1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/28972e27d591285fe8c40c74b0daf119.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LLpxcuRKY81gHQLTUB3C5imc3sMXIYbjQCa3AAVgUTiLyLjrNso1zzJ149VZHjQyzJxMqN-q3DO3RYsHsivfGtEYyo4vELOEgWlEGrbwBhMKVv9oIsbWd1h2kMx3DI5WFJNrrPmGO2PMq-FA8TBXgsBxj-RkWWsNyAoXUNqwL7L0D7ZVQfsMtvwuZRzcr5SEuAjf9YtltvIk1UNcN8FFVULM6JrG6-oZ%7Ee9QSbGupEmQXWdR9bYbQcpeZ9Cdh%7EMbhXogNtcJfHre1v1xEDmnsrhBtyjD1-1C%7EPjpfoEXDQO3SBWOWkd96coH3wF0lJx5Ix-QURqIvBwzkIOh4-bl8Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d4d97a6a7f1e1d50f9fd42fe59f2dd8f
PDF Text
Text
THE
No. 25.] LANGHAM HALL PULPIT.
[june30,i878
(tljmm lU'itljx'i’
ism. Smmdmni, nnr
■ —:
aWFW/L
JL
-v ■
i
*
/w>
SZEZRGXZEOIT
PREACHED AT THE LANGHAM HALL, JUNE 23rd, 1878, BY
REV. CHARLES VOYSEYV
1 Cor. xiv. 8.—“ If the trumpet give an uncertain sound,
who shall prepare himselffor the battle ? ”
A Conference was held at South Place Chapel, Finsbury,
on the 13 th and 14th inst. convened by means of the following
circular.
a,
Pt.ACJ CHAPEL,
*
11 South Place, Finsbury,
London, E.C.
The Minister and Committee of the Religious Society meeting at South Place
solicit your attendance at a General Conference of Liberal Thinkers, to be held
here on June 13th and 14th, 1878, from 12 to 5 p.m. each day, for the discussion of
matters pertaining to the religious needs of our time, and the methods of meeting
them.
In assuming the initiative in this matter, our Society has no disposition to
commit anyone who may accept this invitation to any opinions held by its minister
or members. It is actuated by a desire to promote the unsectarian and liberal
religion of the age, now too much impeded by isolation and by misunderstandings
among those really devoted to common aims, and to utilise its building and organiza
tion for that purpose.
At the proposed Conference it is hoped that persons may be gathered who,
though working in connection with particular organizations, yet acknowledge no
authority above Truth, and are interested in the tendency to that universal religion
which would break down all partition walls raised by dogma and superstition between
race and race, man and man.
It is believed that light and strength may be gained for each and all by earnest
and frank consultation concerning such subjects as the relation of liberal thinkers
S0UTI1
Rev. C. Voysey’s sermons are to be obtained at Langham Hall,
43 Great Portland Street, every Sunday Morning, orfrom the Author
(by post), Camden House, Dulwich, S.H.
Price one penny.
�2
to the sectarian divisions of the world; their duties of negation and affirmation, and
the practical methods of advancing their principles.
The proposed meeting will he informal in its constitution, no regular represen
tation being at present in view, the assembly being thus left free to adopt any prac
tical course for the future that shall appear desirable.
A careful report of the proceedings will be printed.
Your reply, whieh it is hoped will be favourable, together with the names and
addresses of such persons as you believe would be interested in the proposed Con
ference, may be sent to Mr. MONCURE D. CONWAY, Hamlet House, Hammer
smith, London, W.
I will ask any candid religious person what possible objection
he could make to the terms of this circular. Indeed, I will go
further, and say, that it reflects great credit on those who drew
it up, and that, had the programme but been adhered to, few
conferences could have been more timely or more useful. The
wonder is that there was not a rush of earnest religious men
from every Church and Sect in the kingdom to bear their part
in discussing the religious needs of our time, and the methods
of meeting them. The archbishops and bishops in their
palaces, the deans and dignitaries of the Church, clergy of all
shades of opinion, ministers of religion among the Noncon
formists, active influential laymen, peers of the realm, mem
bers of Council and Legislature, philanthropists of every
school—in short, all men and women who are above frivolity,
and whose lives are occupied in useful work, might well have
been expected to be drawn together by such an invitation, by
such an admirable project. The object was exalted, it was set
forth in plain terms, free
office; and, lest any should
be deterred by a knowledge of the traditions or present charac
teristics of the place of assembly, the promoters wisely and
laudably stated in their circular that they had no desire to
commit any of the attendants of the Conference to their own
particular views.
