1
10
5
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/80f6825bcd35b3479aac274f185505e5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=i6JouOCmWXtnuD8fhBp0B0ChetSuEIbRIEDcxxyFsICSyi9ihz4B8ywPLZNqLcY%7EKKCFMwWPqDzSy0egkO7gpiExPxTwXj0ZXUWFShnQR4PtK5fTw5x9qIpH0MS9umvqO-3SG6K3nszTfTAgdGT83viXT7B2CASJn6tO9tPCG6WFc7-IUB-JUT2bBpfPHz8JL7t83o3JXpWtGgSTggnGluF3onhCG1661%7E4L1CS64VaKQh-pedKKAcO-Y0Z-GElJgqtELcueFWbpTxvCFhBaLj1AWvm1lQgJZ4sXi4Eyp6l2yRmDYmTwptjFDncCG2OJM0UAnPxMGzJTptjEYXNQaw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4237e6faf7b322c7fc29b8c60ab2e897
PDF Text
Text
ON
CLERICAL DISHONESTY:
»«9
A REFUTATION OF CHARGES
"?/
AGAINST
REV. CHARLES VOYSEY.
BY
THOMAS P. KIRKMAN, M.A., F.R.S.,
RECTOR OF CROFT, NEAR WARRINGTON.
MANCHESTER: JOHN HEYWOOD, DEANSGATE.
1871.
Price, Fourpence.
�** Id
�PREFACE.
I trust that the learned reader into whose hand
these pages may fall will defend me from the charge
of unbecoming condescension in going out of my
way to correct a small editor. That gentleman
happened to be exactly in my way when I was about
something of far more importance than a criticism
of his utterances. He was a convenient peg for the
fixture of my theme, and I had evidently the right
to use him.
My theme is no part of the controversy between
rational and irrational theology: whether the BroadChurchmen are right or wrong in their views of the
manner and the measure in which God has revealed,
and is revealing, his truth to man, is here not at all
the question. The reader is welcome to assume and
to say that the Divines of the rational school are
ignorant and illogical, inconsistent and unbelieving,
unphilosophical and heterodox, or anything equally
disgraceful. The only thing that I shall call him
to account for affirming is—that we are dishonest.
If you choose to say that, I shall insist on your
proving what you say. A deep thinker once re
marked, “What a pity that lying should be a'sin,
because it is so easy!” This charge of dishonesty
against the thinking clergy of the Church of Eng
land, . and of other communions in which Tradition
�4
Preface.
is trembling before Truth, is both easy and popular.
Nothing tells better or pays better in your Times or
your Telegraph. The charge has surely now been
long enough made, without a syllable of evidence.
The scribes who make it will confess, that I have
taken some trouble to do what they find it so glib
and easy to leave everywhere undone—namely, to
state their case in the fairest and fullest manner, by
examining those solemn and only engagements by
which we clergy of the Established Church are bound
in our Ordination, and which these anonymous
writers so unreasonably and cruelly accuse us of
violating.
POSTSCRIPT.
The manuscript of this paper has been a month in
the hands and at the disposal of others. The only
reason why it has not appeared sooner is, that they
have not been able to see, as I see, the importance of
the Unitarian Herald; so that its publication may be
'taken as a victory of editorial dignity.
T. P. K.
�ON CLERICAL DISHONESTY.
The Editor of the Unitarian Herald, in the number
for July 7, 1871, comes out in a leading article, in
his largest type, overflowing with priestly unction,
and flatuous with pharisaic pride, that easiest and
happiest frame of true religion, which thinketh itself
righteous, and despiseth others. The article is
headed, “The Rev. Charles Voysey.” The pious*
editor laments, as he has a perfect right to do,'
that Unitarians have eagerly opened their pulpits to
Mr Voysey. His regret has deepened since he read
Mr Voysey’s full statement of his religious history,
and he observes, "'We feel bound to repeat our
conviction that Mr Voysey’s statement only makes
his case worse than had been generally supposed,
and that his course has been such as ought to be.
greeted, by all who feel the paramount claim of
clerical honesty, not with honour, but with open
reprobation.” He shows, by Mr Voysey’s own state
ment, that that gentleman “ had given up orthodoxy
before he took orders at all.” He rejects his justifi
cation of his decision to enter the Church by the
prevailing and notorious laxity in interpreting the
import of subscription to her articles: “Mr Voysey
treats the whole question as if it was merely one of
a fresh college subscription, entirely ignoring the
solemn professions of ordination. At his ordering
as deacon, at his ordination as priest, and, ten years
later, on his having to read himself into his living,
�6
On Clerical Dishonesty.
he had to face the most solemn professions and vows,
perfectly different from the mere formal subscriptions
of his University course.” He goes on to acquit Mr
Voysey of being influenced by pecuniary motives ;
but he is convinced that he was unconsciously
swayed to do an immoral act by a sense of the
dignity of being a clergyman of the National Church,
and he treats him as one of those who 11 suffer them
selves to be blinded by this feeling, so that they
never dare to look the morality of their position
fairly and honestly in the face.”
I was not prepared for a confession like this on
the part of either of the editors of this little Herald,
who are, both of them, in the front rank of Unitarian
clergymen. That wealthy body, of whom they are
leading ornaments, must have ways, that I should
never have suspected, of making even such men feel
the indignity of their apparently high position, when
they can attribute to the prospect, by which Mr Voysey
along with so many others of us was led astray from
the path of morality, such a blinding dignity!—the dignity of rustic seclusion and oblivion in a
world mad with money-worship, and rapidly grow
ing richer, round about all these lucky Voyseys,
with their certainty for life of £100, or sometimes
£160, a year, and the additional dignity of a large
family!
Let that peep at Unitarian conceptions of dignity
pass. We have before us a definite charge of dis
honesty and immorality against Mr Voysey in present
ing himself from a mean motive as a candidate for
orders in a shaky state of orthodoxy, and in “ entirely
ignoring the solemn professions of ordination.” The
charge, I would say, is definite in general, if that is
a phrase permissible: there is no mistake about
what the pious editor means; but like all the most
poisonous and malignant slanders, it is thoroughly
indefinite as to particulars. Not an atom of proof
�On Clerical Dishonesty.
>
7
is brought forward in support of these most reckless
accusations ! “ Proof V’ quoth the editor, “ who ever
demanded proof of my utterances in my large-type
article ? ” Proof, indeed ! if I think it my duty to
disseminate a little calumny about clergymen’s
motives, how is it possible to bring proof1? How
am I to get hold of a man’s motives, and exhibit
them to the readers of my paper ? They must, of
course, take all that on the evidence of my sancti
monious self.” The pious editor is right : we cannot
demand that he shall produce this mean motive, “the
lower consideration,” lower than greed of money,
“ which mingles with their higher motives.” Let
that pass also for the present. We proceed to the
other immorality of “entirely ignoring the solemn
professions of ordination.”
Here we have a charge of which some proof can
be demanded and produced. Fortunately, the pro
fessions of Mr Voysey’s ordination are on record. We
shall go through them in order, and consider first
their solemnity, and secondly, the honesty or dis
honesty with which they were faced, and with which
they have been ignored or respected by Mr Voysey.
(a) The first question, after the taking ‘ the Oath of
the Queen’s Sovereignty,’ which was put to him at his
first ordination, was this :—“ Do you trust that you
are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon
you this Office and Ministration, to serve God for
the promoting of his glory and the edifying of his
people ?” His answer was, “ I trust so.” The ques
tion was a solemn one. What proof can our editor
bring forward that the respondent had not seriously
and prayerfully weighed its solemnity, or that he did
not really ‘ trust so1?’ “ Oh,” says the editor, “he was
not orthodox, that is, his intellectual conceptions of
religious truth were no longer those which had been
instilled into his boyish mind : he no longer believed
either in a God-Devil or a Devil-God, such as are set
�8
On Clerical Dishonesty.
forth in much of what is called orthodox theology.”
But if he sincerely thought that those changes
which his views of God’s will and character had
undergone were the inward motions of the Holy
Ghost, which rendered him fitter than before to pro
mote God’s glory and to edify his people, even if
that sincere thought was a sincere mistake, there
could hardly be dishonesty and immorality in his
answering : I trust so.’ The question had no bear
ing at all upon his intellectual conceptions of fact or
dogma, nor did he profess in his reply anything more
than a trust which, as the editor will not deny, may
be honestly felt even by a man not quite orthodox.
(&) The next question was as follows: “ Do you
think that you are truly called, according to the will
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the due order of this
Realm, to the Ministry of the Church ? ” The answer
was, “ I think so.” What proof has our pious editor
that he did not really think so ? “ Oh,” quoth the
editor, “ a man truly called according to the due order
of the realm to the ministry of the Church, means
a man whose theological opinions are those of the
Bishops, and Mr Voysey knew this; wherefore the
truthful answer from his lips would have been simply
—I do not think so.” That Mr Voysey knew this is a
knotty point to prove. Let us suppose that Mr
Voysey, in pondering this, was aware of the notori
ous fact that bishops contradict each other in their
opinions- about the first thing which the Church does
for a child in baptism, and about the doctrine taught
to a child at the beginning of the Catechism, and
about what is generally necessary to salvation, a con
flict of orthodoxy at the very threshold of Church
manship, whose flat contradictions have had since to
be appeased by the highest tribunal of Church law,
by making both contrary sides equally orthodox !
And suppose, farther, that Mr Voysey had asked
himself—how many Episcopal opinions does due
�On Clerical Dishonesty.
9 .
order require me to hold ?—and how’ am I to find
out what the opinions of bishops really and un- ,
feignedly are 1 And suppose, again, that in his
perplexity he had lighted on this most luminous
passage in the Ordination of Priests, “ are you deter
mined to teach nothing, as required of necessity to
eternal salvation, but that which you shall be per
suaded may be concluded and proved by the Scrip
ture 1 ” Suppose all this, and you may depend upon
it he had well studied the matter thus—then, if he
felt that he was honestly purposing to qualify himself
in the spirit of that future vow for his second ordina
tion, he might sincerely say that he thought himself
called in due order to the ministry of a deacon.
Nothing that can be said or hinted by ill-natured
editors can throw more light on the obligation to
teach the opinions of this doctor or of that, contracted
by us in our first ordination, than what is shed by
that glorious engagement which we take in our
second. There are few things definite in what is
called orthodoxy either Trinitarian or Unitarian;
but the obligation of a clergyman of my Church
as to what he is bound not to teach, is defined with
all the rigour of science. All that is indefinite and
inconsistent with itself will pale away from our for
mularies like perished ink; all that is rigorous and
scientific will year by year become blacker, more welldefined, and more indelible. The paling process has
long been accomplished in the Church’s third article’,
of which none but theological experts can now see
the once stupendous import; and in the longer seven
teenth article, which to our recent Protestant fathers
was the battle-ground of burning strife, the process
is well-nigh completed. We see nothing there but a
few bleaching bones of controversies long dead and all
but buried out of sight; and even reverend Unitarian
editors, aching and angry with their defect of dignity,
have learned to be ashamed of taunting us with our •
degrading bondage to Calvinistic atrocities
�io
On Clerical Dishonesty.
(c) The third question put to Mr Voysey at his first
ordination was—“Do you unfeignedly believe all the
Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament ?”
To this he answered by the book, “I do believe
them.” The honesty of the reply was exactly equal
to that of the question. Our editor is awfully im
pressed with the solemnity of this business. He be
longs to a denomination of Christians which has
always been the foremost and boldest in denying
the truthfulness, scientific, historical, and moral, of
hundreds of pages in these canonical books : he dares
not say before the most uneducated man, or even
woman of his own communion, that he unfeignedly
believes them all. Yet he is captivated with the
dignity and solemnity of the scene, where the bishop
in his spotless robes, armed with the plenitude of
parliamentary power, extorts from the quivering
consciences of the anxious youths before him a quib' bling answer to a quibbling demand. The pious
and sympathetic editor imagines himself adorning the
province of that high functionary, and hears in fancy
the grand sonorous tones with which he could roll
out syllable by syllable that interrogation—‘ do you
unfeignedly believe them all V
The editor knows well that God, by His own reve
lations of truth to man in this and the last century,
has made it impossible for any student to prepare
himself for orders in any university, Catholic or Pro
testant in the world, so as to be able to say without
painful evasion, and unworthy violence to verbal
truth, that he unfeignedly believes even the first page
of the canonical scriptures. The bishop, who is forced
by an Act of Parliament of darker days to put this
question, does not even pretend to believe that God
made a water-tight firmament on the second day,
dividing the waters above it from those below. He
knows that that old firmamentum or solidamentum,
which to Job was hard and “ strong, and as a molten
�On Clerical Dishonesty.
11
looking-glass” of polished metal (Job xxxvii. 18),
and which is described by Josephus in his first page
of the “ Antiquities,” as a crystal which God fastened
and hammered like carpenter work (such is the plain
meaning of his Greek word), around his creation to
separate heaven from the whole world, that this old
fixed firmament is nowhere now, having been shivered
to atoms by shots of thought through the first tele
scopes. Three hundred years ago it was perfectly
true to every bishop, priest, and deacon in England,
except to three or four heretical mathematicians,
whom they heartily cursed for their infidelity, that
God made all that stupendous sapphire vault in one
day; and the vault was there in its solid majesty and
marvellous beauty, the transparent floor through
which Moses and the elders saw God’s feet from the
summit of Sinai, there to be seen with the stars of
God stuck in it. And it is no less certain at this day
to every clergyman and educated layman, that there
is not, and never was, any such thing, and that Jeho
vah did not make a firmament, nor any definite
division between earth and heaven, on the second day.
If the reader is curious to see exposed the miserable
and bungling quibbles to which theologians have been
driven by their despair or their dishonesty, in de
fending the letter of the first page of the Bible, I
refer him to my little tract—■“ Where is the firmament
which God created on the second day 1 ” Who doubts
that the chancellors and bishops who put together
our ordinals and articles would have handled me
more roughly for writing that tract than our bishops
have handled Mr Voysey ? And all England would
have applauded their treatment of such a blasphem
ous heretic, for his denial of the clear unquestionable
testimony of the first chapter of the Word of God,
xbout so plain a thing as the firmament.
