, which would include such persons should
surely be the one adopted by such a society as ours.
Mr. Leighton then controverted Mr. Baxter Langley’s
objections to the word ‘ devotional,’ holding that the
question raised was simply one of definition, which each
person must settle for himself, just as each had to define
for himself what was meant by religion.
Mr. Cunnington.—I hope I shall not be considered to
intrude if I occupy your attention for a moment, being
the individual who had the honour of proposing to the
Provisional Committee the name which has been so much
controverted. I do not rise for the purpose of justifying
the name or recommending it, seeing what the present
feeling of the meeting is, but merely for the purpose of
presenting what I think may be a practical inconvenience.
We must have, as it seems to me, some designation in
order that our friend Mr. Busk may be communicated
with. If you have no name it might be temporarily the
Nameless Society. You must have some name, or you
�56
cannot address our friend Mr. Busk. If you cannot agree
upon the name of the Society, let it be ‘The Nameless
Society,’ or something that would prevent the practical
inconvenience of having no title.
The Chairman.—I do not think practical inconvenience
would be at all felt. We came here to-night as a pro
posed Theistic Society, and until something else is adopted
you have that name upon the prospectus, which, I think,
will answer all practical purposes. The resolution now
before the meeting is that the subject of the name be
referred to the Committee to be appointed to complete
the organisation of the Society.
The resolution was then put to the meeting and carried
unanimously.
Baboo Kesiiub Chunder Sen.—Sir, before I introduce
the resolution with which I have been entrusted, I re
quest your permission to say a few words. I have always
felt strongly the importance and necessity of establishing
spiritual fellowship and union among all classes and races
of men. That there should be political and social differ
ences among mankind is not at all surprising ; but that
men and women should fight with each other in the name
of religion and God is really painful and surprising. The
true object of religion is to bind mankind together, and
to bind them all to God. If we see that in the name of
religion, men, instead of promoting peace on earth and
goodwill among men, are trying to show their antagonism
and animosity towards each other, then certainly we must
stand forward with our voice of protest and say religion
is defeating its own legitimate object. I have always
been distressed to find in my own country how many of
the Hindoo sects in India fight with each other, and how
they combine to war with Mohammedans and Christians,
whom they look upon and hate as their enemies. It is
far more painful to see how that spirit of bitterness
�57
and sectarian antipathy has been persistently manifested
towards the Hindoos by many professing Christians.
None preached so eloquently and so ably the doctrine
of the true love of God and the love of man as Jesus
Christ. It is, therefore, extremely unpleasant to us all
to see those who profess to be his disciples hate the
Hindoo as a heathen who has no hope of salvation,
and who has not one single spark of truth in his own
mind. Narrowness of heart has oftentimes its origin in
narrowness of creed. Men hate each other, men con
taminate their hearts with sectarian bitterness, because
they believe that there is no truth beyond the pales of
their own denominations and churches. This is a fatal
mistake, and to this may be attributed all those feelings
of bitterness and mutual recrimination which have con
verted the religious world into a painful scene of war and"
even bloodshed. Religion is essentially universal. If
God is our common Father, His truth is our common pro
perty. But the religious world may be likened to a vast
market; every religious sect represents only a portion of
truth; religion is many-sided; each individual, each
nation, oftentimes adopts and represents only one side of
religion. In different times and in different countries,
therefore, we see not the entire religious life, but only
partial religious life. The Hindoo represents religion
in his peculiar way, the Christian in his. The men
of the first century represented religion in their own way
according to the circumstances in which they lived ; and
so the men who are blessed with modern civilisation re
present religious life in their own way. If we desire to
adopt religious life in its entirety and fulness, we must
not, we cannot, reject or ignore any particular nation or
any branch of God’s vast family. If we embrace all
nations and races from the beginning, from the creation
of man down to the present moment; if we can take in
all religious scriptures, all so-called sacred writings ; if we
�58
are prepared to do honour to all prophets and the great
men of all nations and races, then certainly, but not till
then, can we do justice to universal and absolute religion
such as exists in God. To prove true to Him, to prove true
to humanity, we must do justice to all the departments of
man’s religious life as they are manifested in different ages
and in different parts of the world. The English Chris
tian has no right to hate the Hindoo heathen, nor has the
Hindoo heathen any right to treat the English Christian
with sectarian antagonism and hatred. Both must em
brace each other in the fulness of truth and in the fulness
of brotherly love. I rejoice heartily to see such a thing