Speaking for myself, it disarmed all opposition, and I was
ready at once to throw myself into the scheme, and to con
tribute, to the best of my power, to the deliberations of the
assembly. Looking round at the various schools of religious
thought, I could not but feel that the proposed object of the
Conference belonged even more to us than to any other asso
ciation. Our work was inaugurated, and has been manfully
maintained for no other purpose in the world than to study the
religious needs of our time, and to endeavour to meet them.
The very defects of our work are in one sense its merits. We
have aimed at providing a path easy and pleasant for those
who were weary and footsore in their search after reasonable
religion. We have tried to make the transition from old to
new as gentle and safe as was consistent with strict integrity.
�We have thrown away nothing that we could conscientiously
retain; we have retained nothing that we could not conscien
tiously use. We have added nothing that did not give promise
of being a grateful substitute for cast-off forms. It is not
perfect; it is purposely left open to correction and improve
ment, to suit our spiritual growth and the new needs of a
coming time. But from first to last it is an effort to recog
nize the religious needs actually before our eyes, and to meet
them with a reasonable satisfaction. A Conference professing
to be an interchange of thought on such a theme between
really religious people could not fail to be an attraction for us;
and again I say the proposal deserved our high appreciation
and our genuine thanks.
But the promise so fair, so fascinating, was only made to be
broken. The expectations raised by it were doomed to disap
pointment. Compared with the terms of the circular by which
the Conference was summoned the meeting was a signal failure.
In the first place we heard little or nothing of the “ religious
needs of our time,” and a great deal of downright, and some
vulgar, Atheism; one of the speakers going so far as to wish
to expunge the very name of religion from the face of the
earth. Allusions were also made to recent prosecutions for
illegal publications and were designated as “tyrannous.”
Women’s rights [which in one place and on some lips is a
term signifying all that is just and good and pure, and in
another place and on otherIip£^plies just the opposite] were
imported into the discussion; and when we Remember what
this phrase is associated with in America, we cannot but fear
that the reference to it in connexion with these prosecution s
was as dangerous to morals as to religion.
Speeches of this
tendency were not checked, but greeted with vociferous ap
plause. Very soon it became manifest that the main object
of the Conference as stated in the circular was ignored or
forgotten, and superseded by an entirely new one. This was
the formation of an association of all “Liberal thinkers ” for
their protection against the social and other consequences of
Their free thought. It was proposed to swamp all differences
between Atheists and Theists, and to unite for political and
social aims. In short the Conference wished to drop religion
altogether out of its programme, or to treat Faith in God as
a matter of perfect indifference or of curiosity, and only to
be tolerated in any members of the Association, so long as
they kept it out of sight and did not obtrude it upon the notice
of the body corporate.
�4
Considering the position I occupy, and the work which by
your faithful exertions I have been enabled to carry on for
so many years, I could not but think that such an assembly
was the very last place in which I ought to be seen.
I
formally withdrew from it on the ground of my objection to
certain speeches, and the evident favour with which they were
received.
If Liberal thinkers, as they call themselves, hold, to any
appreciable extent, atheism in religion, radicalism in politics
and socialism in morals, they are of course at liberty to make
any alliance they please, and for any object that may take
their fancy; but it is monstrous to expect to be joined by
those to whom atheism is a distressing and dangerous evil, to
whom radicalism is utterly distasteful, and to whom socialism
is revol ting.
*
To unite such wholly discordant elements for
any purpose would be a foolish enterprise; but when it is pro
fessed that they should coalesce in order to prosecute some
end which is called “ religious,” the absurdity is too palpable
to require exposure.
No doubt every man who has devoutly thought for himself
in matters of religion is more or less averse from the orthodox
dogmas; and in this one point alone could there ever be found
a meeting-place or common ground for the Theist and Atheist.
