1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6d5c0422bcccd53769bf72d3ccd7444a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=DhX8XBgq1l3oR9qx3U%7EngPtWjWSAgRr0EURtMyh9RYin2vhHyj5cHIa1ZwMg4FwZnS36HC3m5w190XsTcJUwREJmBKTqegnuVVpRDf5IWPOFvMWLPnRSNWRxlACuPd0dlJ9y9vCvqd%7EYgcTVnC07oNTJrHZYg6TpPFfkUVv5KzyGmcdk9Iygywl-xgyH7oDKF7YSdr9t7eUVuzoGjPknOBZxP-jpH3S0H7Og2vbry8Pwyjjyu%7E7cr0hDIhgJwGfOaSfmZ5KEflPWePxQYd9y2fiYrAE5L5VcCKlfUkMFZirRKwmv6UE3Rl3JCZkHON3tPy8XtddKQngdjANuCnUkbw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5a68a2a8850ef52a42fc40975892d4e9
PDF Text
Text
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION;
OR,
REMARKS ON THE REV. J. M. WILSON’S
“ATTEMPT TO TREAT SOME RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS
IN A SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT”.
[Reprinted from
the
“National Reformer”.]
BY
s. s.
POPULUS VULT DECIPI, SED ILLUMINETUR.
LONDON:
fbeethought
publishing company,
63, FLEET STREET,
E.C.
1 8 8 7.
PRICE
FOURPENCE.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION;
OR,
REMARKS ON THE REV. J. M. WILSON’S
“ATTEMPT TO TREAT SOME RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS
IN A SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT”.
[Reprinted from
the
“National Reformer”.]
BY
s. s.
POPULUS VULT DECIPI, SED ILLUMINETUR.
LONDON:
fbeethought
publishing company,
63, FLEET STREET,
E.C.
1 8 8 7.
PRICE
FOURPENCE.
��N574-
TO THE READER.
Messrs. Macmillajst and Co. having published a volume
of Essays and Addresses by the Rev. James M. Wilson,
this opportunity is taken of reprinting some articles
that appeared in the National Reformer, after the first
appearance of the essays and addresses contained in the
volume referred to.
The second and third articles were written concerning
two sermons that Mr. Wilson preached in March, 1884,
and which are not included in the volume of essays and
addresses. They were published by Macmillan and Co.,
in pamphlet form, shortly after their delivery.
The paper of most interest in Mr. Wilson’s volume is
undoubtedly the “Letter to a Bristol Artisan” (p. 128175), which, though dated in 1885, is now for the first
time published. This letter (which has been recently
criticised with force and ability by Mr. J. M. Robertson
in the columns of the National Reformer} is Mr. Wilson’s
reply to the pamphlet (published by W. H. Morrish, 18,
Narrow Wine St., Bristol), wherein “ A Bristol Artisan ”,
took up the theme of Mr. Wilson’s two lectures to the
Secularists of that city, on the reasons why men do not
believe the Bible. These lectures are contained in the
new volume (p. 74-127), having previously been published
by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The
artisan had not the same facilities for making his views
known, his pamphlet appeared in modest guise, and a
small edition has not yet been sold. If, on our side, we
had a society for promoting Secular knowledge, it might
do well to bring out a second edition of this remarkable
�iv
TO THE READER.
essay, and to ensure that every thinking man and woman
in England should have a chance of mastering its contents.
But at present the want of such machinery is one of the
great difficulties we have to contend against. I may,
however, say that this pamphlet has extorted the approval
of those most opposed to the artisan’s views. Mr. Wilson
says of it: “ your pamphlet has deeply interested me, not
only from its singular directness, and lucidity, and general
moderation of tone, but because it is full of misconceptions,
etc.” Another clergyman says of it that “ it will probably
be widely read and influential both for good and evil”.
And the general opinion seems to be that no more discreet
and inoffensive statement of the higher secular philosophy
has ever been published.
Those who have read Mr. Robertson’s criticisms on Mr.
Wilson’s reply to the artisan will be prepared to hear that
no such complimentary language, can, in its turn, be used
of it. At the same time it seems to me that Mr. Robert
son has not fully realised the enormous advantage gained
for Secularism, by the admissions that the letter contains.
Mr. Robertson’s own mind is clear—his horizon free from
haze and mist; has he not forgotten that such clearness
of vision is rare in times of transition. One of our univer
sities, in its proud motto, offers lux and pocula, light and
ceremonials. But in these days the retention of the pocula
involves too often the darkening of the lux. And not
only do the traditionary status and ecclesiastical endow
ments of the Church of England, that Cambridge offers
to its graduates, tend to a frame of mind that shrinks
from the full blaze of the rays of truth, but other and
nobler ties are at work in the same direction—so noble
and so human that I should be sorry to cast up the charge
of nebulous inconsistency against the man whose light
faileth. Let us, however, thank Mr. Wilson for these
words: “It is absolutely necessary for you to grasp the
conception of religion, as being NOT a system of dogmas
about the being of God and his relation to man, revealed
by some external and supernatural machinery, but as
being an education, an evolution, a growth of the spirit
of man towards something higher, by means of a gradual
revelation.” Let us, I say, ponder well these words.
And let us ask Mr. Wilson to consider if he can put
bounds to this growth, and say, “ Thus far! ” or predict
�V
TO THE READER.
safely that at this time, or at that time, finality will be
reached.
If I were inclined to be critical, I would also ask Mr.
Wilson to reconcile his use of the word religion in the
above extract with the conception of it given in the
sermon he preached in St. Paul’s Cathedral, hereinafter
referred to.
But while anxious to award to Mr. Wilson all the merit
that is due to him, I am entirely at one with Mr. Robert
son in considering that this attempt to treat matters of
faith by the methods of science has been (as all such
attempts must be) a complete failure.
In conclusion I gratefully accept Mr. Charles Bradlaugh’s
permission to dedicate to him, as one of the leaders of
sincere and active freethought—active because sincere—
this attempt to state the issue between Materialism on one
hand, and the indefinite faltering neo-Christianity on the
other, which is clerical rather than agnostic, agnostic
rather than religious.
s. s.
July, 1887.
��UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
I.—Mr. Wilson’s Bristol Lectures.
[From the National Reformer of 16th September, 1883.]
The late Archbishop of Canterbury, who combined the
shrewdness of a Scot with the tact of a courtier, said some
years ago that Atheism should not be regarded as a heresy
to be condemned, but met as an argument, to be seriously
and temperately answered. The attitude thus recommended
has been adopted by several enlightened clergymen, and
will probably commend itself to many more. But if gentle
men in “holy orders” quit the vantage ground of ortho
doxy, and meet Secularists on even terms, they must take
the chances of war. Real argument implies that the side
which has the best of it shall carry conviction to the other;
and if the clergy cannot convert us, they run the risk of
being themselves converted. The game is a perilous one
for the clergy, but none the less are they bound in honor
to play it out.