foreshadowed in the constitution of the Society about to
be organised. I feel that modern nations and races are
getting their eyes opened to the catholicity of true reli
gion, after centuries of spiritual despotism and sectarian
warfare. Men are beginning to feel that, in order to be
true to nature and true to God, they must cast away
sectarianism and protest against spiritual tyranny and
kiss freedom and peace. The object of this resolution is
to bring together religious men in India, America, Ger
many, France, and in other parts of the world, into one
Monotheistic brotherhood, so that they may all recognise,
love, and worship God as their common Father. The time
has come when such a movement ought to be practically
organised, when all nations and races should be brought
together into one fold. English Christians ought to ex
tend their right hand of fellowship to my countrymen,
and my countrymen ought to extend their right hand of
fellowship to all those who stand beyond the pales of
Hindoo orthodoxy; so that, while they differ from each
other on certain dogmatic questions of theology, they
still recognise each other as brethren, and show their pre
paredness to vindicate the unity of the human race in the
face of the existing conflicting chorus of theological
opinions. It is impossible to establish unanimity of
�59
opinion among mankind, and those who have tried to
bring about such unanimity have always failed. I hope,
therefore, the friends and promoters of this movement
will not commit that great mistake. Let individual
liberty be recognised ; let every individual right be vin
dicated and respected; but still at the same time, while
we recognise differences of opinion, let us feel, and let
us declare, that it is possible to have a common platform
of action, where we can exchange our sympathies with
each other as brethren. There is another mistake which
I hope this Society will not commit, and that is, ever
to assume an arrogant and hostile attitude towards exist
ing sects. We should always assume a humble position.
We must stand at the feet of our ancestors, all those who
have gone before us, and who have left for our enjoy
ment precious legacies of religious life and religious
thought. All honour to such men. Hindoo, Christian,
Chinese, Buddhist, Greek, and Roman—men of all nations
and races—men of all ages—who have in any way
laboured successfully to promote the religious, and moral,
and social amelioration of mankind, are entitled to the
undying gratitude of all succeeding ages. In forming a
Society like that whose formation we contemplate at
present, we feel morally constrained to honour those
spiritual and moral benefactors to whom we owe “ a debt
immense of endless gratitude.” At their feet we sit
to-day, and to them we desire to offer our hearts’ thanks
givings, and we desire to recognise them individually
and unitedly, as those friends and brothers who have
directly or indirectly brought us into that position in
which we feel enabled to establish and organise a Society
like this. It is on account of the light which we have
received from them through succeeding generations that
we are prepared to come forward to-night and stand
before the world as a Theistic brotherhood. We cannot
dishonour them; though they belong to different nation
�60
alities, though they may be of different times and races,
we cannot for one moment dishonour them. We cannot
with pride and arrogance say we do not owe anything to
the Christian Scriptures, we owe nothing to the Hindu
Scriptures, we owe nothing to Confucius. We owe much
to all these sources of religious revelation and inspiration.
To their lives, as the lives of great men, we owe a great
deal. Our attitude, therefore, must be an attitude of
humility towards those who have gone before, an attitude
of thankful recognition; and towards existing Churches
also we must assume the same attitude. If there are
friends around us who think it their duty to criticise
severely our proceedings, to hold us up to public derision
and contempt, they are quite welcome to do so; but let
us not, as members of this Society, for one moment
cherish in our hearts unbrotherly feelings against them.
Our mission is a mission of love, and goodwill, and peace.
We do not stand forward to fan the flame of religious
animosity, but our desire is to extinguish the flame of
sectarian antipathy, if it is possible for us to do so. We
go forth as ministers of peace ; we shall love all sects ;
Christians and Hindoos we shall look upon as brothers,
as children of the same Father ; their books we shall read
with profound reverence ; their priests we shall honour
with thanksgivings ; and to all those around us who desire
to treat us as men who have no hopes of salvation, even
to them we must show charity and brotherly love. I
hope, therefore, not a single member of this Society will
ever think it right or honourable to manifest the bitter
spirit of sectarianism towards any religious denomination.
There are in England at present, I understand, nearly
300 religious sects into which the Christian Church has
been divided. That such a thing should exist in the
midst of Christendom is indeed painful, I may say fright
ful. Let us do all in our power to bring together these
various religious denominations. I do not see why we
�61
should not exercise our influence on Christian ministers
to exchange pulpits with each other. Why should not
the people of one congregation visit the church of another
congregation ? Why should not the various preachers of
the Christian Churches try to harmonise with each other ?
