1864-65.--It often happens that persons combine to maintain and enforce an opinion; but it is, in our state of society, a paradox to unite for the sole purpose of blaming the opposite side. To invite educated men to do this, and above all, men of learning or science, is the next paradoxical thing of all. But this was done by a small combination in 1864. They got together and drew up a _declaration_, to be signed by "students of the natural sciences," who were to express their "sincere regret that researches into {255} scientific truth are perverted by some in our own times into occasion for casting doubt upon the truth and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures." In words of ambiguous sophistry, they proceeded to request, in effect, that people would be pleased to adopt the views of churches as to the _complete_ inspiration of all the canonical books. The great question whether the Word of God is _in_ the Bible, or whether the Word of God is _all_ the Bible, was quietly taken for granted in favor of the second view; to the end that men of science might be induced to blame those who took the first view. The first public attention was drawn to the subject by Sir John Herschel,[406] who in refusing to sign the writ sent to him, administered a rebuke in the _Athenaeum_, which would have opened most eyes to see that the case was hopeless. The words of a man whose _suaviter in modo_ makes his _fortiter in re_[407] cut blocks with a razor are worth preserving:
"I consider the act of calling upon me publicly to avow or disavow, to approve or disapprove, in writing, any religious doctrine or statement, however carefully or cautiously drawn up (in other words, to append my name to a religious manifesto) to be an infringement of that social forbearance which guards the freedom of religious opinion in this country with especial sanctity.... I consider this movement simply mischievous, having a direct tendency (by putting forward a new Shibboleth, a new verbal test of religious partisanship) to add a fresh element of discord to the already too discordant relations of the Christian world.... But no nicety of wording, no artifice of human language, will suffice to discriminate the hundredth part of the shades of meaning in which the most world-wide differences of thought on such subjects may be involved; or prevent the most gentle worded and apparently justifiable expression of regret, so embodied, from grating on the {256} feelings of thousands of estimable and well-intentioned men with all the harshness of controversial hostility."
Other doses were administered by Sir J. Bowring,[408] Sir W. Rowan Hamilton,[409] and myself. The signed declaration was promised for Christmas, 1864: but nothing presentable was then ready; and it was near Midsummer, 1865, before it was published. Persons often incautiously put their names without seeing the _character_ of a document, because they coincide in its _opinions_. In this way, probably, fifteen respectable names were procured before printing; and these, when committed, were hawked as part of an application to "solicit the favor" of other signatures. It is likely enough no one of the fifteen saw that the declaration was, not _maintenance_ of their own opinion, but _regret_ (a civil word for _blame_) that others should _think differently_.
When the list appeared, there were no fewer than 716 names! But analysis showed that this roll was not a specimen of the mature science of the country. The collection was very miscellaneous: 38 were designated as "students of the College of Chemistry," meaning young men who attended lectures in that college. But as all the Royal Society had been applied to, a test results as follows. Of Fellows of the Royal Society, 600 in number, 62 gave their signatures; of writers in the _Philosophical Transactions_, 166 in number, 19 gave their signatures. Roughly speaking, then, only one out of ten could be got to express disapprobation of the free comparison of the results of science with the statements of the canonical books. And I am satisfied that many of these thought they were signing only a declaration of difference of opinion, not of blame for that difference. The number of persons is not small who, when it comes to signing printed documents, would put their names to a declaration that the coffee-pot ought to be taken down-stairs, meaning that the teapot ought to be brought {257} up-stairs. And many of them would defend it. Some would say that the two things are not contradictory; which, with a snort or two of contempt, would be very effective. Others would, in the candid and quiet tone, point out that it is all one, because coffee is usually taken before tea, and it keeps the table clear to send away the coffee-pot before the teapot is brought up.
The original signatures were decently interred in the Bodleian Library: and the advocates of scattering indefinite blame for indefinite sins of opinion among indefinite persons are, I understand, divided in opinion about the time at which the next attempt shall be made upon men of scientific studies: some are for the Greek Calends, and others for the Roman Olympiads. But, with their usual love of indefiniteness, they have determined that the choice shall be argued upon the basis that which comes first cannot be settled, and is of no consequence.
I give the declaration entire, as a curiosity: and parallel with it I give a substitute which was proposed in the _Athenaeum_, as worthy to be signed both by students of theology, and by students of science, especially in past time. When a new attempt is made, it will be worth while to look at both:
_Declaration._ _Proposed Substitute._
We, the undersigned Students We, the undersigned Students of the Natural Sciences, of Theology and of Nature, desire to express our sincere desire to express our sincere regret, that researches into regret, that common notions of scientific truth are perverted religious truth are perverted by some in our own times into by some in our own times into occasion for casting doubt occasion for casting reproach upon the Truth and upon the advocates of Authenticity of the Holy demonstrated or highly Scriptures. probable scientific theories.