It was thought by some speakers at the Conference that this
would be sufficiently wide to^admit nf organised co-operation
between the two; but I venture to think that it could not be
made available without the entire submission and suppression
of religious belief, and the consequent dominance of Atheism.
There is a vast number of Theists, who, like myself, feel that
notwithstanding all our repugnance to orthodoxy and our de
sire to sweep it away, we are nearer in our sympathies to the
Orthodox than we are to the Athejst—at least such types as
were heard at the Conference. If in fact it were deemed de
sirable to organise a league to destroy any objectionable form
of thought, it would be more natural, and I think more wise,
for TheistB to join with the orthodox against Atheism than
• The term radicalism, I think, is somewhat ambiguous. Some may call them
selves “ radicals,” who do not hold what I here mean by radicalism. It is the
extreme of opposition to the constitution and aristocratic institutions of the country.
It seeks revolution, and only waits its opportunity to overthrow existing authority.
It avails itself of every chance to vilify and endeavour to bring into contempt es
tablished law, and desires nothing so much as a commune. But in objecting to it,
I do not forget that this kind of radicalism is not confined to socialist agitators and
low prints, but is exhibited in one of its aspects by that section of the clergy who
band together to set the law of England at defiance, and to pour contempt on our
Highest Courts of Justice,
�5
for Theists to join with the Atheists to put down orthodoxy.
But I question the advantage of such organizations at all. I
believe that the determined resistance offered by the power
ful, the influential and the lovers of order in our middle classes,
to the very beginning of free thought in religion, is due
entirely to the dread as to where it may lead. In religion,
they say, it may land us in utter Atheism; in politics it may
end in radicalism and revolution; in social morals to their
corruption and decay.—The dread of these evils has not only
kept back many excellent and generous-minded persons from
daring to think at all independently on religion ; but is now
keeping away from our side many who are quite convinced of
the superiority of our beliefs over those of orthodoxy, and who
would not scruple to come forward and help us boldly, if they
were quite sure that there was no danger of any of those evils,
and that they would run no risk of being mixed up with that
class of “ Liberal thinkers.”
If such an alliance as was proposed at the Conference were
to be entered into between Theists and such Atheists, it would
entirely frustrate the end in view, viz., the dissolution of or
thodoxy. . In my opinion, even if our feeling and taste
permitted it, such an alliance would have the effect of making
orthodoxy stronger than ever, of consolidating its loose and
crumbling walls, and of firing its defenders with a fresh
enthusiasm in its defence. / Jhey would feel not only that
their religion was in danger, but their social and moral peace
was threatened too; and the struggle which would then be
really undertaken on behalf of the common welfare of society
would give new security and new life to the dogmas which had
been attacked. Not by elements such as made themselves
manifest at South Place will orthodoxy ever be dethroned.
Free thought in religion was not the only or the chief object
sought by some of the promoters of this alliance. Free thought
means on their lips much more than that; and it is this arriere
pensee which lovers of order really dislike even more than they
dread Atheism.
The Conference will have done good, however, if it should
prove to have led to a better and more accurate discernment
of our own work and objects; if it should lead to the correc
tion of those misunderstandings and misrepresentations where
by we suffer from undeserved suspicions and lose the help of
those#whose sympathies we have already gained. We let it be
known then, once for all, that our sole purpose is a religious
one; that our quarrel with orthodoxy is not that it is too reli
�6
gious, but not religious enough ; that we want to elevate and
strengthen faith in the Living God and not to knock it down
and trample on it; that we aim at the preservation of social
order and of all domestic virtues, to deepen the respect of man
to man and not to sow the seeds of class-hatred and party
strife ; to seek after all new truth wherever it may be found;
but always to regard our treasure as a precious trust for the
benefit of mankind. The Atheistical party at South Place,
were apt to wind up their speeches by some brilliant appeal
on behalf of humanity. Let them not forget that our belief
in God adds to the sentiment the highest sanction and man
date of conscience, and that we are not one whit behind them
in desiring and seeking to release mankind from its burdens.