Christian people sometimes go the length of thinking
that the whole religious life is monopolised by themselves.
During my short stay in this country I have been struck
with the fact that English Christian life, however grand
and glorious it may be—and it certainly is in many of its
aspects and features—is sadly deficient in devotional fer
vour in the world ; deficient in feelings such as those
which a deep and trustful reliance upon a personal and
loving God alone can inspire, support, and sustain. Some
thing like that is to be found in India. I do honestly
believe that in India there is such a thing as spirituality.
In England there is too much materialism. That is my
honest conviction. If England and India were to unite
and receive from each other the good things they ought
to receive from each other, we should be able to form a
true Church, where spiritual fervour and the activity of
material life would harmonise, in order to form the unity
of religious life. Whether, therefore, we come to Eng
land, America, Germany, or France, or any other country
where similar religious movements are going on, we ask
them to co-operate with us; we ask the whole world to
treat us as fellow-disciples, to give unto us all the good
things they possess and enjoy for our benefit, that we
may thus collect materials from all existing churches
and religious denominations in order, in the fulness of
time, to construct and uprear the future Church of the
world.
Friends, these are the words that I intended to say
to-night, with a view to invite you all to look upon this
Society as an association of love, and peace, and humility,
not of hatred, mutual persecution, and sectarianism. If
�G2
this Society should live long—and why should it not live
if it is God’s Church and God’s society?—if this Society
be spared to continue in a career of honourable useful
ness, it will bless our hearts ; it will bless your country
and my country; it will bless the whole world. I need
not soar into regions of imagination and fancy in order
to depict in glowing colours the future Church of the
world ; but this I must say, that from the time the light
of religion dawned on my mind, up to the present moment,
I have always been an advocate of the glorious principle
of religion which is summed up in these two great doc
trines, the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of
man ; and so long as I am enabled to work, whether here
or in my own country or elsewhere, it shall be my duty
to speak, and feel, and labour in such a way that not
only my own countrymen may, under the guidance of
God’s Spirit, and with God’s help, be brought into one
fold, but that all nations and races, so far as is possible
with my humble resources and powers, may be influenced
to feel the necessity of bringing themselves into one
vast family. Oh! may that blessed day soon come
when the earth, untrod by sect, or creed, or clan, shall
own the two great principles — the universal father
hood of God and the brotherhood of man ! I beg to
propose this resolution to the meeting: 4 That in the
opinion of this meeting it is desirable that the Society
should correspond without delay with similar societies in
India, America, Germany, France, and elsewhere, as
suring them of our sympathy and fellowship.’
Mr. Cunnington.—Ladies and gentlemen, I have had
the honour of being asked to second this resolution. I shall
not be so presumptuous as to attempt to add anything to
what Mr. Sen has said, and I shall occupy your time but a
few moments. Mr. Sen has dwelt very forcibly, and very
properly, on the obligations we are under to those who
have preceded us in the discovery and propagation of
�63
religious truth. There is a further idea which strikes me
as being also important, seeing that in Ilim whom I
recognise as the Deity there is neither variableness nor
shadow of turning ; there is no change in His laws, and
the same element, or the same disposition, exists in
humanity now as in former times; and while we ap
preciate at its proper value the truth which has been
handed down to us by past generations, we do not lose
sight of the importance of recognising the inspiration of
the present day. I am one of those who think there
cannot be any difference or clashing between the advocates
of physical science or truths that relate to matter, and
those who are the advocates of truths which relate to
spiritual things, or to the mind. All truth must be in
harmony if it is rightly understood. Both matter and
mind have, according to my conception, been given to us
by the same Being, who is perfect, and in whom there
can be no imperfection. It is on account of our not
sufficiently comprehending the laws of that Being that we
see around us the lamentable and degrading state of society
which exists. I take it that if the interests of society had
been more practically insisted upon there would have been
comparatively less difference of opinion than there is and
less importance attached to the name, which there is, as
it seems to me, a difficulty in accepting. When we see
about us the want of common honesty, the want of truth
fulness, the physical degradation which exists amongst so
many of our fellow-creatures, whilst we are living in a
land groaning, I may say, under its wealth—if the
principle was recognised that property has its duties as
well as its rights, it would go, I think, far towards
remedying the evil which exists in society ; and whatever
name we give to our Society, whatever our aims may be,
unless they are brought to have a practical bearing on
the ills which are patent to all of us, it will be of but little
use. Our object must be to give it a practical direction;
�64
we must make up our minds to act upon the simple
principle, as between man and man, of doing unto others
as we would be done by. I will not attempt to analyse,
or to dilate upon the two grand principles which have
been referred to, of the fatherhood of God and the
brotherhood of man. It is because, as I think, those two
principles, rightly understood, are sufficient to unite the
whole of us, while we have our own individual opinions,
and hold them sincerely, earnestly, and ardently, that
we may be in a position to join those who may differ
from us, and to give them credit for the same sincerity
which we claim for ourselves.
