perplexing style of composition. We now know what his opinions were,
when he began to write, and that to express them then would have been
fatal to his success; yet he was not a man to indulge in rank hypocrisy.
He, accordingly, adopted a studied and ambiguous phraseology, which for
long imposed upon the religious public, who put their own interpretation
upon his mystical utterances, and gave him the benefit of any doubts. In
the "Life of Sterling" he threw off the mask, but still was not taken at
his word. Had there been a perfect tolerance of all opinions he would
have begun as he ended; and his strain of composition, while still
mystical and high-flown, would never have been identified with our
national orthodoxy.
I have grave doubts as to whether we possess Macaulay's real opinions on
religion. His way of dealing with the subject is so like the hedging of
an unbeliever that, without some good assurance to the contrary, I must
include him also among the imitators of Aristotle's "caution". Some
future critic will devote himself, like Professor Mohl, to expounding
his ambiguous utterances.
[EVIL OF DISFRANCHISING THE CLERGY.]
When Sir Charles Lyell brought out his "Antiquity of Man" he too was
cautious. Knowing the dangers of his footing, he abstained from giving
an estimate of the extension of time required by his evidences of human
remains. Society in London, however, would not put up with that
reticence, and he had to disclose at dinner parties what he had withheld
from the public--namely, that, in his opinion, the duration of man
could not be less than fifty thousand years.
These few instances must suffice to represent a long history of
compelled reticence on the part of the men best qualified to instruct
mankind. The question now is--What has been gained by it? What did the
condemnation of Socrates do for the Athenian public? What did the chief
priest of Eleusis hope to attain by indicting Aristotle? Unless we can
show, as is no doubt attempted, that the set of opinions that happen to
be consecrated at any one time, whether right or wrong, were essential
to the existence of society,--then the attempt to improve upon them was
truly meritorious, instead of being censurable. If the good of society
as a whole is not plainly implicated, there remains only the interest of
the place-holders under the existing system, as opposed to the interest
of the mass of the people, who are, one and all, concerned in knowing
the truth.
Again contracting the discussion to the narrow limits of the title of
the essay, I must urge the special injury done to mankind by
disfranchising the whole clerical class; that is to say, by depriving
their authority of its proper weight in matters of faith. It is an
incontrovertible rule of evidence, that the authority of an interested
party is devoid of worth. Reasons are good in themselves, whoever utters
them; but in trusting to authority, apart from reason, we need a
disinterested authority. This the clergy at present are not, except on
the points left undecided by the articles. If a man has five thousand a
year, conditional on his holding certain views, his holding those views
says nothing in their favour. For a much less bribe, plenty of men can
be 'got to maintain any opinions whatsoever. When to this is added that,
for certain other views, the holders are subjected to loss--it may be
to fine, imprisonment, or death,--the value of men's adhesion to the
favoured creed, as mere authority, is simply _nil_.
Truth, honesty, outspokenness, are not so well established as virtues,
that we can afford to subject them to discouragement. The contrary
course would be more for the general good in every way. When the law is
intolerant in principle, men will be hypocrites from policy. You cannot
train children to speak the truth if, from whatever cause, they have an
interest in deception. A repressive discipline induces a coarse outward
submission, but cannot reach the inward parts: it only engenders hatred,
and substitutes for open revolt an insidious secret retaliation. Those
only that come under the generous nurture of freedom can be counted on
for hearty and willing devotion. If we would reap the higher virtues, we
must sow on the soil of liberty. Encourage a man to say whatever he
thinks, and you make the most of him; for difficult questions, where the
mind needs all its powers, there should be no burdensome 'caution' in
giving out the results.
* * * * *
[RELAXATION NOW PRESSING.]
The imposing of subscription has its defenders, and these have to be
fairly met. First, however, let us advert to the reasons why relaxation
is more pressing now than formerly.