Let them and ourselves also remember that the best and
highest of philanthropists are still religious men, orthodox
Christians or orthodox Jews, and believers in God, and that it
is really an affectation on their part or on ours, if they or we
pretend to be setting up an altogether fresh standard of
human brotherly love. No doubt orthodox people need deli
verance from some bondage—such as we call superstition,
sacerdotalism, and spiritual fear. But do we not also need
deliverance from our own class of prejudices, bigotry and
intolerance, and much irrepressible conceit of which Atheism
is the most prolific mother ? If we wish to uproot the errors
of orthodox people we must show them some better and higher
truths in their place. If we wish to give them better spiritual
food, we must provide a real banquet for their hungering
and thirsting souls, and not make them sit down before empty
tables. It is hard enough for the most joyous and enlightened
believer to gain a hearing for his higher truth about God and
human destiny from orthodox people; how then can they be
expected to listen to those who not only deny God’s existence
altogether, but trample on His holy name in jubilant
blasphemy ?
We must, however, record our deep regret that that kind of
Atheism or Agnosticism (which is so often forced upon the
wearied and baffled mind rather than sought by the rebellious
and proud spirit) should be exposed to social disabilities. Too
often, men cannot help their convictions, especially in matters
of religion. No honest convictions should ever be visited with
punishment, not even with disrespect. On this ground I would
never have raised my voice against unbelievers, of whom I have
always spoken respectfully. But it is quite another matter
when an alliance is offered for our acceptance, by which our
�7
whole position and work would be compromised. Then is the
time when a protest may fairly be made; and the line drawn
in conspicuous colour between that party and ourselves; so
that no one may have the shadow of an excuse for suspecting
us of sympathies from which we utterly revolt. It is the
common right of all to make known our own individual posi
tions, our beliefs, our denials, our aims, social, or political or
religious; and therefore I felt bound to repudiate, with what
emphasis I could summon, all complicity with the opinions,
sympathies, and purposes expressed by the majority at the
South Place Conference of Liberal Thinkers.
I feel it also my duty to express profound regret that the
word “ religion ” has found a place in the list of the Rules of
the Association. It will mislead thousands, it has misled
some already. If the new Association care for what is generally
understood by religion, by all means let them adopt the right
name for it; but if in one breath they vilify and ridicule
religion, or give definitions of it, carefully excluding not only
the name but all idea of God, and then say that the promotion
of religion is one of their chief objects, then I deliberately
accuse them of making a fraudulent use of words—for what
purpose I do not assign—but nevertheless a wilful perversion
of a word which to 99 out of every 100 persons has a meaning
diametrically opposed to the meaning it has on the lips of the
Association.
r' '
I bear them no ill-will. I can but regret that men are so
divided as we are and must be in our present state of partial
knowledge. I am sorry that I have had to protest against
their proceedings, and to decline an alliance with them. But
I should have been far more full of regret and even of shame
had I left it uncertain whether I approved of their scheme or
not; had I left a single loop-hole for the accusation that my
sympathies were enlisted on their side.
�•••',»/ o IT ♦Taai.irtw■ > • d
?h - z
T ' t, .•. .T . ' .
*
f
!1!f iBil -Olh.
<> Ot fc.
k
■ f fl fr i -f t»:,» ■
*
- #ft T H ? 1i ©'' > ;■
r<t;k» he,i Tiuff
„S r
■
ffft fapi♦y.’h’tJS O’-r JMflij v ■■» ': tf 'tflKYIl C T .' 1 f
It; ’ M * i 1 ) ‘Of
i> ar ii .Ho/if
<y?ja
tikrtl
hwhi rbffif
i» irxrii Xj
’.i 1 IflO
iad f 4
■ tnw- uj
(jl s,
LONDON.
Printed by UPFIELTWrREEN, Tenter Street,
Moorgate Street, E.C.
■\Sj|
' ■ nn as’ii-i
'i
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Theism neither radicalism, socialism, nor atheism: a sermon preached at the Langham Hall, June 23rd, 1878
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Voysey, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 7 p. ; 23 cm.
Series: Langham Hall Pulpit
Series No.: 25
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The Langham Hall Pulpit, June 30, 1878. Printed by Upfield Green, Moorgate Street, E.C.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1878
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5588
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theism
Atheism
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 (Theism neither radicalism, socialism, nor atheism: a sermon preached at the Langham Hall, June 23rd, 1878), 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
Atheism
Conway Tracts
Radicalism
Theism