But, Sir, I am not speaking to the resolution, which is,
that this Society should put itself in communication with
similar societies in all parts of the world. I firmly
believe, using the language of our great poet, that
‘ one touch of nature makes the whole world kin,’ and
I believe that the religious element in some shape or
other exists in all conscious humanity. It is believing
that, that I cordially sympathise with, and second, the
resolution which has been proposed.
The resolution was then put to the meeting and carried
unanimously.
Mr. Conway.—Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen,
I rise for the purpose of moving a resolution to the
effect ‘ That a Committee of twelve be appointed, with
power to add to their number, to complete the organisa
tion of the Society, and for the present to manage its
affairs; of this Committee, five to be a quorum ; and that
this Committee report to a future general meeting, to be
held as early as they can arrange.’
At this late stage of the meeting I do not feel inclined
to occupy the attention of the audience very long. For
myself, Sir, I would rather sit silent and see this move
ment go on, having perfect faith in the soundness of the
�Go
sped which we tire engaged in planting to-night. 1
believe it to be seed falling into honest soil, and I have
so many opportunities of appealing to the public, and
expressing my opinions, and even of monopolising the
expression of opinion, that I should be much more
pleased to hear some of the rest speak. I will not,
ho wever, let a movement, from which I hope great
things, pass without stating that it has my entire
sympathy, and I heartily approve of it, although, of
course, in many details, it does not exactly express my
particular ideas. I have my own peculiar views about
what constitutes devotion. I do not believe in that which
is called private or public prayer. I am not willing,
with others, to be called a Christian in the usual accepta
tion of the word, because I think I love and admire Jesus
Christ too much for that. I have my various feelings, of
course. Something fell from our chairman which looked
as if he believed we were not quite satisfied with our
respective local associations, and therefore came hither.
I do not agree with that. I think we may be perfectly
well satisfied in our local congregational arrangements,
and at the same time feel there is room for a larger
association with people who disagree with us and people
who are far removed from our ideas ; and the presence
of disagreement, and the presence of misgiving, and the
variety of ways of looking at things which have been
manifested in this meeting to-night are the most hopeful
signs we have ; they show that we are beginning to launch
out into something wider than the little associations
which we have with our own sects, and, instead of heaping
up sect upon sect, we shall come in contact with other
ways of looking at things throughout the world. I believe,
Sir, this Society will stand related to religion exactly as
the British Association of Science stands with regard to
science. There is a Royal Institution for teaching
science, and there is a Jermyn Street School, and there
F
�66
is the Ethnological Society—all practical institutions for
teaching science ; and also there is a great movement in
this country, and in every country where there are
scientific societies, devoted to the union of scientific men
for great purposes, and for the prosecution of vaster dis
coveries than any one society could accomplish by itself ;
and exactly as the Social Science Association stands
related to particular institutions, or the British Associa
tion stands related to a particular scientific association,
so I understand this Association to stand related to any
special religious movement. I should have been glad
were it openly called, what I believe it substantially is,
a Religious Science Association, and that we should an
nually have our meetings for the study of such things
and furtherance of such ends, just as people meet an
nually at Social Science or British Scientific Associations.