If there were only a score of propositions in the
canonical scriptures like this one about the firmament,
�1'2
Un Ulerical Dishonesty.
which bishops no more than other educated men un
feignedly believe, it would be worth my while here
to enumerate them; and laying them before the
Churchmen- of England, I would say : Are you con
tent that your Act of Parliament should continue for
centuries to force your learned and godly bishops, in
the most important of all their episcopal functions,
to ask this question of those young candidates : ‘ Do
you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments ? ’ Would it not be at
least more decorous in The presence of hostile critics
of your church, to allow them to bracket the twenty
passages which neither you nor they pretend to
believe—and to demand from the youths an unfeigned
faith in all the rest ? Would there be anything incon
sistent with common honesty, to say nothing of
solemnity, in such a change of your law ? Why
should it be required of your young ministers to
believe even a score of propositions which you and
your bishops well know by the teaching of God Him
self to be untrue, however honestly they may have
been believed by good men of old 1 You may reply,
that the bishop is not compelled by law when he puts
that question, to say that he unfeignedly believes
every proposition in the Scripture himself; and you
may remark, that you see no reason why the young
sters should make a wry face at swallowing what the
bishop, once in their position, managed to get down.
And with that wise observation, and a little chuckle
at your own wisdom, good people of England, you are
very likely to rest content! But I cannot help wish
ing that you had a little more compassion on young
and tender consciences, and a little more fear of
tampering with the love of truth pure and undefiled.
I say, if there were just twenty such passages, I
would copy them out for once in order; but there are
in fact hundreds of them, in which to every educated
Christian mind an unfeigned belief is simply impos*
�On Clerical Dishonesty.
13
sible. Biblical criticism, like astronomy and geology,
is a science of which our Protestant fathers of the
Reformation knew next to nothing; they accepted the
Pope’s Bible, as they accepted his creeds, without sus
picion that either his priests or their predecessors, the
Jewish priests, had ever tampered with the sacred
documents. It may be that our editor, if pressed for
proof of his charge against Mr Voysey of dishonesty
in taking Holy Orders, would be compelled to rest
mainly on this assertion, without expressed reserve, of
belief of all the Scriptures. And he has a right to
press it; but certainly no more right against Mr.
Voysey than against every living clergyman of our
church who is fit to be called an educated man.
“ Very true,” quoth our editor, “it is true against you
all; you all were dishonest in your answer to that
question, and the only honourable course open to you
was to enter the ministry among us Unitarians : we
are not so tight in such matters; and you would then
all have been honestly established, as we are, to be
prophets of the Lord.” To this I reply by quoting
from the same leading article—After the same hard
fashion is the travestie of Biblical criticism by which
he is deliberately trying—under the careful cover of
merely attacking verbal inspiration and the doctrine
of Christ’s Godhead—to undermine the reverence of
men for the Bible, and their discipleship to Christ.”
It is evident that the man who wrote this (I know
not who he is) has often something to say about the
Bible, the force and value of which to the heads and
hearts of his hearers require to be supplemented by
a reverence for the Bible, as distinct from their reve
rence for truth and righteousness. They sound like
the words of one whose business it is to make in
fluence and profit out of such mere book-reverence;
and I hold the mission and the spirit of such a
teacher, at least to thinking men, to be those of an
arrant priest. The teacher- or preacher- craft that de-
�14
On Clerical Dishonesty.
mands as the condition of its useful action in grown
men a reverence distinct from that due to truth and
righteousness is simply priestcraft, more or less
dignified and respectable. If this editor means to
say that Mr Voysey is deliberately trying to under
mine men’s reverence for truth and righteousness,
or their discipleship to Christ as the Great Master
therein, I pronounce the charge to be a deliberate and
a most priestly calumny, and I defy him to prove one
word of it. And my impression is, that by betaking
ourselves to such a fountain of honour as this editor
for our prophetic qualifications, we should jump out of
the frying-pan into the fire, and find his little finger
thicker than the church’s loins. Your true priest is
none the less an arrant priest because he happens to
be a nonconformist, whether with or without dignity.
We proceed with our search for Mr Voysey’s
immorality in the solemn professions and vows of
ordination. (a!) The next question put to him was
this: “ Will you diligently read the same unto the
people assembled in the Church where you shall be
appointed to serve ? ” He answered, “ I will.” Can
the pious editor prove that he did not honourably
keep that promise 1 I have no doubt that he- kept it
at the cost of grievous pain to himself, such as many
of us feel and bear without complaining; the pain of
continual insult, in being deemed incapable of select
ing for ourselves a passage of Scripture to read at
any one service all the year round to our people—and
the pain of being compelled to read as God’s word
what we know well God never said. For example, I
was compelled last Sunday to read the impudent
charge of malice and murder which that baleful arch
pope Samuel brought (1 Sam. xv.) against God.
“ Samuel said unto Saul, thus saith the Lord of
Hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel,
(centuries ago). . . . Now go and smite Amalek and
utterly destroy all that they have and spare them
�On Clerical Dishonesty
15
not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” I am very
sure that holy Samuel said all that, and equally sure
that, when he said it, his holiness was fibbing stupend
ously. I was also compelled to read in that chapter,
“ The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for
he is not a man that he should repent.” “ Then came
the word of the Lord to Samuel saying, it repenteth
me that I have set up Saul to be king.” “ And the
Lord repented that he had made Saul king over
Israel.” Can any of the bishops unfeignedly believe
all this, even on the word of two Samuels, soapless
and saponaceous ?
Next comes the statement by the bishop of a deacon’s
duties, followed by the question, “Will you do this
gladly and willingly?” Mr Voysey answered, “I
will do so, by the help of God.” Is our wise Editor in
possession of any evidence that Mr Voysey ever for
one day neglected to fulfil these duties ? Let it be
observed that in the bishop’s complete statement of
them, not a word is said about its being a deacon’s
duty to be of the same opinion with bishops, not even
if they be editors ; nor is he required to enquire or to
know anything in general or in particular about their
opinions.
(0) The next question is, “ Will you apply all
your diligence to frame and fashion your own lives,
and the lives of your families, according to the
Doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and
them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples of
the flock of Christ ? ” Mr Voysey answered, “ I will
so do, the Lord being my helper.”
Does the penetrating Editor find anything dishonest
or immoral in this reply of the wicked Voysey ? Or
does he know, or can he coin, any scandal about that
gentleman’s family which can keep in countenance his
own abominable and public slander of him ?
(/) Once more: the bishop demands, “ Will you
�16
On Clerical Dishonesty.
. reverently obey your Ordinary and other chief Min
isters of the Church, and them to whom the charge
and government over you is committed, following with
a glad mind and will their godly admonitions 1 ” Mr
*• Voysey answered, “ I will endeavour myself, the Lord
being my helper.”
No more questions or professions; the ordination
of the deacon followed immediately. If the Unitarian
Editor cannot find a justification of his accusations
against Mr Voysey in the matter of this final profession,
it is clear that he will find it nowhere in this solemn
service of the first ordination. Before we press the
argument farther, it seems best to run rapidly over
the vows and professions of the second ordination,
as we shall then have the whole matter before us, and
give this groaning Editor a wider chance of shelter.
In this, after some due formalities and a collect, the
epistle, Ephesians iv. 7. . . is read, wherein are
enumerated the gifts to men of him who led captivity
captive, in the shape of church ministers, which are
described as Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors,
and Teachers. No priests ! let that be well weighed.
No priests 1 yet surely, if the Church of England had
intended to assert priesthood, in the old Pagan and
Jewish sense of sacrificers, mediators, conjurers, necro
mancers, and pardoners, she would have chosen a
passage of Scripture for the ordination service of
priests, in which at least the old word priest occurs.
Then follows either the gospel Matt. ix. 36, or that
John x. i., in neither of which is mention made of
any functionary but the shepherd. Next comes the
bishop’s address, most beautiful and impressive, on the
duties of the office about to be assumed ; but neither
priest nor priesthood, nor anything priestly, no, not a
single syllable, defiles the Christian purity of the long
allocution. “We exhort you, that ye have in remem
brance into how high a dignity, and to how weighty
an office and charge ye are called; that is to say, to
�CJn Clerical Dis Honesty.
17
be Messengers, Watchmen, and Stewards of the Lord.”
That is the whole definition of the office. ' The.
address being at an end, the first interrogation of the
ordinal is uttered thus,—and mark I pray you the
redoubled solemnity and awe which enchain the eyes > •
of our pious and admiring Editor—(g) “ Do you
think in your heart that you be truly called, according
to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order of
this United Church of England and Ireland, to the
Order and Ministry of Priesthood ? ” Ah ! poisoning
word, you may say, forced after all into the teeth of
that vanquished Protestant shepherd ! Ah ! mark of
the Beast, for centuries more stamped on a web so
beautiful! Hush, Hush ! ’Tis but a harmless word;
it comes without evil meaning; it is nowhere
defined in all the Church's formularies; you know
priest is merely presbyter ! Woe ! Woe ! You may
quibble on priest and presbyter; but that fatal
priesthood will be claimed as the print of the cloven
foot on a page otherwise so glorious !
The reply of Mr Voysey was—“I think it!” Will
our Editor say that he did not think it 1 Will he
point out a syllable of the eloquent address he had
just heard, to which he did not assent, with all his
heart and soul ? There is no stipulation in it that
the candidates were to come to bishops for their
learning or opinions: they were bid to seek both will
and ability from God alone in the study of the
scriptures ; not a syllable uttered about creeds or
articles, either parliamentary or editorial!
Of
course Mr Voysey, cordially hating the word priest
hood, had to content himself with the non-natural
translation of it into eldership, or presbyterate, and
he was thankful to have no definition more offensive
proposed to him; nor was he ever called upon
to undertake the office in the old Judaeo-Pagan
meaning.
(A) Then follows the glorious propounding of
�18
On Clerical Dishonesty.
that profession, and vow which is the Magna-Charta
of our protestant Broad-churchmanship, the passport
of immunity from all tax and all homage to priest
craft, preacher-craft, professor-craft, and editor-craft
of every hue, dignified or undignified. “ Are you
persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently
all Doctrine required of necessity for eternal salva
tion, through faith in Jesus Christ 1 And are
you determined out of the said Scriptures to instruct
the people committed to your charge, and to teach
nothing, as required of necessity to eternal salvation,
but that which you shall be persuaded may be
concluded and proved by the Scripture ?” The
answer of this wicked Voysey was, “ I am so per
suaded, and have so determined, by God’s grace.”
The dishonest wretch ! Does he not well deserve
to have suffered the loss of his bread and the
spoiling of his goods, by his wilful error and obsti
nacy in honouring the sacredness of that vow so
much more than what in his conscience he believed
to be traditions of the elders, and inventions of
men, in creeds and articles, in acts of councils and
parliaments, and in systems of theology?
(i) The Bishop next proceeded thus:—“ Will
you then give your faithful diligence always so to min
ister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline
of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this
Church and Realm hath received the same, according
to the Commandments of God, so that you may teach
the people committed to your Cure and Charge with
all diligence to keep and observe the same ? The
candidate answered, “ I will do so, by the help of
the Lord.”
We proceed rapidly with what remains.
(/) The Bishop.—11 Will you be ready, with all
faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all
erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s
word ; and to use both publick and private monitions
�On Clerical Dishonesty.
19
and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole,
within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion
shall be given ?” Answer.—“ I will, the Lord being
my helper.”
Observe in (z) and (/) the important restrictions,
“ according to the commandments of God,” and “ con
trary to God’s word.”
(&) The Bishop.—“ Will you be diligent in Prayers,
and in reading of the Holy Scriptures, and in such
studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying
aside the study of the world and the flesh 1” Answer.
—“I will endeavour myself so to do, the Lord being
my helper.”
(Z) The Bishop.—“Will you be diligent to frame
and fashion your own selves and your families,
according to the Doctrine of Christ; and to make
both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth,
wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of
Christi” Ansiver.—“I will apply myself thereto,
the Lord being my helper.”
(m) The Bishop.—11 Will you maintain and set
forward, as much as lieth in you, quietness, peace,
and love, among all Christian people, and especially
among them that are, or shall be, committed to
your charge!” Answer.—-“I will do so, the Lord
being my helper.”
In all the above Mr Voysey pledged himself
neither to believe nor to teach any truth, but what
he should find by study of the scriptures.
(n) Finally the Bishop demands.—“Will you
reverently obey your Ordinary, and other chief Min
isters, unto whom is committed the charge and
government over you; following with a glad mind
and will their godly admonitions, and submitting
yourselves to their godly judgments 1 ” Answer.—“ I will so do, the Lord being my helper.”
This differs from (/) at the close of the former
ordination, in being a vow of submission to the
�20
On Clerical Dishonesty.
godly judgments as well as godly admonitions of
superiors.
The vows (/) and (%) are the only ones from which
the Editor can attempt to justify his charge of
dishonesty against Mr Voysey. It is certain that
the latter did not submit to the admonition of his
Archbishop, when his Grace advised him not to
publish his sermons. The question presents itself
here, is there any point, or is there no point, at
which a clergyman may without clerical dishonesty
disregard the admonition of his bishop ? I think
there is one, and only one point, the point of con
science, at which this dishonour can be evaded;
and at that point only when the clergyman openly
appeals from the admonition to the judgment of his
superiors. If the clergyman, having, under the pres
sure of sovereign conscience, felt it his duty to
disregard an admonition, publicly and manfully
appeals from bishops admonishing to bishops in
judgment according to the law of the land, with
a determination to fulfil his ordination vow by
submitting to that judgment, he may be unwise and
foolish in his procedure, but I contend that he
is neither dishonest nor immoral; and the man who
anonymously charges him with dishonesty and
immorality, for so working out the reconciliation of
his conscience and ordination vow, is a slanderer.
Nothing can be clearer than this, that in all our
ordination vows, we reserve our right of appeal to
conscience, holy scripture, and the law of England.
The popular notion is that we are under a kind of
military bondage to a certain shadowy figment made
up of dead men, and called the Church, whose word
of command we obey without appeal, or any consi
deration of reason or consequences. The truth is,
that we contract no allegiance to dead men at all,
nor to any church but the living church of this Realm,
of which bishops and dignitaries are a very insignifi
cant fraction, as to numbers and final authority.
�On Clerical Dishonesty.
21
The vulgar, who have never examined for them
selves to what we are bound by our ordination vows,
will applaud the calumny of the Unitarian editor.
That he knows well; and I affirm that his article
is all the more malignant for the certainty of its
success among the ignorant crowd. The career of
Mr Voysey has been truth, manliness, and honour,
from beginning to end.
The effect intended to be produced by this lead
ing article is that, besides the guilt of subscribing
the thirty-nine articles, and using the' liturgy of the
Church, which Unitarians can hardly help ascribing
to those of us who are not under the bondage of the
old traditionary theology, there was a special dis
honesty in Mr Voysey’s presenting himself for ordin
ation, when he was convinced that much of what his
boyhood had been taught was erroneous, a dishonesty
in what he did and said in that ordination service.