The lectures before us are the first fruits of Dr. Tait’s
remark. Mr. Wilson, head master of Clifton School, is
one of the most distinguished of that noble band of workers
in the cause of morality that the churches of to-day are
producing. It were presumption for me to speak of the
character and merits of such a man: if anyone wishes to
learn them, let him ask the poor of Bristol. He delivered
these lectures to audiences of the working men of that
city about six months ago, and they have now been repub
lished under the auspices of the Society for Promoting
�8
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
Christian Knowledge. The Spectator remarks that the
Society never did a bolder or a wiser thing than this ; and
many who take a broader view of the subjects discussed
than the Spectator does, will probably acquiesce in that
opinion.
Mr. Wilson addressed himself to the question, “ Why
men do not believe the Bible ”, and in the first lecture
considered the intellectual difficulties ; in the second, the
. moral difficulties. By intellectual difficulties, Mr. Wilson
means “ those which are the consequences of a particular
theory as to the necessity of a literal translation and the
verbal accuracy of the Bible”. This particular theory,
viz., that the Bible is verbally or mechanically inspired, is
not, Mr. Wilson asserts, laid down by the Church, nor
found in the Bible, nor was it taught by Jesus Christ or
his apostles. Up to the time that the Roman Empire
became Christian, and the Canon of Scripture was formed,
“ there was no thought of a divinely-guaranteed accuracy”.
Even after the Reformation, when the thirty-nine articles
were promulgated, “ there was no theory of inspiration”.
But as the study of the Bible became more popular, theories
of inspiration were started, especially that of Calvin, who
held “that from Genesis to Revelation the Bible is not
only the Word of God, but the words of God ; and it is this
theory that lands men in endless contradictions ”,
I will leave it to the followers and admirers of Calvin to
prove, as I expect they easily can prove, that the theory
of inspiration, which Mr. Wilson attributes to him, was
not his invention, but was commonly held in the Church
centuries before his time. This does not concern us much.
But before I pass on to what Mr. Wilson would have us
substitute for the Calvinistic theory of inspiration, I would
hint that he took an unfair advantage of us Secularists, in
saying that we have no warrant for putting into the mouths
of Christians a theory of verbal inspiration, when it is
notorious that his assertion that the Church of England
does not teach the verbal inspiration of the Bible, fell like
a thunderbolt on the Christian public. Nine-tenths of the
religious people in these kingdoms firmly believe the Bible
to be inspired. Secularists have to deal with popular
superstition, and not with the esoteric creed of a few
priests. The sixth article of religion is so worded that it
can perfectly cover, if needs be, the Calvinistic theory;
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
9
and if it suits Mr. Wilson and his friends to say now that
“Holy Scripture” is not verbally inspired, he ought not
to blame Colonel Ingersoll for addressing himself to the
current belief. I strongly suspect that if these doubts as
to the authority of the Bible had not reached the great
mass of our countrymen, the doctrine now produced by
Canon Westcott and Mr. Wilson would not have been
much heard of. It is to be regretted that Archbishop
Benson has, in a letter printed in the preface to these
lectures, apparently supported Mr. Wilson’s complaint of
Colonel Ingersoll.
The fact is, that Secularists make little use of the
Calvinistic theory of the Bible. It is to the book itself,
and not to any theory of it, that their apprehensions point.
They regard it as the history, more or less authentic, of a
small nation whose social ostracism is a fitting reward for
moral delinquency, and who have made themselves more
detested than any other race of men. They cannot admit
that the history of such a race, curious and interesting as
it is, ought to be our guide and standard here and now.
It was a rhetorical artifice, and nothing more, to bring
into contrast Colonel Ingersoll and Canon Westcott; clever
and momentarily effective, but attended with no permanent
gain. Mr. Wilson’s subsequent admission (page 31), that
some of his friends urged “ You will unsettle more than
you will help; you will shake the faith of believers, and
not convert the sceptics ”, proves that Colonel Ingersoll
was right and Canon Westcott wrong, in their estimate of
popular theology.
Mr. Wilson would remove from the portal of the temple
the bogey of Calvinism ; unsuspecting worshippers are to
be invited to enter ; but once inside the temple, and belief
in inspiration is the atmosphere they breathe : “ Let men
read the gospels as they would read any other book, with
any theory of inspiration, or with none; with the one aim
of learning the truth about Jesus Christ ”, and if this is
done in a proper spirit, Mr. Wilson promises that they will
soon get the belief in inspiration, though they may not be
able to define it. Is this so? Does an absolute rejection
of the Calvinistic theory, followed by careful, patient,
honest study of the Bible, lead men to be Christians, or to
form such an estimate of the character of Jesus Christ as
enables them to recognise him as God ? Experience
�10
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
meets Mr. Wilson’s promise with, no dubious or uncertain
answer.
Mr. Wilson avoids any definition of that theory which
he would have us substitute for Calvin’s. He says he can
no more define inspiration than he can define “ God”, and
that he can no more prove inspiration than he can listen
to the colors of the rainbow. It is surely irrational and
immoral to believe a theory that can neither be defined or
proved. Some clearly defined theory may commend itself
as possibly credible, even if it cannot be proved, but it
seems romantic, if not impossible, to believe without defi
nition and without demonstration.
And here I would make a protest and an appeal. The
late Archbishop, and clergymen like Mr. Wilson, expect,
and invite us to meet them in discussion. Do they consider
that we do so with halters round our necks ? We may
freely discuss morality, and the non-essentials of religion,
but to deny by advised speaking or printing the truth of
the Christian religion, entails the penalties of that statute
of William and Mary, which Lord Coleridge termed
“ferocious” and “shocking”. Can not Mr. Wilson and
his friends help in getting the statute law and the common
law amended ? And cannot they give an earnest of their
sympathies, by signing the memorial to Mr. Gladstone for
Messrs. Foote and Ramsey’s release that is printed at the
head of page 265 of the Freethinker for 26tli August. Our
unhappy friends have now been thirty long weeks in gaol.
What is left of the “Christian religion ” that the statute
of William and Mary, joint defenders of the faith, so
jealously guarded? The Court of Queen’s Bench has by
mandamus lopped off the devil; Canon Farrar’s sermons
have eliminated hell; the Trinity is threatened when the
Athanasian creed is expunged; and now Mr. Wilson tells
us that inspiration is no part of it. Whatever happens,
let us hope that no blasphemous hand will touch the 36th
Article of religion that treats of the consecration of bishops.
So long as they are maintained in pomp and power,
Christianity has no cause to fear.
The moral difficulty in the way of belief in the Bible
with which Mr. Wilson’s second lecture deals, is thus
described: that as the Bible tolerates, or even approves
of, various forms of immorality, such as slavery, murder,
polygamy, cruelty, and treachery, it is hard to accept of
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
11
the God of the Bible as an object of worship. I don’t
think that Mr. Wilson has fully guaged the depth and
strength of the moral difficulty felt by Secularists and
Freethinkers, but accepting his statement of it, as above
summarised, let us examine his mode of meeting it.