However, Sir, I candidly endorse the idea that this meeting
is practically tentative, and the object of this resolution
is to further that idea. It is a seed which we arc
planting, and we propose to appoint a Committee, in order
that they may cultivate that seed through the tenderest
part of its existence—namely, its gradual first growth,
its first tender blade, before it has got the sturdiness
and strength to which it can grow of itself. I think it
is clear that it would be impossible to decide what shall
be the practical mission of an association like this. It
is manifestly impossible for us to decide on the emer
gencies of the future, the exigencies which are to come,
the great demands which are to be made on the united
religious heart and free thought of this country. We
cannot decide till occasions arise, for new occasions teach
new duties, and there is not in this world a limb of any
animal, or form of any plant, that did not come into
being because there was a need which arose for the exist
ence of such animal or plant : every limb, every tree,
every leaf, every lin, in this world was created because
�G7
it was wanted by the surroundings, the great practical
results and emergencies of life. Our movement, then,
must be considered as a small egg, and it is to be formed
in this world as every other organic form has been con
stituted in obedience to the requirements which call
forth the vital germ and give it shape. As it lives,
as it grows, the light which will shine upon it will
give it its proper powers ; the rain which will fall will
clothe it with exactly the duties it needs, and the objects
it should have in view. We must trust this seed to the
eternal elements of this world ; we must trust it to God ;
we cannot decide at present everything it is to do, for
there may arise in distant years some great question upon
which it may be desirable, or even necessary, to call a
special meeting and take some united action. There may
be some other Oriental brother or brothers to wel
come, and then this Society will be here to open its arms
to such a brother, and not to let him wander about to be
tossed hither and thither, and to be preached at at my
lord’s table by his chaplain. He will not be left to be
called a Pagan here and there ; and there will be a large
welcome and a large hearing wherever there is a Society
which regards him as a true, devout, and religious teacher.
And, Sir, there may arise great questions of religious free
dom—questions arising touching religious movements,
national religious establishments, and many other things
in this world, where it will be necessary for people united
in some great salient points to take some practical action ;
and that practical action will decide what limbs, what
shape, what features, we shall have; for it is clear that,
if you try to do too much by giving this Society a
distinct shape beforehand, if you try to make a machine
answer all your ends before you know what those ends
are, if you make your machine without reference to
what may happen in the future, if you do that, you
will find, I think, that the machine will become very
F 2
�68
tiresome, very bungling, mid, in the end, useless. I
repeat, I would rather begin low down, where all things
in nature begin—first of all the mere blade, and let that
grow as the Eternal Tower shall decide and the course
of events shall determine. That is all I have to say, and
that is why it seems to me eminently proper that we
should have a Committee to watch over us, to avail them
selves of every ray of light which shall foil upon our
effort, to avail themselves of all suggestions which may
be made from whatever quarter, to see that we start
well, to see that the first beginnings of this seedling
shall be well cultured, well pruned of all that is ex
traneous, so that we shall see that in the end it is fit
for the garner. Those twelve gardeners who will con
stitute the Committee, those twelve horticulturalists
who are to tend this seed and to watch over it, should,
I think, be appointed by us, and, therefore, I most cor
dially move, with the highest hopes as to the progress
of this Society in the future, that this Committee be
appointed.
Mr. Kisto Gobindo Gupta.—Ladies and gentlemen,
I cannot speak very much. But I have much pleasure in
seconding the resolution which has just been put forward
as to the necessity of the proposed Association, and as to
the necessity for a Committee to manage its business.
Much has been already said upon the subject, and I can
only add my voice to say that I have personally felt the
necessity of such an association, more perhaps than any
body else in the room. In India we have similar associ
ations, but here some of my friends and myself do not
find any distinct association where we can feel ourselves
quite at home. So, if the proposed Association should
be formed, it will be a welcome place to all of us. I
have, therefore, much pleasun1 in seconding the reso
lution.
�69
Mr. Owen.—The last speaker said that he and his
associates have not been able to feel themselves at home
in any association now existing in this country. There
is a class who have not felt themselves at home in any
of the Churches, and hence the question was raised, Why
do not the working classes go to church ? If you arc
going to form a Committee, take heed to that, have regard
to that; do not disregard the working classes ; do not get
a highly respectable and a thoroughly English Committee.
I do not think anyone has attached more importance to
the visit of our distinguished Indian friend than I have;
but what has been his work in India ? He has been
endeavouring to deal a death-blow against caste. Have
any of those associated with him said one word about
the caste which exists in England? And is not that the
curse of our country? And so long as that exists all
that we have said simply amounts to nothing, and
there can be no religious union. I want to test the
matter; and if you are in earnest, I will promise you
that thousands will back you in your work. I have
addressed, I may say, hundreds of thousands of people in
this metropolis, and I have scarcely ever opened mv lips
without advocating the same principles that you have
advanced to-night. I hope, therefore, you will be explicit
on this one point, and don’t let us have a respectable
Committee. I am sure you do not misunderstand me.
