-
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)