He admits that many of the persons mentioned in the
Bible as objects of God’s favor, are not fair examples of
moral goodness, and that some of their actions are unworthy
of our imitation. To get out of the Bible the moral teaching
that it contains, we must read between the lines, and dis
cover “the working out and the development of the idea
of the kingdom of God ”. From the history of the “training
of a typical nation ” (the Jews) we are to “ trace the growth
of a purer morality, of personal responsibility, of the
spirituality of God, of the thought of a future life”. He
thinks that “ facts point unmistakably to the Jews as the
nation that formed the chief channel for divine influence
in religion”, qualifying this by the proviso that “the
morality of the Old Testament is no pattern for us, except
so far as our own consciences, enlightened by the completed
revelation, approve ”. This, I take it, is a fair summary,
mainly in his own words, of what Mr. Wilson told the
working-men of Bristol.
Close observation of these two lectures will show that
Mr. Wilson avoided in the second the line of argument
adopted in the first. When discussing the intellectual
difficulty, he said the theory of inspiration that Secularists
attributed to the Church was neither taught by it nor
found in the Articles of Religion, but was a man of straw,
set up for the purpose of being knocked down. He might
have said the same of the theory of God’s providence and
moral government.
The words “Kingdom of God”,
“ Morality ”, and “ Providence ” do not occur in any of the
Articles. The word “ moral ” occurs only once, in the
seventh Article, which speaks of “ the commandments
which are called moral ”. Mr. Wilson might then have
spoken of the moral difficulty, in the same form of words
as he used for the intellectual difficulty: “What I say will
doubtless surprise some of you, both Christians and
Secularists, but it is an undeniable fact that the Articles
of Religion do not assert that the Bible contains a moral
standard, or that God governs as well as reigns ”. That
he has not adopted this line of reasoning proves the truth
�12
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
of the remark recently made in these columns : “ Religion
seeks to secure her frail tenure by grasping the skirt of
that holy piorality who was once but her timid and shrinking
handmaid”.1 Mr. Wilson had the same ground for treating
the moral difficulty as a man of straw, as he had in regard
to the intellectual difficulty; but instead of doing so, he
has eagerly enlisted him as a valiant champion on his own
side.
The future of human happiness and morality, Mr. Wilson
would have us believe, depends on the esoteric teaching
derived by learned men from a number of treatises, written
we know not by whom and know not when; in an ancient
language few can read; of which no original exists (save
for some possible speculation of a future Shapira); and
about whose text and interpretation the best authorities
seldom agree. We learn from the first lecture that their
claim to inspiration is shadowy, undefined, and incapable
of proof; and from the second lecture that they contain a
veiled, and not a revealed, record of the will of God as
governor of the world. When these treatises agree about
any moral law, or in their estimate of the moral worth of
any human action, we are by no means to accept this as a
guide or pattern, but we must try to ascertain what indi
cation is to be derived, from the history contained in the
Bible, of the general course of God’s providence in respect
to the Jews; and this indication, when obtained, is to be
subject to the veto of “ conscience ”. Is this a satisfactory
or practicable system of philosophy ?
What is conscience ? We may regard it as a knowledge
of, and fidelity to, the stored-up experience of generations
of men, as to what is best for human happiness on earth.
If Mr. Wilson accepts this definition of conscience, he
virtually accepts the secular philosophy. But whatever
definition he may give of conscience, why is it to have a
veto on the morality of the Old Testament, and not on the
morality of the New Testament ?
Let us apply Mr. Wilson’s system to a case of every day
life. The question arises whether a man may marry the
sister of his deceased wife. From a purely ethical point
of view the advantages preponderate over the objections.
But what does the Bible say ? is at once asked. The Bible
See National Reformer, 8th July, 1883, page 22.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
13
gives an uncertain sound, but its more weighty texts are
supposed to be against such marriages. But Mr. Wilson
says we may not be guided by texts, but by the “ history
of the development of the kingdom of God, as worked out
in the case of the Jews ”. Laymen are puzzled, and refer
the matter to divines. Divines differ—some say the pro
posed marriage accords with that development, some say it
does not. Eventually a clear majority decide one way or
the other, it matters not which. Even then Mr. Wilson is
not satisfied, but would appeal to “Conscience”. Why
not let conscience decide it at first without all this
ceremony ?
It is hardly necessary to observe that the theory of
Biblical morality set up by Mr. Wilson, is, like Canon
Westcott’s theory of inspiration, new to the religious
public. Both have been evolved by the “ struggle for
existence ”. But for the certain and now ra,pid action of
Ereethought, we should not have heard of either. A few
years ago, and anyone who said that Mooses and Abraham
and David were immoral characters deserving censure,
would have been treated as a blasphemer. Mr. Wilson
has discovered that it is right and just to submit the
character and deeds of these old Jews to a tribunal and a
test, that may possibly brand them as foul disgraces to
humanity, and confirm the hatred with which in all ages
the uncircumcised Gentiles have regarded God s chosen
people, which is nearly as strong now as in the days of
Pharoah, and of Nebuchadnezzar, and of Titus. Freethought has scored a considerable success in eliciting such
admissions as Mr. Wilson has made. Wb are almost pre
pared to concede to him the claim he made at last year s
Church Congres, that clergymen are Freethinkers. At all
events, some of them, if not actually Freethinkers, are not
unwilling captives at the chariot wheels of Freethought,
and will swell her approaching triumph.
In these remarks I have treated only of the more im
portant and essential parts of Mr. Wilson’s two lectures.
There is much in them, and especially in the second lecture,
for the adequate notice of which more space is needed than
the columns of a newspaper can afford. The lectures form
an important point in the struggle between Superstition
and Freethought, and ought to be studied by all, on both
sides, who are interested in its issue. May I express my
�14
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
admiration of the learning, liberality, and rare human
sympathy they breathe? In the knowledge and love of
of man, they recall some high exemplars. Even if Mr.
Wilson has not succeeded in the objects with which his
lectures were given, he has secured the warm thanks and
true well-wishing of all Secularists, not those of Bristol
only.1
II.—Religion v. Revelation.
[From the National Reformer, 16th November, 1884 J
The Rev. Mr. Wilson, whose two lectures on “Inspira
tion” were reviewed in these columns last year, has pub
lished two sermons that he preached some months ago.
The first, entitled “Opinion and Service”, was preached
in Westminster Abbey, and reminds us that the question
to be asked of us will be, What have ye done ? and not
What did ye think? The second sermon, entitled “Religion
and Revelation ”, was preached in St. Paul’s Cathedral.
Both sermons—but especially the second one—prove the
extent to which Church teaching has been influenced by
hostile criticism, and what is now thought on these con
troversial points by that section of enlightened Christian
men that Mr. Wilson represents.