We have confessed the painful difficulty to which
every educated candidate for orders is compelled by a
law, once reasonable, but now alike cruel to the
bishops and their clergy, to submit concerning un
feigned belief of all the Scriptures. Passing that,
Mr Voysey said nothing that in his conscience he did
not believe; he bound himself there in the profes
sions and vows of that special service to no theory or
dogma; he engaged himself to acceptance of no
statement of divine truth beyond what he should
himself conclude from the study of the bible; he
placed himself under no obligation that he intended
to evade; nor did he make a single promise which
he did not purpose and persevere, like an honourable
man, to fulfil. He believed that he could better
serve both God and man by contending for what he
found to be the truth, inside the church, than out of
it; he hoped that he might nobly be, as others had
been, the instrument under God of extending Chris
tian charity and free enquiry in theology ; he never
�22
On Clerical Dishonesty.
gave a pledge that he would not try to extend them;
and he made his effort, not wisely perhaps for him
self and his family, but certainly not after the fashion
of this small editorial attempt to calumniate him,
meanly, anonymously, sophistically. He printed with
his name what he preached, like a brave man;
he gave reasons for his opinions which honestly
satisfied his judgment and his conscience ; he fully
allowed to others the liberty of either answering or
prosecuting him; he fought his battle before his
judges with arguments which have yet to be con
futed, and he has loyally submitted to their judgment.
Let me now say a word about the dishonesty of
Broad-churchmen in general. • Few people choose to
talk about theology; of that few the majority agree
that we are dishonest men, if we remain in our bene
fices. Just so among Roman Catholics, few choose to
think or speak on religious questions ; but nearly all
agree that Protestants are dishonest men, in pre
tending to hold the Catholic creeds, while they rebel
utterly against the Catholic church. A devout
Romanist is shocked and amazed at our hypocrisy
and dishonesty in saying every Sunday, “ I believe
One Catholic and Apostolic Church.” To his con
science this appears an immoral and insolent abuse of
the plainest terms of human speech. We laugh at his
horror justly : we know that we employ the words
in their literal and grammatical meaning. We mean
what we say, and say what we mean. The creed
propounds no definition of the word church, nor of
the terms Catholic or Apostolic ; we have a right to
restrict the term church to a denotation which ex
cludes all the compelling authority of their Popes,
their Fathers, and their Councils. They call this
trifling and quibbling with sacred truth : we justly
call it an accurate and scientific use of words. The
vulgar can never see, what is the foundation of all
�On Clerical Dishonesty.
23
logical precision of language, the difference between
what we call the denotation and the connotation of a
term.
In books of rigorous science all mere connotations
of words are thrown away—each term is used with a
fixed denotation, determined by definition, and all
that is required for truth and honesty in a writer or a
speaker, is that he uses the same term always with
the denotation to which his clear definition binds him.
The Broad-Churchman insists, as he has a right to
do, upon rigorous denotations of terms in the bond of
creeds and formularies which he has subscribed : all
vague connotations he throws away in the true spirit
of science, for his theology is the theory of God’s
revelations of Himself to man, that is, theological
science, not monkish quibbles and legendary moon
shine. In this spirit Mr Voysey has a right to read
the Church’s bond; and the counsel for the prosecu
tion were compelled to confess, facing the logic of the
case, that he had nowhere either affirmed what the
church’s bond denies, nor denied what it affirms.
The court of Privy Council is not a tribunal of
theological science : to that high court Mr Voysey
has submitted in all that is practical, as he was bound
to do; but mentally, and practically too, in the field of
action from which their judgment does not exclude
him, which is simply that of an unbeneficed presbyter
of the Church of England, as legally eligible to a
bishopric as the best of them, he appeals to the
higher tribunal of theological truth, which, as sure
as the tide is flowing, will finally reverse every
decision of every Privy Council which is not rigor
ously scientific. The majesty of English thought,
serenely enthroned on the broad foreheads of our men
of science, can patiently wait along with Mr Voysey,
till Privy Councils can afford to sit and speak every
day in their noblest robes of philosophic accuracy.
They cannot often wear in court at present, anything
�24
On Clerical Dishonesty.
purer than the ermine of legal equity, which deter
mines by a fine analysis, to which none but the most
learned lawyers can attain, the resultant, for a given
time t, of settled rights, of popular ignorance, and of
human progress.
For my part, in reading the church’s formularies
in both the liturgy and articles, I find no difficulty
in taking every sentence in a meaning literal and
grammatical, yet perfectly rational, nor have I ever
pledged myself to read them irrationally or nonsensi
cally.
I reject no definition which is precisely
given in them, no fact plainly asserted in them,
nor any inference explicitly drawn in them; yet I
find it perfectly easy, by confining the terms un
defined to a strict and simple denotation, to read
every word, without a quibble of any kind, into sense
and science. Something of this mode of honestly
construing our formularies may be seen in the tracts
by “ A Country Parson,” in Scott’s series, entitled,
“ The Creeds and the Thirty-Nine Articles, their
Sense and their Non-sense.” If any of those scribblers
in papers, little and big, who are so fluent in their
abuse of Broad-church dishonesty wish to catch the
Broad-churchman in delicto, I advise them to study
that book. The successful exposure of the dishonesty
there perpetrated, will be of more value to the priests
and the Pharisees than a score of tirades in barren
generalities, and prate about principles neither
granted, postulated, nor proved.
Something should be added, in an examination of
the ordination services, on the grand Finale of priest
manufacturing. So" long as the people of England
compel their bishops to employ that old popish
formula in ordination, they have no right to complain
of any deluge of ancient priestcraft and superstition
that may cover the land. No embankment raised
against it is of any value, while that floodgate is
left open. In spite of the protestant character of
�On Clerical Dishonesty.
25
our articles, and even of our ordination services up
to this all dominant conclusion, our High-churchmen
have mostly the best of the argument to a popular
audience about the prayer-book, in affirming that
priestly privilege and power in the Anglican com
munion are precisely what they are in the Catholic,
both Greek and Roman.
From Broad-churchmen, who spurn with scorn
unutterable the insinuation that they have ever
accepted from a bishop the power either to for
give or to retain the sin of any man against his
Maker, it may fairly be demanded, how they read
in a literal and grammatical sense without a quibble
this most portentous formula : “ whose sins thou
dost forgive they are forgiven, whose sins thou dost
retain, they are retained.” I reply for myself, that I
read it by taking as much liberty with the letter as
the High-churchman takes. He reads it thus—and
he has a perfect right to do so, till the people of
England bar out his popish connotation by a strict
definition—“whose sins against God's laws thou dost
forgive, they are forgiven by God; whose sins against
God’s laws thou dost retain, they are retained, i.e.,
unforgiven, by God.” It is simple and unambiguous.
Now I read it thus: “Whose sins against the
church’s laws, (in matters of ritual, creed, and ex
ternal order involving no question of morals) thou
dost forgive, they are forgiven by the church; whose
sins against the church’s laws thou dost retain, they
are retained by the church.” This is equally literal
and grammatical with the other reading, and equally
unambiguous. I have received from the bishop who
ordained me this power both of forgiving and retain
ing. For example, I can forgive any man whom I
consider to be in a proper frame of mind his sins
against church law in matters of fast or festival. Sup
pose that he has eaten bacon on a Friday, or the last
of his wife’s stock of mince-pies on Ash-Wednesday;
�16
On Clerical Dishonesty.
suppose that he has gone to the Methodist Chapel;
suppose that he is not quite sound about the non
human paternity of Jesus Christ, and has the pre
sumption to say that St. Luke in his cautious
phrases and his genealogy was evidently infirm in his
orthodoxy on that point—then, if that man presents
himself as a god-father, and is indistinct in his
answer about the Creed, it is in my power, by virtue
of my ordination, to forgive him such sins against
mother-church; and if I know him to be a moral and
religious man, I can thoroughly absolve him, and he
will be as good a god-father as the Pope himself can
make; I can also retain sins against the church’s
laws. I can' turn an unworthy man away from the
*“■ font-or from the communion table: if he has utterly
neglected the religious training of his child, I can
punish him by various means, such as delaying for
three years the privilege of confirmation. I am as proud
of my power of absolving and of retaining sin as any
“ priest alive. But I am not such a lunatic as to fancy
that I can forgive a man his sins against God’s moral
and physical laws. If he is a drunkard who beggars
himself and his family, or is injured in that state by
his own cart-wheel, or shattered by delirium tremens,
however orthodox and truly penitent he may be,
neither my absolution, nor that of all the bishops and
priests on earth, can diminish by one feather’s weight
the amount of penalty and retribution which God will
surely for that sin lay upon him in mind, body, and
estate.
Here let it not be pretended that in my reading of
the ordination formula I am making a distinction
unwarranted by the church, between sins against
God’s moral laws, and sins against laws of her making.
Is there any doubt, that when our prayer book was
put together there were priests enough in our church,
as there are in all Roman Catholic lands, inclined to
impose on penitents far heavier penance for violation
�On Cierica! Dishonesty.
27
of churcli-law in matters of fast or festival, of church
going or schismatical proclivity, than for drunkenness,
lies, and dishonesty ? If there is no such doubt, my
distinction is both a valid and a weighty one.
Few things in theology are so amusing as the
attempts of high-church Divines who shrink from the
impious claims of pardoning power made by the full#
blown priest, to establish a claim of something less,
yet awfully important, as the clerical contribution to
God’s work in forgiveness of the penitent. Dr.
Goulburn, prebendary of St. Paul’s, is here inimitable.
. In his office of Holy Communion, 4th edition,'' 1865,
he profoundly remarks : “ of course, it cannot be
disputed that truth is truth, whoever speaks it; any
true disciple of Christ, without being an ordained*'
minister, may raise the drooping spirit of another by
pointing him to the evangelical promises which assure
pardon to the penitent and believing, and which Jhe
faithfulness of God stands engaged to fulfil: but
the minister alone can proclaim with authority the '
message of reconciliation. Others may tell it, niay
point it out in scripture ; he alone can pronounce it—
such is the significant word employed in our rubric.”
“How charming is Divine-philosophy/” And how
lucky our Church of England, in having dignitaries
of Dr. Goulburn’s power, and bishops like Dr. Wilber
force, discerning enough to choose the Goulburns for
their examining chaplains!
Croft Rectory,
near
Warrington.
July 10,1871.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
On clerical dishonesty: a refutation of charges against Rev. Charles Voysey
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Kirkman, T. P. (Thomas Penington)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Manchester
Collation: 27 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. A comment on the leading article by the editor appearing in the 'Unitarian Herald', July 7,1871
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
John Heywood
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5526
Subject
The topic of the resource
Unitarianism
Clergy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (On clerical dishonesty: a refutation of charges against Rev. Charles Voysey), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Voysey
Clergy
Conway Tracts
Unitarianism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4d0a3f3a986009a004684048e6e59115.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=eb5-tpMuoItOYpVf2Aki18-TjHCAoci0QF2gKN3ir-ymNYRje3-LfrsaDB3%7Ev%7EbbvZOSfzT2mO2RGglW3z7DrUfn00GyQLAVmGKfUnfWFeoiA%7EZONvVuhpbOhrryo%7EY7GZNMJmjOOuRH7KwbdvSvmYsHaB%7EJxv9MjWQY06-Aze512Zz63PRoEMhMBrbUJ94XEUIMq75YkD3fApXoJo3kqgYRJr94rT3PeS5fm-B%7EPTkT2ia361BbrNyIRI8eezn-ZyH6QeezHfcM8US1FJ9E4QuxjuLyu6Ji7RJeC50upatqVvQRZFfP9Llm4Nynb3cZl9V8H6MwBY6tXVyJGyXnLw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
383d4041c0f3ad4da96143dd23b28673
PDF Text
Text
THE
THE CASE OE MR VOISEY.
SOME REMARKS BY
J. D. LA TOUCHE,
VICAR OF STOKBSAY, SALOP.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price, Threepence.
�ni
♦
■t
4k
-
'■
-s '
�PREFACE.
T AM anxious to state, that in sending the following
pages to the press, I do so after the most deliberate
consideration. The substance of them has been a
constant theme of thought for many years, and the
subject of frequent conversation with friends of every
shade of opinion.
Many reasons have been suggested both by myself
and by others, why I should -not thus come forward,
and I have felt as if some excuse is due for so doing,
since it cannot be concealed that any one who attacks
what he conceives to be serious popular error, is him
self on his trial, and in the public estimation, is
already condemned as a disturber of the peace—one
of those who would turn the world upside down.
But after all, though satisfied that a good and
sound defence of my position is possible, it will
perhaps be best to rest entirely on the justice of the
cause,—avoid any appeal to complicated reasons
which might not convince one person who already
thinks I am wrong, and to look steadily to. the call
of clear duty.
�4
Preface.
I must, however, before going further, express
sorrow that.this task is necessary. I grieve when I
think of the people to whom this paper will give
pain, for I know their real worth, and how sincerely
they hold the views here attacked. I am sorry for
the alienation which may be hereby caused between
myself and some of my brother clergy, men whom I
sincerely love and respect, whose friendship I value,
and with whom I have hitherto worked in harmony.
It is not, however, the first time in the world’s
history, when a choice has had to be made between
even near and dear relations, and the path of duty.
Whether this is mere sentiment, and whether or
not I have made a wanton attack on unimportant
blemishes in men’s faith, can alone be determined by
fair and free discussion, and to this I am content to
leave it, in perfect confidence that what is superficial
will be eliminated, but what is true and sound will
stand the test.
�THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
‘
IN THE CASE OF MR VOYSEY.
—>-----CLERGYMAN, the rector of a large and impor
tant parish,
said to
in the
of
Aconversation, “oncethere anymepassage incourse New
Is
the
Testament where Christ declares himself to be God?”
This is a very suggestive question, for there is,
absolutely, none. On the other hand, at least one
notable passage may be brought forward to the con
trary. Christ was once accused by the Jews of blas
phemy, of making himself, as they said, equal with
God. In reply, he justifies his words by the following
argument. These words occur in your sacred writings,
“ I said ye are Gods;” now there can be no blasphemy
in my calling myself a son of God if that term is ap
plied in your own Scriptures to other men.
From this the plain inference is, that Jesus himself
disclaimed any other divinity than that which is
possible to the rest of mankind, and this is fqlly
borne out by other passages which are, strangely
enough, often brought up to prove his exceptional
divinity ; such as, “ I and my Father are one,” when
his meaning is explained by the parallel passage, in
his prayer for his disciples, “ That we all may be one
as Thou Father art in me, and I in Thee,” when this
“oneness” in the former is explained, and extended to
all who are of a similar mind to himself.