{258} We conceive that it is We conceive that it is impossible for the Word of impossible for the Word of God, as written in the book of God, as correctly read in the nature, and God's Word written Book of Nature, and the Word in Holy Scripture, to of God, as truly interpreted contradict one another, out of the Holy Scripture, to however much they may appear contradict one another, to differ. however much they may appear to differ. We are not forgetful that We are not forgetful that Physical Science is not neither theological complete, but is only in a interpretation nor physical condition of progress, and knowledge is yet complete, but that at present our finite that both are in a condition reason enables us only to see of progress; and that at as through a glass darkly, present our finite reason enables us only to see both one and the other as through a glass darkly [the writers of the original declaration have distinctively applied to physical science the phrase by which St. Paul denotes the imperfections of theological vision, which they tacitly assume to be quite perfect], and we confidently believe, and we confidently believe, that a time will come when the that a time will come when the two records will be seen to two records will be seen to agree in every particular. We agree in every particular. We cannot but deplore that cannot but deplore that Natural Science should be Religion should be looked upon looked upon with suspicion by with suspicion by some and many who do not make a study Science by others, of the of it, merely on account of students of either who do not the unadvised manner in which make a study of the {259} some are placing it in other, merely on account of opposition to Holy Writ. the unadvised manner in which some are placing Religion in opposition to Science, and some are placing Science in opposition to Religion. We believe that it is the duty We believe that it is the duty of every Scientific Student to of every theological student investigate nature simply for to investigate the Scripture, the purpose of elucidating and of every scientific truth, student to investigate Nature, simply for the purpose of elucidating truth. and that if he finds that some And if either should find that of his results appear to be in some of his results appear to contradiction to the Written be in contradiction, whether Word, or rather to his own to Scripture or to Nature, or _interpretations_ of it, which rather to his own may be erroneous, he should _interpretation_ of one or the not presumptuously affirm that other, which may be erroneous, his own conclusions must be he should not affirm as with right, and the statements of certainty that his own Scripture wrong; conclusion must be right, and the other interpretation wrong: rather, leave the two side by but should leave the two side side till it shall please God by side for further inquiry to allow us to see the manner into both, until it shall in which they may be please God to allow us to reconciled; arrive at the manner in which they may be reconciled. and, instead of insisting upon In the mean while, instead of the seeming differences insisting, and least of all between Science and the with acrimony or injurious Scriptures, it would be as {260} statements about others, well to rest in faith upon the upon the seeming differences points in which they agree. between Science and the Scriptures, it would be a thousand times better to rest in faith as to our future state, in hope as to our coming knowledge, and in charity as to our present differences.
The distinctness of the fallacies is creditable to the composers, and shows that scientific habits tend to clearness, even to sophistry. Nowhere does it so plainly stand out that the _Written Word_ means the sense in which the accuser takes it, while the sense of the other side is _their interpretation_. The infallible church on one side, arrayed against heretical pravity on the other, is seen in all subjects in which men differ. At school there were various games in which one or another advantage was the right of those who first called for it. In adult argument the same thing is often attempted: we often hear--I cried _Church_ first!
I end with the answer which I myself gave to the application: its revival may possibly save me from a repetition of the like. If there be anything I hate more than another it is the proposal to place any persons, especially those who allow freedom to me, under any abridgment of their liberty to think, to infer, and to publish. If they break the law, take the law; but do not make the law: [Greek: agoraioi agontai enkaleitosan allelois.][410] I would rather be asked to take shares in an argyrosteretic company (with limited liability) for breaking into houses by night on fork and spoon errands. I should put aside this proposal with _nothing but laughter_. It was a joke against Sam Rogers[411] that his appearance was very like that of a corpse. The _John Bull_ {261} newspaper--suppose we now say Theodore Hook[412]--averred that when he hailed a coach one night in St. Paul's Churchyard, the jarvey said, "Ho! ho! my man; I'm not going to be taken in that way: go back to your grave!" This is the answer I shall make for the future to any relics of a former time who shall want to call me off the stand for their own purposes. What obligation have I to admit that they belong to our world?
"SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE.
"_The Writ De Haeretico Commiserando._[413]
Nov. 14, 1864.