In reviewing the Bristol lectures, we indicated the
following concessions that they made to Freethought.
(1) Mr. Wilson rejected the Calvinistic theory of inspira
tion, and condemned it as “landing men in endless con
tradictions”. (2) He professed himself unable to define
or prove the theory of inspiration which he would have
us substitute for Calvin’s. (3) He admitted that the Bible
revealed no immutable standard of morality, but that its
moral teaching must be sought for “ between the lines ”.
And (4) that, when found, it was not supreme, but sub1 Possibly this estimate of the value of the Bristol lectures may to
some persons appear too favorable, but I will leave unaltered the
terms in which I expressed the opinion that I originally formed of
them. Of course, my estimate refers to the lectures only, and does
not apply to the other writings included in Mr. Wilson’s volume
S. S.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
15
ject to the veto of conscience. Not only are these con
cessions still maintained in the sermon before us, but in
other directions a retreat is sounded, and vantage ground
gained for the implacable foe of theology.
Taking that which is known as “religion” in the popular
and vague meaning assigned to it, the preacher divided it
into the idea, power, or spirit, which he termed “revela
tion”, and the expression cultus or form to which he con
fined the word “religion”. He regarded revelation as
ever antagonistic to religion, describing the latter as a
universal human instinct common to all races, savage and
civilised; dark and terrible in its history; stained with
idolatry, cruelty, and lust. On the other hand, he would
have us regard revelation as a divine work, spiritual,
accumulative, and imperishable, ever striving with the low
religious instinct, and illuminating and guiding man.1
Here I must ask if history affords any trace of this
struggle between revelation and religion, or if it exists
only in Mr. Wilson’s imagination? We know of the strife
between the ideas of the divine and the human, between
Spiritualism and Materialism, and that for long ages it
has been one-sided and unequal; we know that the idea
of man and matter is at length superseding that of God
and spirit; that securing the happiness of man is of more
importance than ascertaining the will of God; that human
affairs depend on ourselves, and not on the moral govern
ment of a personal God. This great strife is tending to
the enlightenment and advancement of our race, but it is
not the strife described by Mr. Wilson. Revelation is not
mastering religion as he suggests, but religion and revela
tion combined are about to fade away before morality.
The revelation that is on the winning side is not the
revelation of God’s will, but the revelation of man’s
reason.
All so-called divine revelations rest on the religious
instinct, spring from it, and strengthen it. The two are
inseparable, and history gives no indication of an inter1 One great merit of scientific system is accuracy of definition and
rigid adherence t > a definition once laid down. If we compare the
meaning of the term “religion” given in the passages now referred
to with the conception of it that is inculcated in the passage quoted
in the introduction to this work we shall be able to estimate the
extreme tenuity of Mr. Wilson’s claim to scientific method. S. S.
�16
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
necine strife between them. On the contrary, they have
ever fought side by side against human reason and Freethought. Can Mr. Wilson find any instance of a stake or
rack or pillory having been used on behalf of revelation
against religion, or on behalf of religion against revela
tion ? It is surely vain for him to say that a sentence like
this: “To obey is better than sacrifice” is revelation,1
while this other is religion: “And the Lord spake unto
Moses, saying .... He among the sons of Aaron that
offereth the blood of the peace offering shall have the
right shoulder. For the wave-breast and the heave
shoulder have i taken of the children of Israel, and have
given them unto Aaron the Priest, and unto his sons by
a statute for ever.” By what process of reading between
the lines does he venture to designate Samuel’s words as
revelation, and God’s words as religion? Mr. Wilson says
that “the cry ‘crucify him, crucify him,’ is the climax and
acme of the ceaseless contest between the lower religious
instincts of the human race and the higher divine light
that pours on men”. But supposing that the crucifixion
really occurred, that the record of it is not (as Eobert
Taylor avers) a Gnostic forgery emanating from Egypt,
that old hotbed of superstition and lies, why should we
regard that crucified “blasphemer” as “the unique
revealer of God ” ? Why should we not regard him as a
son of man, himself the slave of religion, using such poor
reasoning faculty as he possessed to expose the fraud and
hypocrisy of a priesthood ? What Jesus Christ revealed
was human, and not divine; and he died, not as a revealer
at the suit of religion, but as a reasoner at the suit of
revelation. For our knowledge of divinity we are indebted
to the Comforter, who never died for us.
Let Mr. Wilson tell us in his own words what he means
by revelation:
“The word ‘revelation’ implies a theory; it is a way of
regarding and grouping facts. The facts are the history of
man, the development, continuous and discontinuous, of the
spiritual insight and forces of mankind. These facts are what
1 The 15th chapter of 1 Samuel, from which Mr. Wilson quote
these words, is one we should have expected him to ignore, lhe
obedience inculcated by Samuel was an awful crime, and Saul’s clear
duty was to have disobeyed the order.
d
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
17
they are, and we may hope by study to arrive at some know
ledge of them. But we need theories to group facts; and the
theory which is expressed by the word revelation is this, that
man is, in his present condition, a partaker in some inchoate
manner of that controlling universal consciousness which we
call God; which illuminates the mind and conscience of man :
that man is, or possesses, a ^>avepwcri9, a manifestation of God.
The control of God is exhibited in its effects, and one of the
effects is the moral education and evolution of man. The
growth, then, and development of this manifestation of the
spirit of God in man, and by man, and to man, is revelation.”
I fear that Mr. Wilson’s attempt to construct a safe
theory of revelation is as unsatisfactory as his attempt to
deal with inspiration. Why should any “way of regarding
and grouping facts ” be styled revelation and not science ?
What facts are there to be grouped ? The history of man
is not a fact, but a theory resting on facts. The “develop
ment of man’s spiritual insight ” is not a fact, but a theory
resting on fictions. What is “spiritual insight”? from
what has it been developed ? what is it tending to ? Does
not the use of the word “spiritual” beg the whole question
of inspiration and revelation ? Mr. Wilson here seems to
fall into the same error that led Mr. Drummond to argue
for the existence of a spiritual world governed by natural
law.
Human history needs no belief in revelation for group
ing the facts it records. The best historians eschew all
reference to a controlling providence. Sir Archibald
Alison wrote twenty volumes to prove that Providence
was always on the side of the Tories; but who reads Sir
Archibald Alison ? Beal history (such as Gibbon’s) cannot
be written if any such theory as Mr. Wilson’s “Revela
tion ” is used to group its facts.
Let us continue our quotation from Mr. Wilson :
“ To those who are deeply impressed with God’s influence on
the hearts of man, to those who grasp this God-theory—this
revelation-theory—it carries conviction. They read and see the
history of man in its light—they see the Spirit striving with
man—the Eternal Consciousness more and more revealed in the
inchoate, time-bound individual. All the world of nature and
history speaks of God. It is a theory which man cannot per
fectly master, nor apply to every detail, nor prove conclusively
to all minds; but in spite of this it convinces such as grasp it,
�18
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
Discovery becomes indistinguishable from revelation.
the work of God.”