If these simple statements are compared with those
�6 The "Judgment of the Committee of Council
of the Nicene Creed and much of the popular theology
of the day, a marked difference must be observed.
The worship of Christ is for the most part the centre
of Christian devotion, and to deny to him the title
of the supreme God, is to incur the most serioils.impu
tation, if not personal harm. On what does this vast
structure of the worship of Jesus rest ? It rests on ideas
which sprung into existence shortly after his death, and
for which he himself appears in no way responsible.
His followers were partly of J ewish and partly of
Pagan origin. The more educated among the former
were imbued with the sublime Platonic philosophy,
which was now beginning to influence all thoughtful
men, and the latter could hardly be expected to lay
aside all the influence of their previous lives. These
men pondered on the pure and self devoted life of Jesus
with extreme reverence. The Jewish converts saw
in him the expected Messiah so vividly described in
the then lately published book of Enoch, and the
Pagan converts would naturally deify him as they
had been accustomed to do the heroes of their own
antiquity. The germ of this seed thus early planted
has borne its natural fruit, and at this day the worship
of the person of Christ, whether under a sensuous
substantial form, or the not less subtle forms of an
ideal man, who appeared on the earth some centuries
ago, is being developed to an extraordinary degree.
That such a state of things can last very long is
not probable. The very nervousness with which any
discussion on the subject is met by those who affect
to be most confident, is a proof that they distrust it in
their inmost hearts. Like all other idolatries, this
must fall when the true facts of the case are known—
when, it is thoroughly understood what are its founda
tions, of what stuff it is made; no chain can be
stronger than its weakest link, and when the. uncer
tainty of the origin of the fourth gospel, and, indeed,
of much of the New Testament, is admitted, as a fact
�In the Case of Mr Voysey.
7
which cannot be denied by any competent person, all
but the wilfully blind, and ignorant, and superstitious
must abandon the present popular view.* The church
which would uphold it would be a church to which
no honest man could wish to belong, as it would be
merely a state engine of the most corrupt kind, to keep
things quiet and influence the ignorant. Abandoning
truth in the most shameless way, it would take its
stand on the quicksands of popular prejudices, and
must infallibly fall.
And yet, what might not a truly national church
be ! Its roots sustained in truth, its branches and
leaves nourished in charity as in an atmosphere, it
would bring blessings to countless thousands who at
present ignore or reject it with ill-disguised contempt,
it would be the channel of every good to the lowest
and poorest, helping forward the weak, and testifying
in no faltering tones against sin and oppression—the
true mother of all who could claim human brotherhood.
The recent judgment of the Privy Council in the
case of Mr Voysey, among other things, declares it
to be part of the doctrine of the national Church,
1. That we ought to worship Christ as God. 2. That
it is contrary to the articles to hold that God is not
wroth with every human being born into this world.
3. That we must hold that God needed to be recon
ciled to man, not man to God.'
Now, in relation to the first, and to my mind, the
most important of these points, the worship of Christ,
* I must refer to Canon Westcott’s Introduction to the study
of the Gospels (Macmillan & Co.), Tischendorff’s origin of the
Gospels (Jackson, Walford, and Hodder), and above all, Tayler’s Treatise on the Gospel of St John (Williams and Nor
gate). The facts so clearly stated in the first two, despite the
previous opinions of their authors, fully bear out, I maintain,
the above statement, while the last, a most able and thoughtful
essay, by a learned man, and written in a truly reverent
spirit, is to my mind conclusive against the authenticity of
the fourth gospel.
�8
The Judgment of the Committee of Council
it must be observed that, unless the terms are further
defined, it is impossible to know how they are to be
obeyed, or whether they are infringed or not in any
particular case. But they are not defined. “ Worship ”
is an act varying in degree from the most profound re
spect for a noble and holy person, to what passes under
the name, in abject prostration before an idol. How
many men “worship” God sincerely and effectually,
when their souls are penetrated by his greatness and
goodness seen on every hand in nature; nay, how
much more worthy of the name of “worship” is
that silent adoration of the heart, than the genu
flexions of priests and devotees before decorated altars.
But still more important is it to observe that there
is no definition of the term “ God.” Is that term to
be taken in the sense in which it is used in the pas
sage, “ I said ye are Gods,” or is it to represent the
eternal, omnipresent Creator, the unseen, in whom we
live and move and have our being ? Between these
two ideas there is an almost infinite interval, and un
reservedly to declare that Christ is to be worshipped
as God, is to leave us in utter perplexity.
Now, if I am referred to the Articles, is the matter
made much clearer ? The first Article defines the liv
ing and true God to be without body, parts, or pas
sions, whereas Christ in the fourth article is said to
have “ taken his body with flesh and bones and all
things pertaining to the perfection of man’s nature to
heaven, where he now sitteth,” from which it is clear
that the authors of the Articles did not consider Christ
as God in the fourth, in the same sense as God is defined
in the first. Am I to worship Christ as God as defined
in the first, or in the condition described in the fourth?
Theologians may tell me that these are very foolish
questions, and show a shallow mind, and I well know
how much may be written on them, what elaborate
arguments may be spun by way of explanation of
them ! I have read, I daresay, quite as much as
�In the Case of Mr Voysey.
z
,
*
9
most men, of this sort of thing ; yet, I must sincerely
say, I doubt whether I ever understood it. A young
man studying divinity often fancies he does so, that
he has got hold of some theological axioms upon
which he can construct certain theorems with a kind of
mathematical exactness. But when he finds by expe
rience in after years, that his axioms have none of that
universal assent and obvious truth which are essential
to axioms, his elaborate theories must fall to pieces.
Once more, I am told to worship Christ as God. Is
my worship to be of the nature of a sincere affection
for the noble character embodied in Jesus, a practical
desire, like him to live for the sake of others, and like
him to despise all present ease in comparison, or is it to
be the prostration of my body before certain emblems
of him, and my mind before certain dogmas relating to
him—dogmas, for the most part, begotten in times of
fierce party warfare and bitter theological zeal, out of
the brains of cruel men, and used by them as engines
to crush their enemies 1 Again, is the object of my
worship to be the eternal God, without body, parts,
or passions of the first Article, or that Christ who
“ took his body with flesh and bones to heaven,”
spoken of in the fourth ?
These are questions which the Judicial Committee,
having introduced an expression not occurring else
where in the formularies of the Church, will perhaps
have to elucidate by some further declaration of doc
trine. In the meantime I must repudiate one kind of
worship while I hold to the other. I worship what was
divine in Jesus in the sense of profound reverence, and
a life’s devotion, as far as may be, to the ideal of purity
and love which he presents to my mind. Worship in
any other sense is reserved for the spiritual, eternal
God, such a God as is defined in the first article.
Then, again, with respect to that divine wrath
which I am told to believe in, what does it mean 1—Is it a cold, forensic kind of wrath such as a judge
�io The Judgment of the Committee of Council
passing sentence on a criminal might be supposed to
bear towards him 2 or is it that of a person highly
indignant ? It is not easy to imagine wrath except
in the latter sense, and yet can anything be more
derogatory to the divine character ? The Almighty
creating men, and then being wroth with them,
and requiring some rites to be performed on them by
their fellow-men to bring them into favour again with
Him. If this, or anything like this, be the doctrine
endorsed by the late judgment, my soul rises in indig
nation against it, and I protest against it as dishonour
ing God and tending to the grossest superstition.
Again, it is reiterated in the judgment that it needed
the sacrifice of Christ to reconcile God to man ; but it
has been maintained by the Dean of Westminster that
such a statement is as contrary to Scripture as to all
just views of the relation of God to man, made known
to us. I shall not do more than insert here a passage
from a letter by Dean Stanley which appeared in the
Guardian of May 3d, in relation to this subject, as no
arguments of mine could strengthen the position
taken in this controversy by that learned and able
divine. “ To take a single instance of the charges
against Mr Voysey by way of illustration. He is
condemned for having contradicted a paragraph in
the Second Article, which declares, that the object
of the Redemption was to reconcile the Father, to
mankind. I need hardly say that this contradiction
is one which appears not only in the writings of the
greatest divines of the early Church, but also in. some
■of the most eminent of our own. It appears in the
statements of theologians as far removed from each
other as Alexander Knox and Dr Arnold, Dr Mason
Neale and Dean Alford, and was set forth not many
years ago with the utmost precision, in a sermon (to
which I have often referred) by the late Professor
Hussey, preached at Oxford before, the present
Bishop of Winchester, published at his desire, and
�In the Case of Mr Voysey.
11
dedicated to him by his permission. I have myself
repeatedly stated this doctrine in my 1 Commentary on
the Corinthians,’ in speeches delivered in Convocation,
and in sermons preached before the University.”
It may be objected to what has been said, that the
most distorted phases of the doctrines in question
have been brought forward; that it is not fair to
hold up the exaggerated and often immoral excesses
to which ignorant men push them, as an objection to
them. It would not, I admit, be fair to charge these
distorted views on all the supporters of these doctrines,
yet, when the words used by the Judicial Committee
are such as, in the popular sense, might sanction what
would seem to be idolatry, the only resource left to
those who see and feel the evil is to protest strongly
against it. To speak of the worship of Christ as God,
and of the wrath of God, may with some have a very
innocent meaning; but with others, and those the
most ignorant, they are the channels of superstition.
Worship, in the popular sense of the term, is not the
act of a life, but that of a set time offered up in a
particular place. The wrath of God means in ordi
nary language the flames of hell fire and eternal
tortures; so that to say God is wroth with every
child till it is baptized, is to say that if it died then
it would go to hell. And this is the way infidels and
atheists are made—no one believes that God is so
bad as that: and so being taught that these ideas are
inseparable from Him, they are compelled to ignore
or disbelieve in Him altogether.
Once, in a school, I heard the master put the.
following question to the head class : “■ How many
Gods are there ?” The answer to which was “ three;”
and this was taken as quite orthodox and correct.
Perhaps it did really signify little to the poor
child whether he believed in three or in one God,
so confused are often the notions current on the
subject; but the answer makes one reflect whether
�12 The 'Judgment of the Committee of Council
we have advanced so very far beyond Polytheism
after all ? Can it be affirmed that children are always
taught to “ believe in one God; ” and if this is not
the case, at whose door will the dishonour lie 1—at
that of the schoolmaster ignorant of the nice subtleties
of theology, or of the heads of the church who tell
him to worship Christ as God ?
Nor is the foregoing a solitary instance ; my own
limited experience could supply others of the same
kind ; and from what school inspectors have told
me, they could supply a large number to show what
a distorted caricature of religious knowledge has often
been taught in schools, a fact which fully accounts for
the outcry which has of late arisen for purely secular
instruction ; since it must be felt that the effect of
such teaching on the minds of any thoughtful young
person must be the very reverse of religious.
Perhaps some may object, that, with the views I
have here advanced, it is inconsistent in me to con
tinue reading the church service : it certainly would
be so it these immoral and superstitious meanings
were distinctly declared by sufficient authority to be
essential to certain words and expressions in it. But
though the late judgment has apparently taken a
step in this direction, it remains to be seen whether
it can be maintained. It is hard to believe that a
permanent retrograde movement has been made
under the sanction of the highest authorities towards
heathenism ; whether the clergy are henceforth to
teach and believe in two gods ; whether Manichaeism
is again to be revived, and the world is to be held
as under the control of a demon, from whom, how
ever, a merciful JEon will deliver them. Expressions
which favour these views no doubt lurk in our Articles
and formularies; for it must not be forgotten that
they were the compilations of comparatively very
unenlightened times, and it would only be surprising
if they had been altogether free from the errors in the
�In the Case of Mr Voysey.
13
theology of the age in which they were composed.
But it is almost incredible that these expressions, so
long allowed to lie unobserved, are now to be disin
terred and dragged to light to quench that more liberal
and purer interpretation of the ancient dogmas which
was beginning to make itself felt—as incredible as that
the thumbscrew and the boot should, in this 19th
century, be brought from the glass-cases of a modern
museum to eke out the decision of a court of justice.
That a reasonable and edifying meaning may be
attached to the expressions in the church service, if
they are not pressed too literally, I would still fain
believe. With its general spirit I agree; since
through it I can worship, and ask others with me to
worship God. That is its central idea. I should,
however, in candour, except the Athanasian creed,
the damnatory clauses of which are so directly con
trary to what I hold as true, that I have not for
many years, and could not, use that formulary.
But as on the whole, the church service is to me a
real help, I shall not, by my own act, separate myself
from the church which has appointed it. Besides,
be it observed, that when I entered into my engage
ments as a clergyman, there was not that rigid defini
tion of these abstruse doctrines, there was not this new
formula which has now been introduced, and which
unquestionably modifies, by making more precise
and stringent, those tenets to which I gave my assent.
To some who may read this paper, it will doubt- '
less give considerable pain, and they may ask, Why
write it ? Why incur the risk of so much trouble, and
perhaps serious loss, to yourself and others 1 My
answer is, That I am not accountable for this pain ;
its existence is no proof that these discussions are
not necessary. It is caused rather by the admission,
than by the existence of certain facts which have
hitherto been kept in the background, but are now
getting to be pretty generally known. But is there
�14 The Judgment of the Committee of Council.
not something unseasonable in this ? The opinions
of one or of any number of persons about these facts,
would not be any cause of concern if the facts them
selves could be disproved ; but if they are true, it is
madness not to give them their due weight and pro
minence. I am not accountable for facts. A fact is
the property, not of an individual, but of the world,
and those rush to certain shipwreck who would
blindly dash themselves against it. Is it e.g. true’or
not, that the origin of the gospels is such as Tischendorff and Westcott have stated it to be, viz., that
there is no direct evidence of the existence of any
one of them until the end of the first quarter of the
second century 1 Is it, or is it not true that, in Mr
Westcott’s words,—“ Hitherto all the evidence which
can be gathered from the circumstances of the early
church and the traditions of the origin of the gospels
has tended to establish the existence of an original
Oral Gospel, definite in general outline and even in
language with that which was committed to writing
in the lapse of time in various special shapes, accord
ing to the typical forms which it assumed in the
preaching of different apostles.” For if it be so, it is
obvious that, for the purpose of proving exact words
or exact events, such records fail; that even under
the most favourable circumstances, that is, supposing
that every one who transmitted this oral gospel was
influenced by the most conscientious motives, many
variations and errors must creep in; but when there
is no security against this, when it is well known that
these books were compiled in the days of the marvel
lous and that there was every temptation to
exaggerate, then it is a clear duty, as we. value the
truth, to scan them with care and to eliminate what
is untrustworthy from them.