It is known that, among dissentients from the leading dogmas of the
prevailing creed of Christendom, are to be included some of the most
authoritative names of the last three centuries; our present formulas
would not have been subscribed by Bacon, Newton, Locke, Kant; unless
from mere pliancy and for the sake of quiet, like Hobbes. If they had
been in clerical orders, and had freely avowed their opinions as we know
them, they would have been liable to deposition. Yet the difficulties
that these men might feel were far less than those that now beset the
profession of our prevailing creeds. The advances of knowledge on all
the subjects that come into contact with the various articles, as
received by the orthodox Churches, may not, indeed, compel the
relinquishment of those articles, but will force the holders to change
front, to re-shape them in different forms. To such necessary
modification, the creeds are a fatal obstacle. On a few points, such as
the Creation in six days, these have been found elastic. The doctrine
that death came by the fall has been explained away as spiritual death.
This process cannot go much further, without too much paltering with
obvious meanings. The recently-proclaimed doctrine of the Antiquity of
Man comes into apparent conflict with man's creation and fall, as set
forth in Genesis, on which are suspended the most vital doctrines of our
creed. A reconciliation may be possible, but not without a very
extensive modification of the scheme of the Atonement. It is not
necessary to press Darwin's doctrine of Evolution; the deficiency of
positive proof for that hypothesis may always be pleaded, as against the
havoc it would make with the more distinctive points of Christian
doctrine. But the existence of man on the earth, at the very lowest
statement, must be carried back twenty thousand years; this is not
hypothesis, but fact. The record of the creation and the fall of man
will probably have to be subjected to a process of allegorising, but
with inevitable loss. Now, whoever refuses a matter of fact counts on
being severely handled; it is a different thing to refuse an allegory.
The modern doctrine named the "struggle for existence" is the old
difficulty, known as "the origin of evil," presented in a new shape. It
is rendered more formidable, as a stumbling-block to the benevolence of
the Author of nature, by making what was considered exceptional the
rule. It gathers up into one comprehensive statement the scattered
occasions of misery, and reveals a system whereby the few thrive at the
expense of the many. The apologist for Divine goodness has thus an
aggravation of his load, and needs to be freed from all unnecessary
trammels in the shaping of his creed.
[OPPOSING DOGMAS TO THE RECONCILED.]
It has not escaped attention, that the honours paid to the illustrious
Darwin, are an admission that our received Christianity is open to
revision. In consequence of a few conciliatory phrases, Darwin has been
credited with theism; nevertheless he has ridden rough-shod over all
that is characteristic in our established creeds. Can the creeds come
scathless out of the ordeal?
It is passing from the greater to the less, to dwell upon the increasing
difficulties connected with the Inspiration of the Bible. The
Church-of-Englander luckily escapes making shipwreck here; the legal
interpretation of the formularies saves him. Yet to mankind, generally,
it seems necessary that a superior weight should attach to a revealed
book; and the other Churches cling to some form of inspiration,
notwithstanding the growing difficulties attending it. Here too there
must be more freedom given to the men that would extricate the
situation. At all events, the doctrine should be made an open question.
Even Cardinal Newman suggests doubts as to its being an imperative
portion of the creed.
The attacks made on all sides against the Miraculous element in religion
will force on a change of front. When an eminent popular writer and
sincere friend of the Church of England surrenders miracles without the
slightest compunction, it needs not the elaborate argumentation of
"Supernatural Religion" to show that some new treatment of the question
is called for. But may it not be impossible to put the new wine into the
sworn bottles?
Like most great innovations, the proposal to liberate the clergy from
all restraint as to the opinions that they may promulgate, necessarily
encounters opposition. We are, therefore, bound to consider the reasons
on the other side.