All is
Passing by those parts of this quotation that are to me
incomprehensible, I would ask if this reference to a “ God
theory ” is not either a palpable truism, or a misstatement
of facts. Those who worshipped the Olympian Zeus, or
Venus of the Myrtle-tree, or Diana of Ephesus; those who
built the great temples of Hindustan; the Mahomedans
who say that there is no God but Allah; were not all these
imbued with the God-idea, and did they know of this
eternal strife between revelation and religion ? If on the
other hand the idea of God to which Mr. Wilson refers
implies a being hostile to religion, and governing mankind
by a slow and partial process of revelation, then his sen
tence simply amounts to this, that those who believe it,
believe it. Does this carry conviction to the great and
constantly increasing mass of mankind who cannot grasp
the God-idea ? They cannot “ see the spirit striving with
man”, but they see man’s reason striving with religion
and superstition. Mr. Wilson elsewhere says that it is
found possible by experience “ to feel all human history
instinct with God”.
Does he realize the fact that
those who have once grasped the profound solace of
Materialistic philosophy see all theological dogma instinct
with man ?
With reference to such men, those “who have abandoned
our dogma and are indifferent to our cultus ”, Mr. Wilson
remarks as follows :
“It is perhaps our fault if they think that this is all that
Christianity has to offer. But they do not and cannot escape
from the Christian revelation, even though they call it by
another name. It is light; and in that light some of them live
and walk; and the cultus, the ritual, the OpytTKeia which they
adopt may not be wholly dissimilar to that ‘ pure ’ cultus or
ritual or 6pt}<TK£M of St. James, which consists in charity and
purity and unworldliness, and is, along with the sacraments,
the only Christian ritual ordained in the Bible.”
Here at least is consolation; whether we believe or
reject the dogma, the work of revelation will go on. Why,
then, should we force and strain our reason to accept a
theory which does not depend on our acceptance of it, but
which must remain true whether we accept it or not ?
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
19
Better to maintain the rectitude and supremacy of our
reason, knowing that we shall not lose one iota of the
benefit of revelation. Is this Mr. Wilson’s advice? It
seems unanswerable.
Mr. Wilson’s own position as regards religion seems
to be delineated in the following sentences :—
“ But for the vast mass of mankind it is of far more import
ance to hand down to them and through them the leading
truths of revelation in any form, than to insist on the inade
quacy of the form. Of course men trained, as men ought to he
trained, to criticise and question everything, may feel that the
cultus and dogma of Christianity in its present form, if put
forward and insisted on as absolute, authoritative, exhaustive
truths, are a concealment of the higher light; and their honestyr
compels them to renounce and even to denounce them. But
when such men come in contact with their less critical brethren,
whose convictions and hopes and faiths must be clear, defined,
emphatic, dogmatic, to whom vaguer and more philosophical
expressions convey no meaning, they will discover that the
language in which revelation is transferable to them is, to a far
larger extent than they anticipated before trial, the current
language of cultus and dogma. They will be powerless.to find
another shell for the kernel. Nevertheless, such men will fear
lessly purify their teaching from the grosser dogmas from which
Christian teaching is by no means wholly free, and will try to
contend, to a certain extent, with the lower religious instinct
in the true spirit of their Master, educating their people to feel
the spirit, and not only see the letter.”
Some of this quotation describes the position of Secu
larists as well as of enlightened Churchmen. But in one
essential point our morality differs from theirs. Holding
as we do that the whole nut, shell and kernel alike, is
poisonous, we do not retain a worthless shell for the sake
of the kernel, but we boldly tell our less “critical
brethren ” to beware of both.
So far, therefore, as Mr. Wilson represents a distinct
school of thought, whose influence in the church is on the
increase, we may from this sermon, preached in our great
national cathedral, claim this further concession to Freethought, that religion is hateful, injurious, and of human
origin, and that it is committed to a long and eventually
losing strife. That is a clear advantage. It matters not
that Mr. Wilson would see a divine revelation in the power
that is to overcome religion. Let him cherish the delusion.
�20
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
—we know that it is man’s reason and not God’s spirit
that has maintained the glorious, and soon to be victorious,
conflict.1
III.—Religion
v.
Revelation.
[From the National Reformer of the 30th November, 1884.]
The theory of a ceaseless strife between the spirit of
God and religion, propounded in the remarkable sermon
preached at St. Paul’s Cathedral and recently reviewed
here, is so novel and startling as to justify a closer examination than was then attempted. It is with all the greater
pleasure that we again refer to it, because Mr. Wilson’s
opinions deserve, in no ordinary measure, our respect and
attention ; for no English churchman has made such efforts
as he has to understand the position of Secularists, or has
shown such a disposition to discuss philosophy with us on
terms of equality.
Freethinkers are in the habit of ascribing to human
reason the gradual illumination of man, and his liberation
from superstition. The claim, therefore, that these benefits
are due to the influence or spirit of a God who hates
superstition as much as any Secularist does, is well cal
culated to arrest our attention.
I have already quoted Mr. Wilson’s definition of the
revelation to which he attributes such vast results ; and I
have attempted to show that before his hypothesis can be
placed before us for acceptance he must state with greater
precision what facts there are for theorising about. Of
ourselves we have no knowledge of such facts, and are
entirely dependent on him for information about them.
He tells us the facts are “the history of man, and the
development of the spiritual insight and forces of man
kind ”, It is surely on the propounder of a novel theory
1 The words “Let him cherish the delusion” have a shade of
bitterness, and I should prefer to say * Let biw , if be can, prove
his new position; till it is proved we must hold that it is’man’s
reason, and not God’s spirit, that has maintained the conflict. ”,
S. S.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
21
that the onus lies of defining the historical facts on which
it rests. History contains many facts, but I can recall
none for the grouping of which this hypothesis is required.
Let us enumerate a few; the siege of Troy and the sacri
fice of Polyxena at the tomb of Achilles; the rape of the
Sabine women and the death of Lucretia; the invention
of printing and the discovery of America; the Oxford
movement and the establishment of the Divorce Court.
These facts lend themselves to scientific grouping in every
direction save one; they may be arranged in support of
theories in morals and politics, arts and science, educa
tion and political economy; they will even support Mr.
Wilson’s theory of religion; but the one thing on which
they have no apparent bearing is the ceaseless strife between
a divine revelation and religion.
As regards the so-called facts of spiritual development
on which Mr. AVilson relies, the sermon before us does not
furnish so clear a statement as is contained in a paper
which he read in 1882, before the Church Congress at
Derby, from which therefore we quote as follows:
“ Besides these facts of history and criticism, there are other
facts that cannot be traced to their ultimate origin ; the result
of the evolution of human nature under the influence, as we
believe, of God’s holy spirit; the facts of conscience and con
sciousness, of hope and aspiration and worship, spiritual facts
which have no verification but themselves. With these lies most
of our concern. They contain the germ of the spiritual life
and progress of every man, the inner life which Christian
teaching fosters and trains, till it is supreme. These facts lie
in a region equally beyond authority and Freethought.