I mean that the working classes have not felt them
selves at home, because they are not what is considered
the respectable class. I believe that Jack is as good as
his master, and in fact a good deal better. The working
classes are the industrious bees, and they are better than
the drones any day. I have the greatest respect for
every gentleman present; but I only ask you to be considerative, and to do something worthy of the name of
Chunder Sen. He has the noblest spirit I have seen. I
�70
doubt whether I ever heard a man open his lips in my
life for whom I have a greater veneration. I hope, there
fore, we shall do something worthy of such a man.
After some further discussion, the resolution was put
to the meeting and carried unanimously; and the Com
mittee was subsequently named.
A vote of thanks to the chairman terminated the pro
ceedings.
©
�RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT A GENERAL MEETING
HELD AT
THE FREEMASONS’ 11ALL, LONDON,
ON
WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1870.
MR. WILLIAM SIIAEN IN TIIE CHAIR.
1. That, in the opinion of this meeting, it is desirable
to form a Society to unite men, notwithstanding any
differences in their religious creeds, in a common effort
to attain and diffuse purity of spiritual life by, (1) in
vestigating religious truth, (2) cultivating devotional
feelings, and (3) furthering practical morality.
2. That the subject of the name of the Society be
referred to the Committee to be appointed to complete
the organisation of the Society.
3. That, in the opinion of this meeting, it is desirable
that the Society should correspond without delay with
similar societies in India, America, Germany, France, and
elsewhere, assuring them of our sympathy and fellowship.
4. That a Committee of twelve be appointed, with
power to add to their number, to complete the organisa
tion of the Society, and for the present to manage its
affairs ; of this Committee, five to form a quorum ; and
that this Committee report to a future general meeting,
to be held as early as they can arrange.
A Committee of twelve ladies and gentlemen was then
ippointed, of whom the following have consented to act :
—Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, Ananda M. Bose, Edward
Henry Busk, Moncure D. Conway, George Hickson,
Andrew Leighton, Miss E. A. Manning, S. Prout New•ombe, William Sliaen, and Edward Webster.
�72
STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE.
— ♦----
The Committee have begun the task committed to
them by the general meeting, and have agreed upon the
following statement for immediate publication :—
The Committee fully recognise and appreciate the
innumerable efforts which have been made by eminently
religious and good men for the amelioration of mankind,
physically, intellectually, and morally, and acknowledge
that a large debt of gratitude is due to these earnest
and devoted men ; but at the same time they feel that
the results of all the efforts which have been made leave
abundant room for, and encourage, fresh exertions upon a
basis as broad and comprehensive as possible.
It is felt that a belief in the two great principles of the
fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of all men forms a
sufficient basis for religious communion and united action.
This Society is offered as a means of uniting all who
share this feeling, in the endeavour to supplement their
individual efforts towards goodness and truth by mutual
sympathy; to intensify their trust in and love to God by
fellowship in worship; and to aid each other in the dis
covery and propagation of spiritual truth ; that thus they
may attain to the more complete observance of the
divine laws of human nature.
It is. intended to seek the attainment of those objects
by the following means, namely—
1. The holding of meetings for the reading of papers
and for conference.
2. The holding and encouragement of meetings for
the united worship of God.
�73
3. The helping its members t<> ascertain and dis
charge their personal and social duties.
4. The formation of similar societies, with the same
objects, in various parts of-the British Empire and other
countries.
5. Correspondence with those who may be supposed
willing to assist in the objects of this Society.
6. The issue of publications calculated to promote
the above purposes.
The Committee now invite all persons who concur in
the views thus expressed to join the Society. Any person
may become a member by communicating his or her
name and address in writing to the honorary secretary,
in the form appended to this statement.
It is not proposed to have any compulsory subscription’
but all members are invited to contribute to the funds
of the Society.
In the resolution, under which the Committee arc
acting, the objects of the Society are declared to be,
the investigation of religious truth, the cultivation of
devotional feelings, and the furtherance of practical
morality.
With reference to the investigation of religious truth,
the Committee feel that it is desirable that meetings for
the reading of papers and for conference should be
established as soon as possible, and intend to organise
such meetings in the autumn of this year.
The Society will also, with a view to the attainment of
this object, aid in the study of already existing works,
reprinting them when necessary, and will assist in pub
lishing original works.
Under this head will also stand the task of compiling
a collection of the purely religious passages from all the
different Bibles or Sacred Scriptures to which access can
be obtained. The compilation of this work may be begun
without delay.