Ao’ain, is it, or is it not a fact that the sense in
which Christ is said to have claimed divinity for him
self, was such as I have drawn attention to m the be-
�In the Case of Mr Voysey.
*5
ginning of this paper ? for if so, it is certainly incon
sistent with the popular views on the subject. Once
more, is it not a fact that the worship of Jesus as
God, has been a development, a growth in the
Christian Church, till in the present day it has
assumed a proportion never witnessed before, which
obscures the worship of the spiritual God, which can
not be justified by the “sure warranty” of Scripture,
and which is directly opposed to that essential
article of the Christian faith, without which it must
be one-sided and false, namely, the “ inferiority” of the
Son; that, in short, his complete humanity is lost
sight of and practically denied in the contemplation
of his divinity. And this last remark will be a
sufficient answer to an objection which has often been
made, that these views are destructive of the Christian
faith. What is in the present day popularly called
the Christian faith is not the faith of Jesus or of
Paul, nor even of the early Church. What is here
advocated is no subversion of that faith, but of the
errors which have overshadowed it, and is indeed a
return to its purity.
I cannot, therefore, apologise for thus coming
forward; it has been in some sort a necessity.
Of course it is most distressing to give pain, let
us trust that like all other pain in this world it
may be the transition to a more healthy state of
things than has hitherto been. I do not think
that anything can be more melancholy than the
kind of arguments or reasons for letting things
alone with which one is generally met. Even lead
ing journals, which might be expected to use some
thing like sound argument, have nothing better to
oppose to such views as are here put forth than the
wishes and inclinations of the unthinking multitude,
as if that indolence, to which all are but too prone,
is to be the measure of truth. This is indeed to
degrade the minister’s office, to bring it to the level
�16 The Judgment of the Committee of Council
of that of the public performer, whose life is spent
in catering for the entertainment of the multitude.
Against this I earnestly protest. The clergy can
not justify their existence unless they unflinchingly
tell the truth, discreetly indeed, but frankly and
sincerely. Such is the only means whereby that
hollow religion which all good men deplore, and
which, there is to reason to fear, has, in some
instances, eaten into the very core of society, can be
expelled, and the church can address herself to the
elevation of our race.
J. D. La Touche,
Vicar
of
Stokesay, Salop.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The judgment of the committee of council in the case of Mr Voysey: some remarks
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
La Touche, James Digues [1824-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Tentative date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5539
Subject
The topic of the resource
Heresy
Trials
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The judgment of the committee of council in the case of Mr Voysey: some remarks), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Voysey
Conway Tracts
Trials (Heresy)
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/565610c745acbf00aef0eb1e9b2e0878.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BoV6pUdX0zKeIJXQbciGj5rJkLQK0kfQtCpwXyBZYtITYwr7JP4dUoxrgDXc53XhBXdxDTa2Obt0JglIuyoynsS5kK62znoOEegX-Fe%7E9PCSS0q-4NguNTd9tzKf3T34DQCAh0wI3ss7MVPtJqyJIriqAlf4erxaVEOSTU9OsZYTi8Ck%7EFLm88gOycvKfum7Q1QvQUw9VtRYpWhDtic6nwIi1QNUtT1Hlq8yzwxclR86HO9GNxUFUKv9azqlVl-8X8cclVQZPQouzHnIFgTv7U1npVFiO4dvqmAF6-nTJecZWr7nK7Bu8jq8e5DnrAiUDMG4TDN6bFXJ4Sh0P-HAQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1d8486c50717ba93a900289260e5111f
PDF Text
Text
2S2.4
THE VOYSEY CASE,
FROM AN
HERETICAL STAND-POINT.
BY
MONCURE D. CONWAY.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence-
��him ,n’:
odJ vd
©T'([ r
.
oJt 3') ypf uir ;I'i di,
i
•'
:
'
■■■ r
<4 am
, ,
;.)’{>
THE VOYSEY CASE,
FROM AN HERETICAL STAND-POINT.
-.... ■»---F the National Church is unable to fill its pews, it
. has at least succeeded of late in filling the air with
gossip. Its recent history has been a series of public
scandals. The excommunication of a heretic is fol
lowed by the insult of the bishops to a Unitarian
invited by themselves to assist in the revision of the
received version of the Bible, and this is succeeded by
the legal reprimand of a Ritualist, all combining to im
press the country with the idea that the Establishment
has come to a pass when “ apostolic blows and knocks ’*
have become the normal condition of its existence.
The most salient feature in the most important of these
events was, perhaps, its inevitableness. The most
zealous adherents of the church plainly recognised
that if Mr Voysey were brought to trial, orthodoxy
could not gain its case except at a heavy cost. They
saw that the trial would be the means of circulating
the heretic’s opinions, and would invest him with the
eminence of a martyr. But the church had no choice.
If a clergyman with such views could retain his
pulpit, there could be no reason why Socinians of
simple Theists should not close their several chapels,
and reinforce the rationalistic party in the church to
an extent that would destroy its distinctive character
and supernatural authority altogether. So the Church
I
�4
The Voysey Case,
was placed at the mercy of the Vicar of Healaugh, and
could only be saved from reviving an antiquated pro
cedure, sure to injure itself more than him, by the
quiet resignation which he refused to accord. There
is a Bavarian fable of a boy gathering strawberries,
who treated with rudeness an aged woman who met
him with a petition for some berries. In return for
this unkindness the old woman gave the boy a fine
casket, out of which, however, when the boy opened
it, came two small worms, which grew in size until
they coiled about the boy’s limbs, and drew him far,
and ever farther, into the dark forest, where he still
wanders in the toils of the mighty serpents. The
myth may express more than the lesson of Bavarian
mothers that small sins swell into fatal habits; it
may describe the miserable necessities which, in the
course of time, may be evolved from the rich casket of
power obtained by a church for its scorn of reason.
Bound fast in the coils of that superstition and bigotry
which it has preferred to progress and charity, it is
drawn into the dark forest to which its selected
masters belong, and cannot free itself even at the
bidding of obvious self-interest. The trial came, and
with it the incidents which have filled all heretics
with delight. For some days Mr Voysey virtually
edited the London papers, and turned the Times into
a rationalistic tract. There was enough orthodox
irritation at this, but it is difficult to rage a fact out of
existence. Nor can it be shown that this advantage
was unfairly gained by Mr Voysey and his fellow-free
thinkers. This charge has been made in various
quarters, and, since it involves the chief features of
importance in the case, it may be well to consider it
more closely.
Soon after the judgment of the Privy Council was
delivered, the Times in a leading article, atoned for
the wide publicity which it had been the chief means
of giving to the views of the heretic, by a remonstrance
which states the case of those who censure Mr
�From an Heretical Stand-Point.
5
Voysey’s position plausibly enough. The Times
says :—
“ Before the most conspicuous tribunal in the
world—for Rome itself can show no such hearings,
no such judgments, or so many readers—Mr Voysey
preaches the Universal Creator and the Loving Father
of all, in clear and lucid contrariety to every doctrine
that could seem to contradict, qualify, or obscure the
first teaching of Nature, and, as he believes, the essen
tial truth of Holy Writ. Nobody can complain that
Mr Voysey has this seeming advantage. Ours is an
atmosphere of discussion. It is our boast to try all
things, and hold fast to that which is good and true.
'But if Mr Voysey, and free inquirers in general, may be
congratulated upon a success which is the very utmost
they can have expected,—the. success of a fair trial
and a world-wide publicity,—it remains to doubt
whether this success, such as it is, has been lawfully
.obtained, and whether Mr Voysey’s position be as
good as he believes his teaching to be. Had he any
right to deny all the distinctive doctrines of his
church, claiming at the same time to be held an honest
subscriber and faithful minister, with no other pos
sible hope than that he might thereby proclaim his
denial the louder and further to all the world? We
cannot think so.”
Passing by the naive confession implied in this pas
sage, that the eminent prosecutors and the Lord
Chancellor cannot hope to gain by publicity as much
advantage for their orthodox views, as Mr Voysey for
his heresies, let us examine the main charge brought
against the integrity of the expelled Vicar’s position.
It is no secret that Mr Voysey had to make up his
mind to press his appeal between parties which urged
him to anticipate an inevitable sentence by a sur
render, and those who besought him to demand the
decision which has been obtained. The latter party
probably regarded the course they advised as per
fectly consistent with a belief that even if Mr Voysey
�6
The Voysey Case,
had gained his case, it would have been his truest
course to leave the church. Even if it could be
shown that, by means of legal technicalities, a teacher
of Mr Voysey’s opinions could manage to escape
expulsion from the church, the far greater moral
question remains, whether a man of earnest convictions,
especially one who believes it his especial task to
maintain them publicly, is justifiable in adhering to
formularies plainly not framed to represent those
convictions, and, at best, capable of expressing them
only- by strained and unusual interpretations. But
conceding that the thirty-nine articles are not the
honest physiognomy of Mr Voysey’s faith, there were
other elements in the relation in which he found him
self to the church which rendered the practical ques
tion of duty far more complex than the theory of his
accusers admits. It is by no means the whole of
Mr Voysey’s case that he courted the publicity which
a trial would secure for his views. As Vicar he was
related not only to the ehurch, but to the nation of
people which that church is endeavouring to enlist in
its service. His position made him for the moment
the representative and spokesman of the religious
rationalism of England, and the only one who could
demand and wring from the church an answer to a
question of paramount importance to every free
inquirer in this land. The question is, .What is the
exact price which the National Church demands for
its advantages ? How much of the young man’s free
dom, how much of his natural reason and conscience,
must be laid down at this step and at that step on
the path of promotion ?
Undoubtedly, it is deplorable that there should be
any such question as this, but that it exists is not the
fault of the rationalists in the country, but of the
church itself. If the terms of the contract between
the clergyman and the church have become so confused
that it is no longer certain whether an entrance to holy
orders signifies an acceptance of the articles in their
�From an Heretical Stand-Point.
7
ordinary sense, it is because the church itself has long
been indulging its eminent beneficiaries in heresy. Such,
indulgence has not been without advantages to the
church. If the church had, during the last two genera
tion, separated, like sheep and goats, all who held to
the creeds and articles in their popular sense, and those
who subscribed them under unusual interpretations, it
would certainly have lost thcFprelatcs and scholars who
have most reached the heart of the people and won the
attention of the world. But if it is an advantage for a
church to be represented in the world of thought and
literature by such men as Whately, Arnold, Baden.
Powell, Thirlwall, Stanley, jowett, Maurice, and Kings
ley, this is an advantage that, like every other, has to
be paid for. The church has long paid for the cham
pions thus drawn from the literary and philosophical
classes by offering them terms upon which they could
enjoy the large opportunities it could give them for
their congenial work. This indulgence of heresy was
extended even to the protection of the writers of the
Essays and Reviews,—a book which denied the super
natural authority of the Bible, the depravity of man,
the benefit of Foreign Missions, and miracles, and whose
heresies were so formidable that even the American
Unitarians declined to republish it in that country.
.And when the prosecution against Bishop Colenso also
failed, it seemed as if there were no limit to the tolera
tion of free thought in the church. The Unitarian
and Theistic Chapels seemed left without a raison
d! titre, and such young men as were inclined to the
ministry were freely saying, “ Surely we can have no
fear in entering a church which tolerates Arian and
Theistic bishops, Darwinian deans, and Socialistic
canons.”
But inside and outside of the church there has been
an increasing perception that this state of things was
morally indefensible. The increase of casuistry was a
ruinous rate at which to obtain toleration in the Estab
lishment, and the prospect of securing a church repre
�8
The Voysey Case,
senting all phases of religious thought was marred by
the danger that such an institution when it came
would equally represent the average Jesuitism of the
nation. The real believers in the articles in their
obvious sense, and they who utterly rejected them,
alike felt that Dr Colenso and Dr Wilberforce could
sit upon the same episcopal bench only by some mere
trick, and that to one or the other the creed was not a
real face but a mask. Rumours were afloat to feed
the misgivings of sincere men of all beliefs. It was
whispered that one divine was in the habit of shifting
the reading of prayers to his Subordinates, and that a
certain bishop was in the habit of prefacing his reading
of the creeds with the announcement that he read them
not as a believer in them, but as an officer of the
Queen. It is creditable to the honesty of the country
that those who were interested in keeping the standard
of church orthodoxy vague, were not strong enough to
overcome the determination that the vagueness should
end, and if the apparent policy of the church to embrace
all varieties of opinion were proved to be final, that its
formularies should be altered to suit the fact. To
compel this issue and decision no case could have been
more perfect and opportune than that of Mr Voysey.
The church had indeed tolerated all his heresies, but it
had tolerated them as distributed through many in
dividuals, each of whom held his segment of rationalism
in connection with such an eminent or even courtly
following, or held it with such dexterity of statement,
that he could not be made a fair test, and remained in
the church as its bait for clever young men. But all
these heresies converged at last in one man. The
honest orthodoxy of the church at last saw all the
Broad Church heretics with one neck, that neck being
Rev. Charles Voysey’s; and the outside world saw that
the destiny of the church depended upon whether that
neck could be cut off or not.
This, then, was a much greater aim than that mere
publicity for his opinions which, the Times says, was
the utmost success Mr Voysey could hope to obtain.
�from, an Heretical Stand-Point.
9
He and his friends aimed to compel the Church to
show its hand, and their right—their duty—to do so
was as clear as their intention was manifest. Are we
told that a man ought not, and need not, to enter holy
orders without knowing distinctly the terms of the con
tract to which he commits himself, and that if he dis
cover afterwards that he cannot fulfil his part of it he
should quietly resign the corresponding advantages ?
To this it may be replied (1.) that, for the reasons
already stated, the clergyman cannot—or hitherto could
not—know just what he was committing himself to.