I submit that every phrase here used—evolution, con
science, consciousness, aspiration, and worship—requires
definition. At first sight I should say that none of them
implied a fact; but it is possible I may be mistaken.
Still, without definition, we know not what facts are
implied and whether the facts are objective or spiritual.
Here again the onus of definition and proof lies on the
propounder. It is vain to tell men who profess to see no
phsenomena that prove the existence of a God that from
spiritual facts implied in such vague phrases as I have
quoted, and which “ have no verification but themselves ”,
they must admit not only the existence of a God but that
he has a spirit also.
�22
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
Having thus attempted to show that Mr. Wilson's
theory of revelation must remain in the hypothetical stage
until it is duly equipped with scientific definition and
demonstration, we will turn to his a posteriori sketch of
the history of revelation. The first instance he gives of
its existence is when it ‘ ‘ spoke in Moses and made the two
great commandments, love to God and man, stand out
above all else”. I am unaware of this event. Moses is
said to have received ten commandments, one of which
may be read as prescribing love to God (as if love
was ever a creature of command), but they contain
no trace of love to man. The precedence given by
Moses to an enforced and unnatural love of God.
and his silence about human love, far from illumi
nating our race, has caused much of the evil that Mi*.
Wilson attributes to religion. I have already referred to
the second instance of revelation mentioned in the sermon :
“when it spoke in Samuel and taught the nations” that
command which King Saul was dethroned for disobeying.
I am confident that an impartial consideration of the
chapter referred to will lead to the conclusion that Samuel’s
speech was the reverse of illumination. The third instance
is when “ it spoke in David and in the prophets again and
again in words too familiar to need quotation ” : I know
not what passages Mr. Wilson refers to. There are many
verses in David and the prophets that inculcate religion in
its worst form; 1 can recall none that have helped to
suppress it. Then, Mr. Wilson says, from the time of
Ezra, for four centuries “ the natural growth of thought
and revelation was strangled by the grasp of religion”.
Here surely is a new idea introduced into the theory by
the use of the words “natural” and “thought”. Is the
spirit of God a natural force; and has it, like man, the power
of thinking ? But passing this difficulty, methinks that in
these four centuries man’s reason achieved some deeds of
renown. Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius taught; the
Spartans fought at Thermopylae; Sophocles wrote the
“Antigone”; Euclid, the “Elements”; and Lucretius,
the “ Book of Nature ” ; and human art will never surpass
the unknown sculptors of the Venus and the Apollo. We
got on so well in those four centuries when revelation
was hushed that one is tempted to ask if its revival has
bettered us. Let the eighteen centuries of Christianity
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
23
and the twelve centuries of Mahomedanism answer the
query.
After this pause a fresh impetus was given to revelation
by the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. “ Obedience to
the will of God, purity, gentleness, sympathy with all, with
the sinful and the suffering, these and such as these were
the lessons taught by his life.” But it has been asserted
that none of the lofty sayings attributed to Jesus in the
three synoptic gospels were original: they are all said to
have occurred in some earlier writing; and even if we
give him the credit of selecting the best sentiments of those
who went before him, we must not forget that it was he
who said : “ I came not to send peace, but a sword ” (Matt,
x., 44), and that this prediction has been fulfilled. Not
even to his own Church has he brought peace, still less to
the world. “He abolished ritual” ; so did Buddha. He
‘‘broke down barriers of race and caste” ; if so, why do
they still exist? “He introduced no new dogma”; but
the Comforter, that Spirit of God whom he sent—the same,
I presume, who works for our illumination through revela
tion—has introduced much dogma. Of this final effort of
revelation and its success Mr. Wilson says truly: “The
religious instinct is strong; it is deep in human nature,
and at times it would seem as if it had smothered the
revelation of Christ”.
Mr. Wilson has declined to define God. A God who has
a spirit engaged in a ceaseless strife against religion, and
which has been so near failure, suggests paradoxical ideas
that cannot be clothed in definite terms. But though he
does not define, he believes; and on this belief or con
sciousness he founds the theology that he preaches. Many
learned divines hold that a theology resting on conscious
ness is insufficient, and that it requires the support of the
understanding as well. Whether consciousness is of itself
an adequate basis for theology is a question for the theo
logian, and does not concern us. No consciousness or
belief, either in his own mind or the mind of others, can
Influence the earnest student of secular philosophy. To
him such a theory as this, that rests both in its d priori
aspect of hypothesis and in its a posteriori aspect of history,
on unverifiable faets and sentimental consciousness, must
fail to commend itself, even if without it the history of
man were inexplicable.
�24
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
But it is not so : we do not find in our history any
entanglement that is insoluble save by the theory of a
divine spirit; we can group all man’s varied story, by man
himself, his passions and desires, his conscience and reason.
Surely that theory is better which rests on facts that can
be verified, which explains our history, which solves past
difficulty and future doubt—better than one which sets up
an agency whose very existence is an emotion, and whose
interference in mundane affairs is a mystery, for the solu
tion of which we must eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
In these two articles I have tried to look at Mr. Wilson’s
theory from the point of view of a Secularist, and from the
point of view of a Christian. To a Materialist it must
appear illusory. But there are many Christians to whom
it will be welcome as a resting-place, or half-way house.
Those who recognise the hatefulness of religion, the hol
lowness of dogma, the impossibility of miracles, the con
tradiction of inspiration, the supremacy of morals, the
one-ness of human nature, the eternity of matter, and the
persistence of force; who cannot as yet relinquish the idea
of a personal God who takes some interest, however partial
and indirect, in our affairs, and who stands towards us in
some relation that implies mutual obligation—such men
may gladly accept the philosophy of this sermon. I should
be inclined, however, to predict that they will find it is but
a temporary refuge, and that the only secure citadel rests
on the everlasting rocks.
IV.—Authority
v.
Consent.
[From, the National Reformer of 14th December, 1884.]
The honest and persistent expression of secular opinion is
at length producing some effect on the public mind. We
address ourselves to all shades of religious thought. We
meet the unprincipled assertions of interested priests and
their too credulous flocks with satire and disapproval’;
those who show an inclination to argue we invite freely to
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
25
discussion ; and the thoughtful men who see the instability
of the popular conception of religion and who desire to
understand the secular position are met half way, and are
sure of our best help to enable them to grasp those truths
which are our great consolation. As- befits the guardians
and expositors of truth, we strive to keep our walk and
conversation unspotted and free from reproach, so as to
show our fellows that morality is not dependent on belief.