These reasons may be quoted in mass. As regards Established Churches in
particular, it is said there is a State compact or understanding with
the clergy that they should teach certain doctrines and no other; that
if tests were abolished, there would be no security against the most
extreme opinions; men eating the bread of a Reformed Church might
inculcate Romanism instead of Protestantism; the pulpits might give
forth Deism or Agnosticism. No sect could hope to maintain its
principles, if the clergy might preach any doctrine that pleased
themselves. More especially would it be monstrous and unjust, to allow
the rich benefices of our highly endowed Church of England to be enjoyed
by men whose hearts are in some quite different form of religion, or no
religion, and who would occupy themselves in drawing men away from the
faith.
On certain assumptions, these arguments have great force. Clearly a man
ought not to take pay for doing one thing and do something quite
different. When a body of religionists come together upon certain
tenets, it would be a _reductio ad absurdum_ for any of its ministers to
be occupied in denying and controverting these tenets.
All this supposes, however, that men will not be made to conform by any
means short of prosecution and deprivation; that the suspending of a
severe penalty over men's heads is in itself a harmless device; and that
religious systems are now stereotyped to our satisfaction, so that to
deviate from them is mere wantonness and love of singularity. Such are
the assumptions that we feel called upon to challenge.
The plea that the Church has engaged itself to the State to teach
certain tenets, in return for its emoluments and privileges, has lost
its point in our time. 'L'état, c'est moi.' The Church and the State are
composed of the same persons. Gibbon's famous _mot_ has collapsed. 'The
religions of the Roman world,' he says, 'were all considered by the
people as equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the
magistrate as equally useful' The people are now their own magistrates,
and the true and the useful must contrive to unite upon the same thing.
If the Church feels subscription and fixity of creed a burden, it has
only to turn its members to account in their capacity of citizens of the
State to relieve itself. If it silently ignores the creed, it is still
responsible mainly to itself.
[POSSIBLE ABUSES OF CLERICAL FREEDOM.]
The more serious objection is the possible abuse of the freedom of the
clergy to utter opinions at variance with the prevailing creed. This
position needs a careful scrutiny.
In the first place, the argument: supposes a condition of things that
has now ceased. When creeds were accepted in their literality by the
bodies professing them, when the state of general opinion contained
nothing hostile, and suggested no difficulties,--for any one member of a
body to turn traitor may have well seemed mere perversity, temper, love
of singularity, or anything but a wish to get at truth. The offence
assumed the character of a moral obliquity, and discipline can never be
relaxed for immorality proper.
All the circumstances are now changed. The ministers and members of
religious communities no longer cherish the same set of doctrines with
only immaterial varieties; they no longer accept their articles in the
sense of the original framers. The body at large has contracted the
immoral taint; the whole head is sick; any remaining soundness is not
with the acquiescent mass, but with the out-spoken individuals. In such
a state of things, ordinary rules are inapplicable. There is a sort of
paralysis of authority, an uncertainty whether to punish or to wink at
flagrant heresy. To say in such a case that the relaxation of the creed
is not a thing to be proposed, is to confess, like Livy on the condition
of Rome, that we can endure neither our vices nor their remedies.
Too much has at all times been made of individual divergences from the
established creed. The influence of a solitary preacher smitten with the
love of heretical peculiarity has been grossly overrated. The assumption
is, that his own flock will, as a matter of course, follow their
shepherd; that is to say, the adhesion of individual congregations to
the creed of the Church depends upon its being faithfully reproduced by
their regular minister. Such is not by any means the fact; the creed of
the members of a Church is not at the mercy of any passing influence.
It has been engrained by a plurality of influences; one man did not make
it, and one man cannot unmake it. Moreover, allowance should be made for
the spirit of opposition found in Church members, as well as in other
people.
[INDIVIDUAL DIVERGENCES UNIMPORTANT.]
It may be said that persons ought not to be subjected to the annoyance
of hearing attacks upon their hereditary tenets, in which they expect
to be more and more confirmed by their spiritual teacher. This is of
course, in itself, an evil. We are not to expect ordinary men to
recognise the necessity of listening to the arguments against their
views, in order to hold these all the stronger. If this height were
generally reached, every Church would invite, as a part of its
constituted machinery, a representative of all the heresies afloat; a
certain number of its ministers should be the avowed champions of the
views most opposed to its own--_advocati diaboli_, so to speak. There
would then be nothing irregular in the retention of converts from its
own number to these other doctrines. It would be, however, altogether
improper to found any argument on the supposition of such a state of
matters.