"This document was sent to me four days ago. It 'solicits the favor'--I thought at first it was a grocer's supplication for tea and sugar patronage--of my signature to expression of 'sincere regret' that some persons unnamed--general warrants are illegal--differ from what I am supposed--by persons whom it does not concern--to hold about Scripture and Science in their real or alleged discrepancies.
"No such favor from me: for three reasons. First, I agree with Sir. J. Herschel that the solicitation is an intrusion to be publicly repelled. Secondly, I do _not_ regret that others should differ from me, think what I may: those others are as good as I, and as well able to think, and as much entitled to their conclusions. Thirdly, even if I did regret, I should be ashamed to put my name to bad chemistry made to do duty for good reasoning. The declaration is an awkward attempt to saturate sophism with truism; but the sophism is left largely in excess.
{262}
"I owe the inquisitors a grudge for taking down my conceit of myself. For two months I have crowed in my own mind over my friend Sir J. Herschel, fancying that the promoters instinctively knew better than to bring their fallacies before a writer on logic. Ah! my dear Sir John! thought I, if you had shown yourself to be well up in _Barbara Celarent_,[414] and had ever and anon astonished the natives with the distinction between _simpliciter_ and _secundum quid_, no autograph-hunters would have baited a trap with _non sequitur_[415] to catch your signature. What can I say now? I hide my diminished head, diminished by the horns which I have been compelled to draw in.
"Those who make personal solicitation for support to an opinion about religion are bound to know their men. The king had a right to Brother Neale's money, because Brother Neale offered it. Had he put his hand into purse after purse by way of finding out all who were of Brother Neale's mind, he would have been justly met by a rap on the knuckles whenever he missed his mark.
"The kind of test before me is the utmost our time will allow of that inquisition into opinion which has been the curse of Christianity ever since the State took Providence under its protection. The writ _de haeretico commiserando_ is little more than the smell of the empty cask: and those who issue it may represent the old woman with her
"O suavis anima, quale in te dicam bonum Antehac fuisse; tales cum sint reliquiae."[416]
It is no excuse that the illegitimate bantling is a very little one. Its parents may think themselves hardly treated when they are called lineal successors of Tony Fire-the-faggot: {263} but, degenerate though they be, such is their ancestry. Let every allowance be made for them: but their unholy fire must be trodden out; so long as a spark is left, nothing but fuel is wanted to make a blaze. If this cannot be done, let the flame be confined to theology, though even there it burns with diminished vigor: and let charity, candor, sense, and ridicule, be ready to play upon it whenever there is any chance of its extending to literature and science.
"What would be the consequence if this test-signing absurdity were to grow? Deep would call unto deep; counter-declaration would answer declaration, each stronger than the one before. The moves would go on like the dispute of two German students, of whom each is bound to a sharper retort on a graduated scale, until at last comes _dummer Junge_![417]--and then they must fight. There is a gentleman in the upper fifteen of the signers of the writ--the hawking of whose names appears to me very bad taste--whom I met in cordial cooperation for many a year at a scientific board. All I knew about his religion was that he, as a clergyman, must in some sense or other receive the 39 Articles:--all that he could know about mine was that I was some kind of heretic, or so reputed. If we had come to signing opposite manifestoes, turn-about, we might have found ourselves in the lowest depths of party discussion at our very council-table. I trust the list of subscribers to the declaration, when it comes to be published, will show that the bulk of those who have really added to our knowledge have seen the thing in its true light.
"The promoters--I say nothing about the subscribers--of the movement will, I trust, not feel aggrieved at the course I have taken or the remarks I have made. Walter Scott says that before we judge Napoleon by the temptation to which he yielded, we ought to remember how much he may have resisted: I invite them to apply this rule to myself; they can have no idea of the feeling with which I {264} contemplate all attempts to repress freedom of inquiry, nor of the loathing with which I recoil from the proposal to be art and part. They have asked me to give a public opinion upon a certain point. It is true that they have had the kindness to tender both the opinion they wish me to form, and the shape in which they would have it appear: I will let them draw me out, but I will not let them take me in. If they will put an asterisk to my name, and this letter to the asterisk, they are welcome to my signature. As I do not expect them to relish this proposal, I will not solicit the favor of its adoption. But they have given a right to think, for they have asked me to think; to publish, for they have asked me to allow them to publish; to blame them, for they have asked me to blame their betters. Should they venture to find fault because my direction of disapproval, publicly given, is half a revolution different from theirs, they will be known as having presented a loaded document at the head of a traveler in the highway of discussion, with--Your signature or your silence!"