The Church itself, by the retention of the more emi
nent or dexterous heretics, has confused the sense of
subscription at the very moment that it has increased
the inducements to it. Does the subscriber commit
himself to the opinions of Dr Pusey or Professor
Jowett?—to those of Dr Liddon or those of Dean
Stanley? It is not the Voseys who have produced
this confusion. Nay, (2.) so far from aiding the young
divinity-student, before whom the same Church lays
the Essays and Reviews and the Prayer-book, to avoid
the error of committing himself to its work prematurely,
it waylays him at a period of life when his future con
clusions cannot be foreseen, and with profferred fellow
ships and livings bribes him to take the dangerous
step. If he hesitate, the Church eagerly rebukes his
hesitation, and lures him on to the false position, in
stead of encouraging the utmost caution. From the
first moment that it gets hold of a single finger of him
the Church watches him jealously to manipulate his
mind for its own purposes. No sooner does the stu
dent begin to follow Archbishop Whately’s advice,
and misgive that he may not mistake, than the Church
addresses itself to the work of repressing the misgiv
ings, and furthering the mistake until it is irretriev
able. No sooner does the youth begin to doubt and
inquire than he is surrounded by weeping friends and
sighing parsons, who grieve over him and pray over
him, until, envying perhaps the old martyrs who were
�io
The Voysey Case,
simply burnt, the sensitive heart yields itself to fetters
forged from its^own affections. If any one thinks that
this is an exaggerated statement of the fact, let him
read the life of Dr Arnold, written by Dr Stanley. A
sceptic from boyhood, Arnold no sooner turned his
eyes upon the doctrine of a Trinity than he doubted it.
Straightway clerical friends whisper, and mourn over
him as if he had been guilty of some crime, and at
length they hit upon a plan for him. It is not to
warn him that if he enters the Church it will be a risk
to his own character, and a danger to the Church: the
scheme is,—and John Keble is to be credited with it,
—Let us make haste and harness Arnold in the Church!
Before he has time to think any more, get him in a
living, and committed to parish work I (3.) The youth
thus bribed and ensnared into the Church, if, as in the
case of Mr Voysey and many others, he discover that
he is out of his place, has been seriously wronged.
The best years of his preparation for the work of life
have been devoted to a career which he must now
abandon; and this grave injury is enhanced by the
grossly unjust disabilities which legally close against
one who had entered holy orders the awards of poli
tical life, and the professions in which his special
studies might still be of some service.
These, then, are the facts which have to be con
sidered in estimating the rights and duties of a man in
the position of Mr Voysey, who, having entered the
ministry of the church in good faith, arrives at con
clusions whose consistency with the articles he has
subscribed is questionable. Surely he has a right to
decide how he can make the misstep, for which he is
in the smallest degree responsible, the most con
spicuous warning to other young men who are being
lured into holy orders, of the fetters that await them;
and it is difficult to see how he could do so more
effectually than by compelling the Lord Chancellor
to pronounce solemnly that the simple and clear views
of natural religion held by himself are forbidden to
�From an Heretical Stand-Point.
-II
the beneficiaries of the National Church. The decision
is given, and our feet rest upon truth more firmly
than before.
It remains to inquire whether that decision, while
showing us more clearly where we stand, reveals a moral
.and religious state of things worthy of England, or
worthy of the intelligence and the conscience of this
age.
To what does the judgment of the Lord Chancellor
amount?
It distinctly affirms 1, that “ Christ bore the punish
ment .due to our sins, and suffered in our stead,” and
that “ He was crucified to reconcile His Father to us
/that is, to mankind), and was a sacrifice,”—sacrifice
also being defined as an “ offering to God.” 2. It
asserts the existence of “ original dr birth sin,” that
such sin u exists in every one descended from Adam; ”
that children are by nature “childrenof God’s wrath;”
and that it was for this original sin that Christ was a
sacrifice. 3. It re-affirms the Nicene and Athanasian
creeds, the doctrine of a Trinity, and declares that JesuS
was supernaturally conceived, that he is to be worshipped
as God, and that he will return as the Judge of the
earth on the last day. 4. It declares that no clergyman
has a right “upon his own taste and judgment, to
assert that whole passages of the canonical books are
without any authority whatever,” or can “ expound
one part of Scripture as repugnant to another.” These
.points represent the substance of the thirteen counts
which have been sustained in the indictment against
Mr Voysey. They represent the plain creed freshly
labelled upon every clergyman who stands in a pulpit
of the National Church.
No one can read the passages from Mr Voysey’s
Sling and Stone, which are held to be in contravention
with the above creed, without recognizing that they are
such as are familiar in the writings of the Broad Church
clergy. No one acquainted with the teachings of the
leaders of that school can doubt that the new heretic
�12
The Voysey Case,
has fed upon them, or that he honestly represents the
substance and tendency of their belief. It maybe
doubted whether Mr Voysey, before leaving.the church,
might not have very properly availed himself of the
opportunity for retractation offered him, and asserted
that he believed the Thirty-nine Articles as they are
interpreted by the distinguished theologians and officials
of the church, whose opinions he quoted in his defence.
When he offered those quotations, the court, unable to
break their force, evaded it by saying that the line of
argument implied that it should try the cases of each
of the distinguished divines in question. The evasion
was sufficient for the convenience of-the Judicial Com
mittee of the Privy Council; but it was insufficient to
alter the fact that the court was necessarily trying the
divines in question, and was compelled to sentence
them along with Mr Voysey. To each and all of them,
—bishops, deans, canons, clergymen,—the Church and
State with authoritative voice have said, “You hold
your positions illegally and dishonestly, unless you
believe that God is an angry and jealous monarch, and
man a child of Satan, and unless you believe unre
servedly all the statements contained in the Bible.”
One word further about the offer to Mr Voysey of
an opportunity for retractation. How grand and
worthy a proposition is this for a church representing
the national morals to make! Only say you believe
what you do not believe, says the church, and you are
quite welcome to. our pulpit! If Mr Voysey had fol
lowed the example of Cranmer, and put forward a
retractation to be itself retracted at the end, one can
imagine its character to be somewhat as follows:—
. “ I hereby renounce and deplore my wicked belief
that God is a loving Father. I affirm, on the con
trary, my faith that He is a jealous and wrathful being,
who will torture untold millions of men, women, and
children by fire for ever. I hold accursed my former
belief, that God is just and merciful, and affirm that
even the eating of a piece of forbidden apple by a
�From an Heretical Stand-Point.
13
man who lived six thousand years ago, was enough ta
make Him damn the whole human race to eternal
misery,—a curse which would have been carried into
execution, had it not been for the timely interference
of a certain Pontius Pilate, who, assisted by one
Judas, sacrificed to God the blood of the most innocent
being in the world, the sight of which blood so pleased
God, that He was prevailed upon to save from the
said damnation a select few at least of mankind.
Asking forgiveness of the Church for all I have said
to the contrary, I now declare my implicit belief
that a certain Jewish peasant was born 1871 years
ago without a human father, and that he was Almighty
God. Also that three are one, and one is three. I
believe that a serpent in Eden and Balaam’s ass
talked, and that Jonah resided three days and nights
in a whale’s belly, whence he emerged quite safe. I
believe that soothsayers turned rods to snakes; in the
existence of sorcerers and witches and devils. I be
lieve that all new-born babes are totally depraved, and
that God looks upon them with feelings of anger.
And finally, I believe that all who do not believe
these things shall without doubt perish everlastingly!”
This is a retractation which every eminent clergy
man of the Broad Church really makes in the hearing
of the world every time he ascends a pulpit, or offici
ates in any way, since the Lord Chancellor’s judgment.
No protest against that judgment cantear off the creed
which now adheres to each of them, plainly legible in
the eyes of the world. There it will adhere until they
can reverse the judgment, or bring themselves to say
with John Sterling—Adieu, O Church ! The world
will await with anxiety, perhaps with some sternness,
their action. It may sympathise with them as they
approach the dregs of their cup, but the situation
admits of no concealment, and the truth cannot be
compromised. Mr Voysey is their child. They have
nourished and reared him. Whatever may be their
views of the dogma of vicarious suffering, there will be
�List of Publications—Continued.
The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil.
By a
Clergyman of the Church of England. Price 6d.
Commentators and Hierophants ; or, The Honesty of Christian Commen
Price 6d. each Part.
By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late
Part I., price Is. Part II., price Is. 6d.
The Evangelist and the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the
Church of England. Price Is.
tators. In Two Parts.
Free Discussion of Religious Topics.
Lord Bishop of Norwich
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their
Non-sense. By a Country Parson. Parts I., II., III. Price6d each part
A Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely on, if we can
not Rely on the Bible? ” By Professor F. W. Newman.
Another Reply to the Question, “ What have we got to Rely on, if we
cannot Rely on the Bible?” By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord
Bishop of Norwich.
Price 6d.
The Utilization of the Church Establishment. By the Author of “ The
Pilgrim and the Shrine," “The Meaning of the Age,” &c. &c. Price 6d.
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “ The Philosophy of Necessity.”
Price 6<L
A Reply to the Question, “Apart from Supernatural Revelation,
What is the Prospect of Man’s Living after Death? By Samuel
Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6d.
Tree and Serpent Worship. Price 6d.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “The Present Dangers of the
Church of England.’’ By W. G. Clark, M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity
College, Ca mbridge. Price 6d.
The Twelve Apostles. Price 6d.
The Bible for Man, not Man for the Bible. By a Country Vicar.
Price 6d.
Is Death the end of all things for Man ? By a Parent and a Teacher.'
Price 6d.
On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. By the Rev. Thomas Kirkman, M.A.
F.R.S. In Two Parts. Price 6d. each Part.
“The Finding of the Book.” By John Robertson, Coupar-Angus.
Price 2s.
On Moral Evil. Price 6d.
The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine Revela
tion, considered. By W. Jbvons. Price 6d.
The Unity of the Faith among all Nations. By a Padre of the
Established Church. Price 6d.
Clergymen made Scarce. A Letter to the Bishop of London, by a
Presbyter. Price Sixpence.
On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion. By the Rev.
W. R. Worthington, M.A. Price Sixpence.
Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education. Part I. Its
Influence on the Intellect. Price Sixpence.
Part II. Its Influence on the Development of the Conscience. Price
Sixpence.
On Religion. By a Former Elder in a Scotch Church. Price Sixpence.
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend, by Samuel
Hinds, D,D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price Sixpence.
A. L Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts I. and II.
Price Sixpence each part.
The Passion for Intellectual Freedom. By Edward Maitland. Price
Sixpence.
Reason versus A.m'H.O'B.iTs:. By W. 0. Carr Brook. Price 3d.
An appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds. By Gamaliel
Brown
A Woman’s Letter. Price 8d.
The Voysey Case, from an Heretical Stand-point By Moncure D.
Conway. Price 6d.
Friends to the cause of “ Free Inquiry and Free Expression ” are earnestly
requested to give aid in the wide dissemination of these pamphlets.
�
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
The Voysey case, from an heretical stand-point
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway, Moncure Daniel [1832-1907.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14, [2] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4. Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4861
Subject
The topic of the resource
Heresy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Voysey case, from an heretical stand-point), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Criticism and Interpretation
Charles Voysey
Heresy
Morris Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dff402c1a0f958bf53446687b7cb2222.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=D45lfurVQ0vhLELqxTl16WJl-2YRQ7SAEn-DLiJ81wog0DJtXgk8qbhNLL8UX73hMNwABMn9DanwM8mflaJd%7Ep1jm7yd3k6lDdLPGzUPkfwP%7E2YFf59yIC0DeUQhcc3NXZ1bFGnPuF5YVY0uPyAlDATU1ICdGMzsjBtoTeiZNTRrC5zPA0AgmXmwMHSrN7sFVpQk8%7EB318gM7iTodVaTdC-dvvUiRcHvqiGdFa1s9ScE%7EMoiWbdtDyO769-O1a%7Ew9VCWjzzZd4l9zHw2jfbqZvTpCYbRvSIpRImvJMz%7EEjZqE4ZETaxAGEX7GHYFYa39QLdZm3aoWegV0pjnbI0Ahg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
eb860b1eedaddc34de43d425f3efa21a
PDF Text
Text
three letters
ON
THE VOISEY JUDGMENT
AND
THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY’S LECTURES.
REV. GEORGE WHEELWRIGHT,
MEET. COLL., OXON.,
VICAR OF CROWHURST.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
�THREE LETTERS, &c.
-------- ♦---------
IR, —Many doubtless have read with pleasure the
article upon Mr Voysey’s trial, which appeared
in the Examiner of February 25th 1871. Many, too,
will echo the ominous words with which it closes :
“ Every such judgment tells more against the Church
than against the individual condemned: it puts
another nail into its coffin,”—and in truth the last
charge against Mr Voysey (derogation and depraving
of Holy Scripture) leaves the clergy in a most per
plexing situation. All knew them to be muzzled
slaves, and yet hardly thought that the muzzle fitted
as closely as the Lord Chancellor is determined to
make it. One result I venture to predict from the
Voysey judgment—the opening of people’s eyes to
the immense gulf that now separates the two
antagonists, Orthodoxy and Free-thought. Hitherto
it has been the object of many well-meaning persons
to make this appear less than it really is—as not so
very serious after all. However much many have
tried to patch up an unreal agreement between them,
it is from this moment impossible—henceforth it is
“ guerra a cuchillo,” and there is no discharge in that
war, one or other must yield. How many amiable
but weak attempts have been made to reconcile
Scripture with science, as the phrase is; to shew
that the two can go arm in arm without dispute or
jostling! Good-bye to all such pleasant dreams!
We are now told plainly that the Church’s living
S
�and Christian Evidence Society's Lectures.
5
to. Can anything be more characteristic of the per
versity of our ecclesiastical rulers than the way in
which the Ritual Commission has dealt with the
Athanasian Creed ? Has it granted any relief to the
laity who are still compelled to listen and be damned?
So far from it, that a dispute has actually been carried
on in the Times between certain members of the said
Commission as to what its real opinion upon the sub
ject was. The same mulish obstinacy meets us at
every turn. Not a jot nor a tittle will our rulers
surrender. We laugh at the Papal “ non possumus
it is just the same here. Relief and concession have
to be forced from them. Surely the events that have
lately passed before their eyes should act as a warning.
Let them think of the French statesman and his vain
boast, “ Pas unpouce de notre territoire, pas une pierre
de nos forteresses.”
It is of no use to be for ever beating about the
bush—lip salve never yet cured heart-disease; and
religious belief in England (as our forefathers under
stood the words) is paralyzed at the core. The
whole question of miracles will have to be faced
sooner or later, and the more our minds get accus
tomed to this fact the better. The present is an era
of rapid changes. Events that appeared at one time
impossible, now take place in the natural order of
things, and the only cause for wonder is that they have
been so long in coming. And thus it is that the
present is called an infidel age, wanting in reverence
and respect for religion. Is it so ? Let the great
debate upon education bear witness. Did the people
ask for education without religion—were they satis
fied with merely secular teaching ? The immense
majority for religious instruction proves to me that
we are just as our forefathers—a stubborn generation,
not a faithless one : our hold upon religion is as
firm as ever. We cling to it with the grasp of death.