It is an incident of every institution made up of a large collection of
officials, that some one or more are always below the standard of
efficiency, whence those that depend on their services must suffer
inconvenience. A great amount of dulness in preaching has always to be
tolerated; so also might an occasional deviation from orthodoxy; the
more so, that the severity of the discipline for heresy has a good deal
to do with the dulness.
If heretical tendencies have shown themselves in a Church communion,
either they are absurd, unmeaning, irrelevant--perhaps a reversion to
some defunct opinion,--or they are the suggestion of new knowledge in
theology, or outside of it. In the first case, they will die a natural
death, unless prosecution gives them importance; in the other case, they
are to be candidly examined, to be met by argument rather than by
deposition. An individual heretic can always be neglected; if he is
enthusiastic and able, he may have a temporary following, especially
when the community has sunk into torpor. If two or three in a hundred
adopt erroneous opinions, it is nothing; if thirty or forty in a hundred
have been led astray, the matter hangs dubious, and discretion is
advisable. When a majority is gained, the fulness of the time has
arrived; the heresy has triumphed.
* * * * *
However strong may be the theoretical reasons for the abolition of the
penal sanctions to orthodoxy, they do not dispense with the confirmation
of experience; and I must next refer to the more prominent examples of
Churches constituted on the principle of freedom to the clergy.
[THE ENGLISH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH EXEMPLARY.]
The most remarkable and telling instance is that furnished by the
English Presbyterian Church, with its coadjutor in Ireland. The history
of this Church is not unfamiliar to us; the great lawsuit relating to
Lady Hewley's charity gave notoriety to the changes of opinion that had
come over it in the course of a century. But whoever is earnest on the
question as to the expediency of tests should study the history
thoroughly, as being in every way most instructive. The leading facts,
as concerns the present argument, are mainly these:--
First, the great decision at the Salters' Hall conference, on the 10th
of March, 1719, when, by a majority of 73 to 69, it was resolved to
exact no test from the clergy as a condition of their being ordained
ministers of the body. The point more immediately at issue was the
Trinity, on which opinions had been already divided; but the decision
was general. The principle of the right of private judgment admitted of
no exceptions.
Second. Long before this decision, the minds of the ministers had been
ripening to the conviction, that creeds and subscriptions could do no
good, and often did harm, indeed, the terms employed by some of them are
everything that we now desire. For example, Joseph Hunter, on the eve of
the decision, wrote thus: "We have always thought that such human
declarations of faith were far from being eligible on their own account,
since they tend to narrow the foundations of Christianity and to
restrain that latitude of expression in which our great Legislator has
seen fit to deliver His Will to us".
Third. Most remarkable is it to witness the consequences of this great
act of emancipation. A hundred and sixty-five years have elapsed--a
sufficient time for judging of the experiment. The Presbyterian body at
the time were made up partly of Arians, partly of Trinitarians, who held
each other in mutual tolerance; the ministers freely exchanging pulpits.
No bad consequence followed. We do not hear of individual ministers
going to extravagant lengths in either direction. A large body
gravitated, in the course of time, to the modern Unitarian position;
but, considering the start, the stride was not great. In such a century
as the eighteenth, there might well have been greater modifications of
the creeds than actually occurred. Evidently, in the absence of any
compulsory adherence to settled articles, there was an abundant tendency
to conservatism. Commencing with Baxter, Howe, and Calamy, we find, in
the course of the century, such names as Lardner, Price, Priestley,
Belsham, Kippis, James Lindsay, Lant Carpenter--men of liberal and
enlightened views on all political questions, and earnest in their good
works. These men's testimony to what is truth in religion, is of more
value to us than the opinions of the creed-bound clergy. Reason is still
reason, but the weight of authority is with the free enquirers.
