Gbe literary (Butbe

AND RATIONALIST REVIEW.

[ESTABLISHED 1885.]

No. 30. (New Series.)

DECEM BER i , 1898.

Monthly ; T wopence.

Contents.

Authority in Religion. By Charles Watts

Knowledge and the “ Unknowable.” By Charles E.

P A G E

. 177

Hooper . . . . . . .178 Canon Eyton’s Common Sense. By F. J. Gould . 179 The Conversion of a Materialist . . .179 Ultimate T ruths in Science . . .180 T he Duke of Argyll and Mr.Spencer . .181 Philosophy on a New Footing . . .182 Signs and Warnings . . . . .183 Random Jottings . . . . .184 Chats about Books and Miscellanea. X V .— With

Dr. Westermarck. By F. J. G . . . .185 A Pantheist Poetess. By William Platt . .187 Rationalism in the Magazines . . .188 Quarterly and Monthly Magazines . . 190 New V iews of the T rinity . . . .191 Short Notices ...... 191 Our Letter-Box . . . . .192

But let us examine the three claims urged in favour of authority in religion. The first is that it is based upon “ a definite revelation.” It is necessary here to ask what “ religious truth ” is so revealed ? Surely not the exclusive Christianity of the Presbyterian Church, with its barbarous and absurd “ Confessions of Faith.” Not the Prayer Book of the Church of England, with its incomprehensible jargon and its priestly bias. Not the Methodist Church, with its illogical Arminian theology; or the faith of the Peculiar People, who, no doubt, honestly strive to obey the authority of the Bible. As to “ a definite revelation,” if one exist, it is not the one bearing the Christian name. A revelation, to be of any genuine worth, should carry with it objective truths ; hut what is said to have been revealed through Christian agency is purely of a subjective kind. That is, it is so thoroughly /«definite that the most contrary views have been, and still are, entertained as to what it really means. No revelation can, therefore, be of any real service to man which is capable of such contradictory interpretations.

a u th o r i t y in IRclioioit. The late Professor Playfair, in an address he delivered at a Social Science Congress, said : “ One of the first things to be learnt from science is not to trust to authority, but to demand proof for every assertion.” No doubt, so far as science is concerned, this statement will be generally accepted as tru e ; but in religion a very different position is assumed. There it is thought authority is absolutely essential. This may be so in a certain sense, but it all depends upon the nature of the authority. No system and no principles can be of much value without an authoritative basis. Even science rests upon the results of legitimate investigations of natural phenomena, which constitute its authoritative basis. But the authority to which Professor Playfair referred was, we presume, that of tradition and theology ; and it is to these forces that we are about to direct attention. Like the man who is said to have built his house upon the sand, and when the floods came the house fell ; so, when tradition and theology are brought to the test of critical examination, they have to yield to its power.

It is alleged by Christians that their religion has the highest authority, inasmuch as it is based upon a definite revelation; that its nature is self-evident and unchangeable ; and that in consequence of its catholicity it propounds the same truth for the whole of the human race. Now, the general objection to the validity of these allegations is furnished by the relative positions of the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. The Catholic claims absolute authority for the dogmas of his Church, denounces as heresy any attempts to controvert his claims, and would withhold, if possible, any opportunity of rejecting them. The Protestant, on the other hand, contends that the Church o f Rome has no authority at all, but that its teaching is false and pernicious, and its worship idolatrous. The authority of the one is the Church, artd that of the other the B ib le ; but the one is composed of, and the other is interpreted by, fallible men, who dispute each other’s views as to the meaning and scope o f their respective authorities. Now, if these authorities ever had any intrinsic value, it would evaporate in the process of interpretation, and, therefore, could not be of any permanent advantage in deciding what is true or what is false.

The self-evident and unchangeable nature of the Christian religion exists nowhere but in the imagination of its indiscriminate believers. As a matter of fact, there is but little that is self-evident outside the domain of mathematics. And certainly religious dogmas are not so, for there is not one of them which has not been controverted thousands of times. What passes for religion in one age and in one country is ignored, and another faith substituted for it in other periods and in other nations. The authority of Christians has no force with Jews, and that of the Buddhists is unheeded by the followers of Mohammed. As to the religious authority being unchangeable, that idea is a palpable fallacy. Authority is always changing, and in religious systems more than in aught else. The Bible, the authority of Protestants, has undergone modifications without number. All religions change as the ages move on, and become modified to meet the ever-varying circumstances that arise. Change is always manifesting itself in every department of existence. And all so-called revelations from God have proved to be no exceptions to this general rule.

The assertion that any one religion is catholic— that is, universal, and presents the same truth for all men— has no foundation in fact. What appears to be religious truth to one man has not necessarily the same aspect to another; hence the many religious systems that are in the world. There is catholicity in religion no more than there is in politics or in fashion. If it is said that that is authoritative which developes a man’s “ inner nature,” we reply by asking what is that, and in what direction does the development take place? The word “ develop” is meaningless unless there is an agreement as to the direction in which it should occur. For instance, we should say that a man’s “ inner nature ” had developed when it had reached that condition of mental freedom in which it could throw off all theological shackles ; but the religious man would not agree with us in this particular. Thus all the supposed characteristics of religious authority vanish like dew before the morning sun.

There is one position taken by religionists upon this subject that deserves special notice, which is : “ That the spirituality of religion constitutes its authority.” But here a definition is needed. What is meant by spirituality, and how can that which is spiritual be an authority in material affairs ? Besides, what is a spiritual truth, and how are we to recognize it when it appears, supposing it does present itself? Many events that are recorded in the Bible, and also much of its teaching, are anything but spiritual. It is