We are quite as God-fearing as they; but, and here
�and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures,
y
minds are becoming awakened, their judgments un
fettered, their eyes opened, their ears unstopped, and
the first use they make of their liberty is to turn upon
their spiritual pastors and masters with the direct
question, “ Are these things so 1—we have heard these
words for many a long year—from our childhood the
same story has been in our ears. We enquire of our
fathers—of the years that are past, and all tell the
same tale—they have known none other. Is it then
all true, ‘ are these things so ? ’ ”
All over the land is this query pricking and
stirring men’s hearts—diverse in form and mode.
One puts it in this shape, another in that. One can
stomach this—his fellow stickles at that. The Bible
is torn piecemeal. Brave is the man who can
swallow the whole at a gulp, and feel none the worse
for it—but alas ! for this degenerate age—ofo/ vuv
(Bpotoi sl<ri—such hearty digestions are rare indeed.
I remember once sitting upon a fallen log in the
backwoods of America, and discussing Bible matters
with an old Buckeye (as the Ohio men were then
styled) and the only thing that troubled his primitive
imagination was the tale of Samson and the foxes—
“ the darn’d skunks ” as he called them—it was
impossible—he was sure he himself could never have
done it, and he had trapped and hunted ever since he
could draw a trigger.
Caricature you will say—no rude image neverthe
less of men’s thoughts in this present age. Each one
has his Samson and the Foxes—his own particular ob
jection, doubt and difficulty, and be sure the day is not
far distant when the long pent up murmurs will swell
into one loud chorus of dissent, which the clergy and
ministers of every denomination will find impossible
to stifle, and very hard to answer.
These thoughts passed across my mind upon
reading a paragraph in the Times of last April 26th,
headed “ Christianity versus Scepticism,” and giving
�and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures.
9
time for the authorized teachers and expounders of
Holy Writ to come down from their lofty pedestals
and stem the torrent which is bursting in upon us
from so many and such different quarters. Sooth to
say—it is none too soon. For the temper of the pre
sent age is not to be played with, pooh-poohed, or put
aside with the cold remark, “ we have heard this
before, the Church and the World never did agree,
nor ever will." So much the worse for the Church
then—if she cannot lead men, she must give up all
thoughts of driving them. If she can return a
satisfactory answer to all that is implied in those
words, “ are these things "so,” well and good, if not,
she must give place to those that can. Let her look
well to her armour and the joints of her harness, for
new times bring new weapons, and unless she can
forge something very different from aught that her
armoury has yet supplied, I fear that perilous days
are in store for her. Theologians can no longer
shelter themselves behind the ample shield of Bishop
Butler, or fly for refuge to Paley and Lardner. Arch
bishop Thomson himself confesses in the notes to his
“ Bampton Lectures on the Atonement," that “ the
Analogy of Bishop Butler by no means covers all the
ground contested at present,’’ and yet he finds a
sufficient defence in the works of the two writers
above mentioned. Truly this is going down to
Egypt for help, a staff no better than a broken reed.
I look upon this fact of Divines turning Lecturers as
the greatest compliment that could be paid to the
spirit of Free Enquiry which is now abroad. That
the missiles with which modern Criticism has for the
last thirty years been fighting the great battle of Free
Thought should have at last pierced the pachy
dermatous hide of slumbering orthodoxy; and so
stung Prelates and Preachers that for very shame
they can no longer keep silence, is indeed a thing to
make a note of. And moreover that they should
�and Christian Evidence Society's Lectures, n
Since last I wrote to you, Sir, the oracle has de
livered its response—Bos loculus est—eleven doughty
champions of orthodoxy have shown us with what
vigour they can repel the assaults and stem the tide
of infidelity, which, as they assert, is rushing in upon
this devoted land; and after a careful perusal of their
several lucubrations, I am bound to confess that the
great doings of Dame Partington and her mop have
received in them a fresh illustration. Every one
knows the story of the starving peasants in France
previous to the First Revolution, when their bitter
cry for bread reached at last the gilded halls of the
Tuileries, and the Queen, amazed at the importunity
of the “wordy peoples,” asked naively, why, if they
were without bread, did they not eat those dear little
buns which her Majesty, and the other grandes dames
du Palais found so palatable. Now it seems to me
that our hierarchy are pretty much of the Queen’s
way of thinking, as I shall show further on. For
years past a storm has been brewing in fitful, violent
gusts, striking upon the Church’s venerated fabric
from every quarter of the compass—doctrine after doc
trine challenged—time-honoured traditions assailed
and overthrown—old landmarks obliterated—the.
veil torn ruthlessly from so called mysteries—prac
tices hallowed by the superstitious reverence of past
ages stripped of their tinsel covering, brought forth
and exposed to the garish light of day—“ what was
once rejected as heresy now all but recognised as
Dogma,” and become the common talk of men, until
at last the culminating point is reached in the Voysey
case, and our spiritual guides and leaders are forced,
per fas aut nefas, to confess that silence on their part
is no longer becoming; in fact, impossible.
How many vexed questions, how many perplexed
and anxious thoughts have the last ten years awak
ened in the breasts of men—a restless uneasiness,
one knows not why or wherefore, has grown up in
�and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures. 13
the so-called facts which we have been taught to
believe in about the Christian religion, facts indeed,
or ecclesiastical fictions ? Are we to look upon what
we find recorded in the Bible as true in its history,
true in all its details as our teachers have always told
us ? Is the old saying, ‘ Gospel true,’ to pass any
longer current amongst men ?”
What is the reply ? The querists, serious and
earnest men (sceptics though they be), are seeking for
some solid, wholesome mental food to strengthen and
nourish both their hearts and intellects, and, as I said
at the beginning of this letter, the Archbishop and
his coadjutors when asked for bread, deal out buns
instead, and moreover stale buns, of a somewhat
puffy and indigestible kind. Let an unprejudiced
reader go through these eleven lectures (they should
have made up the baker’s dozen) and point, if he
can, to any doubts dispelled by them, to honest
difficulties openly and manfully faced.
A few words shall substantiate this. The lectures
are broken up into three groups, the first treats
of three subjects—Materialism, Pantheism, Positiv
ism ; the second of science and revelation, and the
nature and place of the miraculous testimony to
Christianity; group the third embraces the following
subjects—the gradual development of revelation, the
alleged historical difficulties of the Old and New
Testament, the mythical theories of Christianity, the
evidential value of St Paul’s Epistles, Christ’s teaching
and influence on the world, the completeness and
adequacy of the evidences of Christianity. Such is
the Bishops’ answer, such their mode of dealing with
the religious problems of the present day, and I
maintain that as controversial writings (it is in this
light only that I am viewing them) they are valueless,
and worse, they are damaging to the sacred cause
which they have been put forth to defend. With one
or two exceptions, hardly any of the real difficulties
�and Christian Evidence Society's Lectures. 15
fathers after the sober fashion of by-gone days,
but who can no longer believe all that their ancestors
did, or follow them in their blind unquestioning
faith, their docile submission to their spiritual pas
tors and masters. Sad will it be if ever the thought
and intelligence of this land revolt from the Church’s
teaching, as no longer answering to their spiritual needs
and aspirations, to that yearning for greater breadth
and freedom, that passionate desire for the Truth, the
whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, which
has seized upon so many hearts at the present day,
making itself heard in the oft-repeated question, “are
these things so 1 ”
Two much mooted points are especially prominent
in the controversy we are now engaged in, viz.,—■
The moral difficulties that are felt in reference to
some parts of the Old Testament, and. secondly,
the authenticity of St John’s Gospel, and it is truly
ominous to find them both omitted from these Lec
tures. W^e are told indeed in the Preface that a
Lecturer could not be got for the first, and with
regard to the latter, Professor Lightfoot,. who had
undertaken it, expressed a desire that his Lecture
should not be published. Bishop Ellicott speaks of
this as most unfortunate and regretable—hiatus
vcdde deflendus—and well he may, for after the great
question of miracles there is none of such grave
import as this of the Fourth Gospel. Considering
how much depends upon it, one is struck with
wonder at the cool audacity which professes to meet
its adversaries in fair and open combat, and then
shrinks from the very trial that would most have
put its manhood to the test. What must the outside
world think of such a proceeding 1 What is this,
but giving great occasion to the enemies of the
Truth to blaspheme ? Of the whole eleven Lec
tures, there are only three that can be said to deal
with the special difficulties of our day, viz
The
�and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures.
words •, but the Professor has no such fear, and he
certainly manages to make a very small argument
go a long way. How far this dialectical skill would
avail against an unbeliever in the fact of the
Resurrection appears somewhat doubtful. I would
ask any impartial reader of this Lecture whether he
has got out of it all that the writer thinks he has
put therein. The most that can be said is that
St Paul believed in the Resurrection, and fortifies
that belief by recounting the other traditionary
appearances of our Lord, which were current in
the church at his day. We now come to the Lecture
which has the most direct bearing upon the chief
stumbling block of our age, viz :—the question of
miracles. Years ago M. Guizot maintained it as
a special difficulty of Religion, to get people to
believe in the supernatural. And this spirit of
incredulity, like an avalanche set in motion, gathers
force and intensity with each succeeding year. A
singular instance of this has just presented itself
in the case of Dr Kalisch, the well known Biblical
expositor.
In his elaborate Commentary upon the Pentateuch
(of which the first volume, containing the Book of
Exodus, appeared in 1855) he describes the Plagues
of Egypt as based upon natural circumstances, adding
that “ their miraculous character is unmistakeably
observable in the following points,” which he then
proceeds to enumerate. Whereas, in the first part of
his Commentary on Leviticus (lately published) in
the chapter on “ The Theology of the Past and the
Future,” he says plainly, “ Miracles are both 'impossible and incredible—impossible because against the
established laws of the universe, and incredible be
cause those set forth by tradition, are palpable inven
tions of unhistoric times.” Which now is Philip
drunk, and which Philip sober here ? But to proceed
with Dr Stoughton’s Lecture on. the Nature, and
�and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures. 19
Testament subserve a moral end or purpose; or he
knew how impossible it now is to get people to be
lieve in the ark’s capability for holding a pair of all
living creatures, the standing still of the sun, or its
going backward on the dial—in Balaam’s ass or
Jonah’s whale—in the death of twenty-seven thousand
people at once by the sudden fall of a wall—or in
that most stupendous miracle of the Old Testament,
the recovery to life of the dead Moabite when his
body touched the bones of Elisha.
Whatever be his reason, the love of simplicity or
what not, this shirking of the most difficult part of
his argument tells strongly against him; it is no
proof of faith in a cause, to keep half of it in the
dark, and every one feels that the whole Book must
stand or fall together. But as Dr Stoughton well
knows, one thing and one thing only, could make
men accept the whole of the Bible as strictly and per
fectly true, viz., the belief in its Infallible Inspiration.
So long were its pages beyond the breath of cavil,
none dared to raise his voice or stretch forth his
hand against the sacred ark of God’s truth. But this
incubus once removed, this bugbear of literal inter
pretation taken out of the way, and henceforth men
were free to make diligent and honest inquiry into
the truth of what they read in the Bible, and the
first fruits of this freedom we are now reaping in
England.
One thing we may thank the Bishops for, the
generous and kindly spirit in which they regard the
scepticism of the present day; neither is this as easy
a matter as one might think it. Call to mind the
flood of abuse which theologians have been too prone
to heap upon an opponent; their ferocious hatred of
everything that bore the name of Free-thought; the
determination to find therein* “ a set and system of
opinions, the most slavish, the most abject and base,
* Bentley’s Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, p. 4.
���
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
Three letters on the Voysey judgment and the Christian Evidence Society's Lectures
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Wheelwright, G.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. The letters, written to Thomas Scott, centre around Voysey's trial, reported in the 'Examiner' of February 25th, 1871. Voysey's major work The Sling and the Stone was condemned by the conservative wing of the Anglican Church and William Thomson, Archbishop of York, began proceedings against him in 1869. He was summoned before the Chancery Court of York for heterodox teaching, where he defended his case for two years. He appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which gave its judgement on 11 February 1871. The pamphlet contains three letters; the full lectures to the Christian Evidence Society are not printed. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5517
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Heresy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Three letters on the Voysey judgment and the Christian Evidence Society's Lectures), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Criticism
Charles Voysey
Christian Evidence Society
Conway Tracts
Trials
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/632f60a4af847944dfe5e57feed99334.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=RZNSDcS3LxwFRjVv%7EHysWaWtNY0LnbZOeLm-cgj8KhHi5%7EumR%7Eg7gyx7IkfXhFb4hYyi-5VOnY4F1q71cttLnCduMHHH5J2D57QWKXqFthUOPegMPoG0BYQAL3JY6ZMY4kh5mPz6aYLAmznQ2oP0cOlnjcBIAD5CrEV%7EjreTPbN8ibf7CzMQPtk9zbDxYaUUyoFPc1XlnS0fPAqzpynOd2uTfD0T9ERY4fw43eN-MuhtHZQm3k-RTOOsJGt5Oem6EpA8W9%7EibJ6GT8DhASScKX45RBoPIEt%7EicCtLVLaRlNI3TneqyZNz2f7lkpwt7Ik8XLjaBqnZCWFnwFMcBwO7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9f86c8d4cfdbb0fc4a446e5852c62cd5
PDF Text
Text
Why should Charles Voysey
be supported?
A LETTER TO A FRIEND,
FROM
A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.
It may be well to inform the reader that neither the writer
nor his correspondent are connected with
Manchester Meeting.
LONDON:
PROVOST & CO., HENRIETTA ST., COVENT GARDEN.
1871.
��WHY SHOULD CHARLES VOYSEY
BE SUPPORTED?
Friend,
I thank thee for thy letter received a few days
ago. It is always interesting and useful to have a plain
honest opinion and judgment, especially when they
differ from our own. I fully agree with much that
thou says, but not by any means with all.
It seems to me that Charles Voysey is a man who
has sacrificed every outward consideration for the sake
of his religious convictions, that he is able to say as few
men of the present generation can—“ I have left all,
and followed Thee.” More than this, there is abundant
evidence that he is a man of a deeply earnest religious
spirit. This is amply sufficient to command the sym
pathy of all who really value religious liberty, and
freedom of religious thought; and who believe it to be
the highest duty and privilege of man to follow that
Light which is revealed in his own soul, and the Guide
which speaks to him there. This alone ought to be quite
sufficient to command the sympathy of every Quaker.
It is not needful to enquire whether there is a theo
logical agreement before extending sympathy and help.
By so doing we assist in keeping up the old and still
prevalent idea that Dogma and Creed must be the basis
of religious fellowship. This idea is the basis of sec
tarianism and the parent of all that intolerance and
My
dear
�4
TF7?y should Charles Voysey be supported I
want of charity, which have more or less disgraced the
history of every organized church and ecclesiastical
body.