Fourth. The history of the Presbyterians answers a question that may be
properly asked of the creed-abolitionist; namely, What bond is left to
hold a religious community together? The bond, in their case, simply was
voluntary adhesion and custom. A religious community may hold together,
like a political party, with only a vague tacit understanding. When a
body is once formed, it has an outward cohesion, which is quite enough
for maintaining it in the absence of explosive materials. The
established Churches could retain their historical continuity under any
modification of the articles. By the present system, they have been
habituated to take their creed as their legal definition; for that they
could substitute their history and framework.
* * * * *
[MODES OF TRANSITION FROM THE PRESENT SYSTEM.]
Various modes have been suggested for making the transition from the
present system.
One way is, to fall back upon the Bible as a test. This is the same as
no test at all. A man could not call himself a Christian minister, if he
did not accept the Bible in some sense; and it would be obviously
impracticable to frame a libel, and conduct a process for heresy, on an
appeal to the Old and New Testaments at large. The Bible may be the
first source of the Christian faith, but other confluent streams have
entered into its development; and we must accept the consequences of a
fact that we cannot deny. However much religion may have to be broadened
and liberalised, the operation cannot consist in reverting to the
literal phraseology of the Bible.
A second method is, to prune away the portions of the creed that are no
longer tenable. It could not have been intended by the original framers
of the creeds, that they should remain untouched for centuries. With
many Churches, there was a clear understanding that the formulas should
be revised at brief intervals. The non-established Churches show a
disposition to resume this power. The United Presbyterian Church of
Scotland has had the courage to make a beginning; still, relief will not
in this way be given to minorities, and small changes do not correspond
to the demands of new situations.
A more effectual mode is to discourage and suspend prosecutions for
heresy. The practice of heresy-hunting might be allowed to fall into
disuse. Instead of deposing heretics, the orthodox champions should
simply refute them.
In the Church of England, in particular, a change of the law may be
necessary to give the desired relaxation. The judges before whom
heretics are tried are very exacting in the matter of evidence, but they
cannot stop a prosecution made in regular form. The Church of Scotland
has more latitude in this respect, and has already given indications of
entering on the path leading to desuetude.[17]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 17: See, at the end, Notes and References on the history and
practice of Subscription and Penal Tests.]
* * * * *
IX.
THE PROCEDURE OF DELIBERATIVE BODIES.[18]
That great institution of political liberty, the Deliberative Assembly,
seems to be on the eve of breaking down. I do not speak merely of the
highest assembly in the country, but of the numerous smaller bodies as
well, from many of which a cry of distress may be heard. The one evil in
all is the intolerable length of the debates. Business has increased,
local representative bodies have a larger membership than formerly, and,
notwithstanding the assistance rendered by committees, the meetings are
protracted beyond bounds.
In this difficulty, attention naturally fastens, in the first instance,
on the fact that the larger part of the speaking is entirely useless;
neither informing nor convincing any of the hearers, and yet occupying
the time allotted for the despatch of business. How to eliminate and
suppress this ineffectual oratory would appear to be the point to
consider. But as Inspiration itself did not reveal a mode of separating
in advance the tares from the wheat, so there is not now any patent
process for insuring that, in the debates of corporate bodies, the good
speaking, and only the good speaking, shall be allowed.
Partial solutions of the difficulty are not wanting. The inventors of
corporate government--the Greeks, were necessarily the inventors of the
forms of debate, and they introduced the timing of the speakers. To this
is added, occasionally, the selection of the speakers, a practice that
could be systematically worked, if nothing else would do. Both methods
have their obvious disadvantages. The arbitrary selection of speakers,
even by the most impartial Committee of Selection, would, according to
our present notions, seem to infringe upon a natural right, the right of
each member of a body to deliver an opinion, and give the reasons for
it. It would seem like reviving the censorship of the press, to allow
only a select number to be heard on all occasions.