It is hoped that the Society may soon be in a position
�74
to aid in the establishment in many towns and villages of
libraries in which those books shall find a place which
arc calculated to disseminate the principles of the Society,
and in the publication of works specially intended for the
young.
As to the second of the three objects of the Society,
devotional feelings may be indirectly cultivated in a
variety of ways, such as by a sincere study of science, by
art, or by literature. In fact, all the higher pursuits of
the intellect and imagination, and all developments of
pure social, and domestic affections materially tend to the
increase of the feeling of devotion.
These various means may be encouraged, but can
hardly, at least at present, be actually employed by the
Society. But the Society can hold meetings for the worship
of God, and thereby give such of its members as desire to
attend a means of directly aiding each other in the culti
vation of feelings of devotion.
These meetings, while strengthening and elevating the
spiritual communion between each member and God, will
afford opportunities of public worship to those who feel
themselves excluded from meetings for worship based on
dogmatic theology, and will practically demonstrate the
possibility and desirability of the union for public wor
ship of persons holding different creeds.
The Committee intend, therefore, to arrange, in the
autumn of the present year, meetings of the Society for
united worship.
Another means of furthering this object, which may be
at once begun by the Society, is the collection of a book
of prayer and praise, to contain passages from already
known books and hymns, as well as prayers, meditations,
and hymns which may from time to time be contributed
by members. This book, subject to continual revision,
will be valuable both as an aid in the conduct of meet
ings for united worship and for private use by individual
members.
�75
The third object, namely the furthering of practical
morality, naturally branches off in two directions—the
personal and social.
Under the first head, the aid to be afforded by the
Society will consist principally of the mutual countenance
and support which the members will afford each other in
the endeavour to carry out into their daily life, whether
in the family, society, or in their public or commercial
avocations, the principles of high and pure morality.
It is, perhaps, needless to remark that nothing in the
nature of Church discipline is contemplated or will be
established.
Besides this mutual support among the members, the
Society may itself aid in the realisation by them of a pure
spiritual life by means of its meetings and conferences,
where, by reading papers and by friendly discussion, ques
tions relating to the conduct of life may be treated and
developed.
In connection with the social branch of this subject,
such meetings as are last described will be most useful,
and these subjects will be considered in the meetings to
be organised by the Committee in the autumn of the
present year.
The number of problems to be dealt with under this
head is enormous : and whether or no it will be found
advisable for the Society, as a society, to take any active
part in directly attempting to mitigate the evils which
attach to our present civilisation, such as pauperism, war,
intemperance, &c., or itself to attempt any philanthropic
object ; yet there can be no doubt that the Society can
and ought at the earliest possible moment to afford ample
and frequent opportunities for the reunion of its members,
whereby their individual views may be widened and
defined, and their individual action may consequently be
rendered more intelligent, useful, and energetic.
�76
A list of the members will shortly be printed and cir
culated among the members of the Society.
The time and place, at which the proposed meetings
for united worship and for friendly conference will be
held, will be announced to all the members.
Additional copies of the foregoing pamphlet entire, or
of the concluding portion alone, containing the resolutions
adopted at the general meeting and the statement of
the Committee, can be obtained on application to the
honorary secretary, Edward IIexry Busk, Highgate, N.
LONDON: PRINTED BY
STOTTISWOODK AND CO., NEW-STREET SQtTARtt
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
��187
To Edward Henry Busk, Esq.
Dear Sir,
Please to add my name to the List of Members of the
Society which was founded at the. General Meeting held at the
Freemasons’ Hall, London, on July 20, 1870, for the purpose
of uniting men, notwithstanding any differences in their
religious creeds, in a common effort to attain and diffuse
purity of spiritual life by (fY) investigating religious truth,
(2) cultivating devotional feelings, and (3) furthering prac
tical morality.
L am, dear Sir,
Yours truly,
Name in full
Address__ ____________
I
���
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
Proceedings of the general meeting of the Theistic Society held at Freemasons' Hall, London on Wednesday, July 20th, 1870 and statement of the Committee appointed by the meeting
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Theistic Society
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 76, [2] p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Printed by Spottiswoode and Co., London. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Longmans, Green, and Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1870
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5174
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theism
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 (Proceedings of the general meeting of the Theistic Society held at Freemasons' Hall, London on Wednesday, July 20th, 1870 and statement of the Committee appointed by the meeting), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><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
Theism