Thou says thou art ignorant of my “ theological
position,” and enquires if I “ share Charles Voysey’s
opinions”; and thou “regrets to think of my name
being cast in with his.” As a matter of fact, there are
many points on which I differ widely from him, more '
widely probably than thou dost. In my apprehension,
he looks at many passages in the Bible, and at much
of its teaching, from a partial point of view, and
mistakes its real character.
Much reference has been made to the manner in
which Charles Voysey treats the character of Jesus
Christ. I understand the position he takes to be this.
If certain things which the New Testament records
concerning the sayings and doings of our Lord are true,
then His character cannot have been what it is asserted
to have been. Hence the conclusion is that the Bible
records have, in these respects, come down to us incor
rectly or imperfectly.
This is such an important item in the accusations
made against Voysey, that, at the risk of seeming
tedious, I must quote some illustrations from his
writings. The following beautiful passage speaks for
itself:—
“ If my temper towards some chief priests in my own
age makes me read with delight those revilings of the
chief priests by Jesus, and feel glad at the abuse poured
upon them, it reveals to me the fact that I am stirred
by revengeful or, at least, very angry feeling—that I
am in a state of hatred. But if I prefer to think of
Jesus as one who did no sin, neither was guile found
in His mouth, who, when He was reviled, reviled not
again, when He suffered, He threatened not, I am aware
that my temper is improved, and that I prefer the more
gentle and patient picture by reason of my own pro
gress. In this way, if we do not actually make our
�Why should Charles Voysey be supported ?
n
own image of Jesus, we at all events change it at will,
taking away features that we have ceased to reverence
and admire, and adding others that we have learned to
consider still more noble than we have ever worn.
Whatever is to us loveliest, purest, gentlest, most
loving, most manly, that is to us our Christ; and so
long as His name is cherished in the hearts of men,
and taken up adoringly on their lips, it will surely
stand as a sign or symbol of what God wishes us to be ;
and His loving life and loving death will be to us the
example of what He wishes us to do. In any case, we
must own that, if St. Peter’s account of Jesus be the
truest, few, if any, of our race have yet reached so high
a perfection. He is still the firstborn among many
brethren, and none can dispute His right to be called
the 1 Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.’ ” *
The nature of Voysey’s belief in Christ as our Saviour
appears in the next passage :—
“ God’s work of salvation is never ended; for, as we
rise higher and higher, the attainments we thought so
good become hardened into habits, and cease to be vir
tuous ; while the weaknesses which we once excused
are regarded no longer with leniency, but must be con
quered and trampled down as sins. And God uses
men and women to help Him in his work of salvation.
Good fathers and good mothers, good husbands and
good wives, faithful friends, and good masters and good
servants, are all saviours, as much and more so to us
than the noble army of martyrs and the glorious com
pany of apostles and prophets. So too, only in the
highest degree, the Lord Jesus Christ is our Saviour,
enlightening the world by His own beautiful life, and
by the good news of a Heavenly Father’s love, which
He brought into the darkness of a despairing world.
Whatever helps to reveal the constant love of God the
Sermons, vol. iii. pp. 231, 232.
�6
II hy should Charles Voysey be supported 1
Father for us all—whatever helps to rekindle our dying
love for Him, and for each other—that, in the best
sense, is a means of salvation. And wherever men and
women are, in however slow a degree, amending their
lives, and becoming more and more a blessing and hap
piness to those around them, whatever be their creed,
there surely is the Almighty and Most Merciful God
at work ‘redeeming their lives from destruction, and
crowning them with loving-kindness and tender
mercies.’ ” *
Voysey constantly expresses the highest reverence
for the character of Christ, and his aim is to remove
blemishes which he believes the Scriptures themselves
place upon it. Whether the passages in question are
susceptible of a different meaning and complexion than
that which he gives to them is another matter alto
gether.
Thy letter specially refers to the conclusion of Voysey’s
recent “ Lecture on the Bible,” where he comments on
Jesus saying to His mother, “Woman, behold thy Son.”
Even if we admit the adjectives which he applies to
this scene, it is perfectly clear from the context that
Voysey looks upon the account as false, and in no way
accuses Christ of acting in a manner which he so
deprecates.
I cannot resist again quoting from his writings, to
show how Voysey endeavours to teach men to follow
Christ:—
< Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man
will come after me, let him deny himself and take up
his cross, and follow me.’ We call ourselves the dis
ciples and followers of our Lord . . . but the majority
of us Christians are about as ignorant of the character’
and work of Christ as the apostles were. Few ever
think of Him as ‘ one who came to bear witness unto
Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 10, 11.
�Why should Charles Voysey be supported I
7
the truth,’ and as one whose great object was thereby
to deliver men’s souls from bondage, and to save them
from their sins. Most of us Christians either forget or
do not even know the meaning of Christ’s coming to
bear witness unto the Truth, to live and die for it;
while many of those who contemplate the death and
passion of our Lord regard it only as a means of deliver
ance from everlasting punishment............. God’s call is
to speak the truth boldly, let the consequences be what
they may ; man’s advice is to be very cautious, and not
at all bold, and to be guided entirely by reference to
the consequences. This is the Church of to-day, and
I deliberately, but sorrowfully, say, we neither under
stand Christ, nor follow Him. If any will truly come
after Him, at however humble a distance, he can only
do so by ‘ denying himself and taking up his cross.’ . . .
I have been speaking much, if not altogether, in refe
rence to the clergy—to the following Christ in teaching
unpalatable truth. But there is even a far more im
portant following of Him than this, to be done day by
day, by each and all of us, in our own homes, where
every one ought to give way and to deny himself that
he may do better for others. The crosses of life are
not always heavy, but they are daily and constant, and
it just makes all the difference between a true and a
false following of Christ, whether we systematically
refuse to bear our own cross, laying it or trying to lay it
upon some one else instead, or take it up submissively
and cheerfully, as something doubly precious and sanc
tified, as sent by God for the good of our souls, and as
sent also by Him as a means of comforting and saving
the lives of others. . . . Our true reward, our highest
happiness on earth as well as in heaven, depends on
our following Christ, not merely in the great and rare
struggles of the human mind after truth and liberty,
but also, and most of all, in our daily living in a spirit
of true self-denial, and seeking only the peace and
welfare and happiness of those around us. Let us pray
then that, both in our public and private callings, the
�8
JP7z?/ should Charles Voysey be supported ?
same mind may be in us which was also in Christ
Jesus. For, £ if any man have not the spirit of Christ,
he is none of His.’ ” *
“ They rightly judged that God had reversed the
ignorant judgment of men—that Him whom men had
rejected and crucified, God had exalted to highest
happiness above, and to the position of Prince and
Lord in the hearts of His followers. They rightly
judged that ‘ God had highly exalted Him, and given
Him a name which is above every name’—subject only
to God Himself, who is, and was, and will for ever be,
our all in all. This is right and proper loyalty to
Jesus Christ as the noblest of the Sons of God whom
the eyes of men had ever seen.”!
Thou uses the expression—££ follower of Charles
Voysey.” There is nothing which he himself would
more strongly deprecate. In a private letter, written a
few months ago, he says :—“ Truly I am glad I am
what I am ! A poor and undignified country parson.
Had I been a Bishop, what shoals of worldly, frivolous,
pandering followers I might have had, men whose souls
were barren, dry, and empty, and as really irreligious
as the blind devotees of the Stock Exchange or the
Race-course. As it is, all my work is simply the con
quest of Truth over prejudice, error, ignorance, and
every worldly influence. The man is forgotten in what
he says. And so it should ever be; for all the Truth
he utters is God’s, and not his at all. I cannot accept
the title of Guide. All I want is to lead men to their
only Guide—the God of Truth and of Love, and to
regard those who are privileged to speak Truth, as only
fellow-labourers, full of faults and errors —£ earthen
vessels ’— into which some little Divine Treasure has
been poured. It has been the great mistake of humanity
* Sermons, vol. iv. pp. 99—104.
+ Sermons, vol. iv. pp. 35, 36.
�Why should Charles Voysey be supported ?
9
to surround the teacher with a halo which serves to
conceal his imperfections, and at the same time to
dazzle the observers. For this reason, Paul the Apostle
left on record his painful humiliation, which, for want
of an interpreter, has never had its due weight in keep
ing his followers from regarding him as infallible. The
whole blunder and perversion of Christianity to-day,
has been o'wing to the calling of Jesus ‘ Lord, Lord,’
instead of doing God’s will as He directed us. I have
a horror of being thought to be more than I am, or of
standing even for one moment on my own authority,
as a dictator to the minds and hearts and lives of my
fellow-men.”
We may well say, “How are the mighty fallen,”
when such a man as this does not receive the united
moral support of the Society of Friends. The real
reason of this is, that the Society of Friends has become
one of the Churches and Sects, out of which it was
George Fox’s mission to call the Children of God. It
is impossible that thy “ liberal Friend correspondent,”
whose letter thou quotes, can have any comprehension
of Voysey’s spirit when he says, “We are to cease to
listen to Christ, and hearken to the Rev. Charles
Voysey.” The spirit of Quakerism teaches us to follow
no man, neither Fox, Penn, Barclay, nor Voysey.
William Penn, in his Preface to George Fox’s Journal,
speaking of the first “ Friends,” says :—
“ They directed people to a principle by which all
that they asserted, preached, and exhorted others to,
might be wrought in them, and known through expe
rience to them, to be true. Which is a high and dis
tinguishing mark of the truth of their ministry. Both
that they knew what they said, and were not afraid of
coming to the test. For as they were bold from cer
tainty, so they required conformity upon no human
authority, but upon conviction. And the conviction
of this principle, they asserted, was in them that they
preached unto. And unto that they directed them, that
�10
TJ'Vzz/ should Charles Voysey be supported?
they might examine and prove the reality of those
things which they had affirmed of it, as to its mani
festation and work in man. And this is more than the
many ministries in the world pretend to. . . . Which
of them all pretend to speak of their own knowledge
and experience ? or ever directed men to a Divine prin
ciple or agent, placed of God in man, to help him?
And how to know it, and wait to feel its power to work
that good and acceptable will of God in them.”
In George Fox’s writings he constantly testifies to
the same thing :—That “ the Light which every man
that cometh into the world is enlightened with, is the
salvation to the ends of the earth”; that “ this was
Christ’s doctrine,” that “ this Light is Christ, the sub
stance, the righteousness of God.” He says
“ How
is man’s salvation wrought out hut by the power of
Christ within ? How is the old man destroyed but by
Christ within? . . . Who feels Christ within feels
salvation.” *
And Charles Voysey says :—
“ God or Love is the Father of the Divine Nature of
Jesus and of men. He has begotten us all, and as
children of Him we possess part of His own life and
spirit. ... I know there is plenty of wickedness
amongst us, quite enough even in the best of us to
say—1 Father, I have sinned against Thee, and am no
more worthy to be called Thy Son,’-—to make us echo
the Apostle’s graceful apostrophe, 1 Behold what manner
of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we
should be called the sons of God ! ’ But then how could
we tell that God is so good, and that we are unworthy
of His Fatherhood, if it were not that God is already
dwelling in us and revealing Himself to us ? No book,
nor word of man, nor word of Jesus, could of itself
make us feel what God is, and why we are unworthy
of our high calling as His Sons. This is only and
* See many passages, especially in vol. iii. of G. F.’s Works,
American edition.
�Why should Charles Voysey he supported ?
11
solely due to God’s indwelling-—to the Spirit which He
Himself has begotten in us. Therefore as God was in
Christ, so in like manner, though not yet in like degree,
He is in us, or we should never have been able to learn
any truth about Him, or to feel our sonship, or to bewail
our own unworthiness. . . . Let us thankfully accept
at the lips of Jesus the assurance of a tie between our
selves and our Heavenly Father which nothing can ever
break. For if Jesus dwells eternally in the bosom of
the Father, so also do we; for His Father is our Father,
and His God is our God.” *
It is to my mind an entire perversion of the true
facts of the case, to speak of “the disastrous effects
which the support given to Charles Voysey has had at
Manchester.” Rather should we speak of the disastrous
effects produced by the undue assumption and exercise
of ecclesiastical power,—the same old story, and the
same old temptation, into which Churches have ever
fallen.
I hope thou wilt excuse the extreme plainness with
which I have written, and that my meaning is also
plain. I hope also I do not lose sight of the dangers
from which thou warns me;—that it may be quite
possible, even with the best intentions, to pursue a
mischievous course, and one which is prejudicial to the
cause we have most at heart. At the meeting which
I attended in London, I expressed the belief that the
worst thing we could do would be to take any action
which would tend to form a “ sect of Voyseyites.” This
feeling was united with by the meeting. So far as I
can understand the spirit which is now guiding Charles
Voysey’s line of action, it may be summed up in the
following extract from one of his later sermons :—
“ If a man is convinced that he has found a faith
more true, more helpful, more consoling, than other
Sermons, vol. iv. pp. 206, 208.
�12
Why shoiddXhharles Voysey be supported ?
faiths which are common in his time, it is surely that
man’s duty to try and teach that faith to his fellow
men. In proportion as he himself has found it to be
more elevating, more comforting, more consistent with
reason and experience, so surely he ought to be more
eager and constant in proclaiming his own faith, and in
doing what he can to lead others to embrace it also.
I am one of those who think they have found a nobler
faith, and I feel sure that my faith is to be found
in the Bible, and that it was taught by the Hebrew
Prophets and Psalmists, and by Jesus of Nazareth most
of all.” *
The great need of the present time seems to me to be
the preaching of a religion of Life—not of doctrine—
not of belief. That God is the Father of all men, and
will instruct all men in the way in which they are to
walk. This is the substance of Charles Voysey’s teach
ing. He is at the present time its representative man.
Therefore he must be supported; notwithstanding he
may at times be mistaken, and even say harsh, weak,
or bitter things. I have felt and do feel it a privilege to
have rendered him some little moral and material help,
and to have been the means of conveying to him
from others, both material and spiritual expressions of
sympathy.
I am, thy friend sincerely,
* * # # *
1, viii. 1871.
* Sermons, vol. iv. p. 3.
�
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
Why should Charles Voysey be supported? A letter to a friend, from a member of the Society of Friends
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Scribbled marks in ink on last page.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Provost & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT3
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
A Member of the Society of Friends
Subject
The topic of the resource
Heresy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Why should Charles Voysey be supported? A letter to a friend, from a member of the Society of Friends), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Voysey
Conway Tracts
Heresy
Quakerism
Society of Friends