We make all due allowance for the hereditary taint of
bigotry and intolerance, feeling that religion is an instinct
of primitive and uncivilised man, and that its errors arise
from no divine intervention, but from the ignorance and
weakness of our race. Though assured of the ultimate
triumph of truth, we accept with patience and forbearance,
while the contest lasts, the rude buffets, the social and
political disability which the laws of this country allot to
unbelievers, knowing that deep down in the heart of
England lies a feeling of justice, which must eventually
ensure for earnest men and women a fair hearing and no
disfavor. This is all we require; and when we obtain it
we shall gladly leave our own opinions and those of our
opponents to stand or fall by the test of truth.
I have been led to make these remarks on the present
position of Secularists by some statements in a paper on
the limits of Freethought and Authority read by the Rev.
J. M. Wilson at the Church Congress of 1882; because I
think that wide as is that gentleman’s charity, and broad
as are his views, he has failed to perceive that the weight
of authority is on our side, and not on that of his Church.
With much of Mr. Wilson’s paper we may agree. He
has accurately defined Freethought, and appreciates its
value ; he recognises its natural limits, and strongly depre
cates any artificial limits ; he properly urges that between
it and authority there is not a relation of mutual exclusion,
but of mutual inter-dependence ; but when he speaks of
the consent of the past as an authority, and claims for it
in religion and morals the weight of authority, we are
bound to express our dissent.
I shall first quote the sentences where expression is given
to those opinions that I differ from, and having done so I
will state my views as to the real meaning of the words
“Authority” and “Consent”.
After stating that no artificial limit can be imposed on
�26
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
the mind of man, and that even the creeds and tests of a
Church must from time to time be interpreted and revised
so as to bring them into accordance with progressive know
ledge, he proceeds :
“Nor, again, is there any limit to authority. Heredity,
education, the weight given instinctively to established beliefs’
the vast momentum of long-standing habits and institutions,
give to the past an influence on the present, which secures con
tinuity amidst change, and makes progress steady. In other
words, there exists a natural authority, subtle, groundless, far
stronger than any artificial authority, and resented by none.
NV e are held by the past, not to our harm, but our good:
nursed by it, trained by it, for growth and for the right use of
freedom.”
Further on, speaking of the weight of authority in dif
ferent branches of knowledge, he uses these words :
“We shall see that the weight to be assigned to a great
consensus of opinion in the past depends on the subject. In
objective fact it is nil............. In criticism the weight is very
small............. In theology it is far higher.................. In ethics it is
highest of all, because the axioms of ethics—honesty, justice,
patriotism, filial obedience, monogamy, purity—rest on such
an enormous mass of observed facts and experience in human
nature. In these subjects it is so high that we are right in
treating Free Thought, or rather its consequence, free action,
as a crime.”
It seems to me that Mr. Wilson has here confused the
two methods by which a man unable or unwilling to
investigate a subject for himself may arrive at an opinion
thereon without investigation. These methods are reliance
on authority, and reliance on consent. They are of very
different value, but are here treated as identical. We
may form an opinion on the authority of others, if we are
satisfied of the observance of three conditions: (1) That
their sagacity and intelligence is adequate ; (2) that they
have maturely studied the subject under consideration ;
and (3) that they are free from bias, interest, or compul
sion. Given these conditions, and we bow to trustworthy
authority; if they are wanting, we feel hesitation and
distrust. No one would trust the advice or opinion of a
professional man whose intellect, or acquirements, or
integrity was doubtful.
But this highest form of authority is ignored by Mr.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
27
Wilson. When he speaks of authority, he refers to such
influences as these,—heredity, education, long-standing
habits, consensus of past opinion, experience of human
nature. This is not authority but consent. Idle, in
different, or superficial men may use it as a guide, but no
earnest inquirer after truth can accept of it as a limit to,
or substitute for, Freethought. If the “consensus of the
past ” had continued to influence us, slavery would still
have been legal, and scores of wretches would have been
hanged every Monday morning at some modern substitute
for Tyburn. Fortunately, in some respects, we are a
practical people.
To secure the higher form of authority I have described,
absolute freedom of thought is indispensable; and no
thought is free that is bound by the weight of past con
sensus. Knowledge and experience are requisite, but they
must be used as guides and not accepted as limits. Other
wise the thought is fettered, and the opinion valueless as
authority.
In estimating the value of the opinion of another as
authority, the third condition—that of freedom from bias,
self-interest, and compulsion—is of such great importance
that there is apnma facie reason for preferring the opinion
of a Freethinker (I use the word in its common acceptation).
Given equal intelligence and study, the opinion of a man
who incurs obloquy by professing it, is more likely to be
authoritative than that of a man who conforms to Mrs.
Grundy and the “usages of society ”,
The higher form of authority is wanting in regard to
religion. Most dogmas are beyond human intellect, and
no man ever existed whose opinion is authority for be
lieving such a doctrine as the trinity. Nor is the study
that Churchmen bring to bear on religious matters such
as to command our confidence. It has no scientific value,
and is bound by foregone conclusions. I shall wait till
the third condition is seriously claimed for apologists
before I dispute it, merely remarking that martyrdoms do
not consecrate with the halo of authority the opinions for
which men and women have died deaths of agony.
Though every church has its martyr roll, it has also its
black list of those who have suffered for free or for
fettered thought, at its suit, and because they differed
from it. Our fellow men have been so ready to die for all
�28
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
sorts of irrational emotions that it is easier to inquire for
oneself than to decide which of the martyrs is worthy to
be followed as a guide.
I admit, therefore, all the influence claimed for Consent
in the first of the two extracts quoted above. The influence
exists, and has some good and some bad effects : we think
the bad effects preponderate, and we object to its being
elevated into the position of Authority.
Turning to the second extract above quoted, I shall very
briefly state three objections of a more formidable nature
than any hitherto made. Mr. Wilson seems desirous to
impose on Freethought, in regard to morals, far more
stringent bonds than he would impose in regard to religion;
a course that appears to me so dangerous that I shall be
very glad to learn that I have mistaken the drift of his
opinion. My objections are: (1) The six “virtues”
named by Mr. Wilson are not axioms of ethics nor axioms
at all; an axiom must contain a statement of fact or opinion.
(2) Not one of the virtues named implies an idea that can
be transformed into axiomatic shape, resting on past con
sent and adapted for future guidance. Let Mr. Wilson
try, as regards “Patriotism”, to construct an axiom for
the guidance of an Irish Nationalist, or, as regards
“Monogamy”, to construct one for a Turkish Pasha: he
will find that the light thrown by the past on the path of
the future is dim, indirect, and apt to mislead; and that
the “ authority ” of one man is more valuable than the
consent of millions. (3) So soon as Freethought condemns
an ethical rule that rests on past consent, then the crime is
not (as Mr. Wilson asserts) to translate the thought into
action, but to stifle the free thought by pretending that
consent is an authority that supersedes it.
In a word, I agree with Mr. Wilson in identifying
Authority and Freethought. We differ in this, that he
regards Consent as identical with Authority, and therefore
identical with Freethought, while I regard Consent as
opposed to and inconsistent with Authority and Freethought.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
29
V.—On Free Discussion.
[From the National Reformer of December 28th, 1884.]
The following extract from the Edinburgh Review of 1850
(vol. xci., page 525) will be read with interest. The work
reviewed is entitled “Influence of Authority in Matters of
Opinion”, and was published in 1849 by Mr. George
Cornewell Lewis, afterwards Sir G. C. Lewis, Bart., who
was a Cabinet Minister from 1855 till his death in 1863.
A second edition appeared in 1875, and was reviewed by
Mr. Gladstone in the opening article of the first volume of
the A^he^ew/A Century. A reply from the pen of Sir James
Stephen appears at page 270 ; and Mr. Gladstone s re
joinder at page 902 of the same volume. The opinions on
authority and consent which I recently expressed in these
columns were to a great measure based on Sir G. C. Lewis s
book.
Times have changed since 1850, and it can no longer be
said with truth that “public opinion exercises a formidable
repression of infidelity ”, or that “ the avowedly infidel
books that appear are few”. No dogma of religion.is
now so sacred, no pretention so vital, as to preclude dis
cussion from any point of view, however radical.
Mr. Gladstone has thus described Sir G. C. Lewis’ posi
tion : “As a Theist he did not recognise the ark of the
covenant, but he recognised the presence within it as true,
though undefinable ”. {Nineteenth Century, vol. i., p. 921.)
“ There is one circumstance which, in England, impairs
authority in matters of religion, to which Mr. Lewis has not
adverted. It is the state of English law and English opinion
on infidelity.
“ Christianity, we are told, is parcel of the law of England ;
therefore to ‘write against Christianity in general’, to use
the words of Holt, or ‘to impugn the Christian religion
generally’, in those of Lord Kenyon, or ‘ to impeach the esta
blished faith, or to endeavor to unsettle the belief of others,
in those of Justice Bayley, is a misdemeanor at common law,
and subjects the offender, at the discretion of the court, to fine,
imprisonment, and infamous corporal punishment. The statute
law is rather vague. By the 9th and 10th Will. III., cap. 32,
whoever, having been educated a Christian, shall bj writing,
printing, teaching, or advised speaking, deny any one of the
�30
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
persons in the Holy Trinity to be God, or assert that there
are more Gods than one, or deny the Christian religion to
be true, or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa
ment to be of divine authority, shall for the first offence,
be incapable of holding any office or place of trust, civil
or military, and for the second, be imprisoned for three
years, and be incapable of suing in any court of law or equity,
or of accepting any gift or legacy. The punishment for deny
ing the doctrine of the Trinity was repealed in our own times ;
but the remainder of the statute is in full force at this day. It
is true that, in these times, neither the common law nor the
statute is likely to be enforced against a sober, temperate dis
putant. The publisher of the translation of Strauss has not
been punished. But his safety is precarious. If anyone were
so ill-advised as to prosecute him, he must be convicted of libel,
unless the jury should think fit to save him at the expense of
perjury; and we doubt whether the court would venture to
inflict on him a mere nominal sentence.
“ But the repression of infidelity by law is far less formidable
than that which is exercised by public opinion. The author of
a work professedly and deliberately denying the truth of Chris
tianity would become a Pariah in the English world. If he
were in a profession, he would find his practice fall off; if he
turned towards the public service, its avenues would be barred.
In society he would find himself shunned or scorned —even his
children would feel the taint of their descent. To be suspected
of holding infidel opinions, though without any attempt at
their propagation, even without avowing them, is a great mis
fortune. It is an imputation which every prudent man care
fully avoids. Under such circumstances, what reliance can
an Englishman place on the authority of the writers who pro
fess to have examined into the matter, and to have ascertained
the truth? Can he say, ‘Their premises and conclusions are
before the public. If there were any flaw in them, it would
be detected and exposed ’ ? The errors committed or supposed
to be committed by writers on the evidences of Christianity
may be detected, but there is little chance of their being ex
posed. It may, perhaps be safe sometimes to impugn a false
premise, or an unwarranted inference, but never to deny a con
clusion. It is dangerous, indeed, to assert on religious matters
any views with which the public is not familiar. It is to
this immunity from criticism that we owe the rash assumption
of premises, and the unwarranted inferences, with which many
theological writings abound. Facts and arguments are passed
from author to author, which in Secular matters would be dissi
pated in the blaze of free discussion. Theological literature, at
least the portion of it which relates to the doctrines which ‘ are
parcel of the common law ’ has been a protected literature ;
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
31
and much of its offspring has the ricketty distorted form which
belongs to the unhappy bantlings that have been swaddled by
protection.
“ To this state of things we owe the undue importance given
to the few avowedly infidel books which actually appear. They
are like the political libels which creep out in a despotism.
Their authors are supposed to be at least sincere, since they
peril reputation and fortune. 'What could have given popu
larity to ‘ The Nemesis of Faith ’ but the persecution of its
author ? To this also we owe the insidious form in which in
fidelity is usually insinuated—intermixed with professions of
orthodoxy, and conveyed by a hint or a sneer. If Gibbon could
have ventured, in simple and express terms, to assert his dis
belief in Christianity, all his persiflage would have been omitted ;
and the reader, especially the young reader, would have known
that his anti-Christian opinions were the attacks of an enemy—
not the candid admissions of a friend. To this also we owe
much of the scepticism which exists among educated English
men : usiug the word scepticism in its derivative sense—to
express not incredulity, but, doubt. They have not the means
of making a real independent examination of the evidences of
their faith. A single branch of that vast inquiry, if not aided by
taking on trust the results handed down by previous inquirers,
would occupy all the leisure which can be spared from a business
or a profession. All that they think they have time for is to
read a few popular treatises. But they know that these treatises
have not been subjected to the ordeal of unfettered criticism.
As little can they infer the truth of the established doctrine
from the apparent acquiesence of those around them. They
know that they may be surrounded by unbelieving conformists.
And thus they pass their lives in scepticism—in a state of in
decision— suspecting that what they have been taught may
contain a mixture of truth and error which they are unable to
decompose. If a balance could be struck between the infidelity
that is prevented, and the infidelity that is occasioned, by the
absence of free discussion, we have no doubt that the latter
would greatly predominate.”
��iillj
ihww
�
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
Unscientific religion, or: remarks on the Rev. J.M. Wilson's "Attempt to treat some religious questions in a scientific spirit"
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: v, 7-31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Reply to Essays and addresses of Rev. James M. Wilson (Macmillan, 1894). First published in the National Reformer. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N574
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Science
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
S.S.
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 (Unscientific religion, or: remarks on the Rev. J.M. Wilson's "Attempt to treat some religious questions in a scientific spirit"), 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
James M. Wilson
NSS
Religion and science