ORDINARY MEETING.*

SIR G. G. STOKES, BART., F.R.S., PRESIDENT,

IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and confirmed, and the following paper was read :

ETHICS AND RELIGION.

By the Rev. Prebendary WACE, D.D.

THE purpose of this paper is to offer a few materials for

consideration in reference to what was correctly described by your Secretary, in a preliminary announcement of my subject, as "An aspect of modern thought." That aspect is the view which is taken by a considerable body of earnest men of the possibility and the desirableness of treating ethics apart from religion. A number of "Ethical Societies," as they designate themselves, have of late years come into existence, which are based upon this conception. An account of them has been given in an interesting volume published this year, entitled Ethics and Religion, which is said on the title-page to be "edited by the Society of Ethical Propagandists." The volume consists of Essays by several persons of distinction in the sphere of moral philosophy and literature, such as Sir John Seeley, Professor Sidgwick, and Mr. Leslie Stephen, and it may therefore be regarded as a trustworthy, and even authoritative, exposition of the views in question. In this volume (on p. 72) a statement is put forward as "intended to define the attitude of the ethical movement towards Religion." It has, we are told, never been "passed upon by the Societies, and should not be understood as in the nature of a formal declaration; but it expresses the views of the present lecturers of the

* Monday, May 21st., 1900.

sense."

American Ethical Societies." This statement explains that there are two senses in which the word "Religion" is commonly used. "In the one sense it describes a passionate devotion to a supreme cause. In the other sense it is applied to affirmations concerning the connection between man's being and the Universal Being." The ethical movement, then, is said to be a religious movement in the former sense, but not in the latter. "In regard to the connection between man's being and the Universal Being, dissent among members and lecturers of ethical societies is admissible; hence the ethical movement as such is not a religious movement in the latter Lecturers and members of the Societies "are free to hold and to express on the Sunday platform theistic, agnostic, or other philosophical beliefs. But they shall clearly indicate that these beliefs do not characterize the movement." Lecturers are expected to possess a sure conviction of the cardinal truth of the supremacy of the moral end, but they are not even required to express a belief that the moral end is the supreme end of human existence. "For though the supremacy of the moral end is implied in the very nature of morality, it is not to be expected that this implication shall be clear to all whose interest is serious and capable of further development." Accordingly several of the Essays urge this general ethical purpose as supplying the basis of a new fellowship. One is on the "Freedom of Ethical Fellowship," another on "The Ethical bond of Union." It is the aim of the Ethical Societies, says one lecturer (p. 32) .to unite "men of diverse opinions and beliefs in the common endeavour to explore the field of duty; to gain clearer perceptions of right and wrong; to study with thorough-going zeal the practical problems of social, political, and individual ethics, and to embody the new insight in individual institutions."

Now such efforts, with which much sympathy must be felt, are necessarily based upon the supposition, which is elsewhere explicitly stated, that ethical questions can be adequately treated without reference to any religious belief. The concluding lecture commences, for instance, with the following three propositions, which the lecturer says are made or implied in the reports or manifestoes of all Societies for Ethical Culture, so far as I know." They are as follows:

"1. Character and conduct are the most important factors in life.

"2. These are independent of a man's religious and theological beliefs.

"3. Material resources, political changes, social institutions, are valuable only so far as they contribute to the moral well-being of the community."

Of these propositions it would seem that the second ought to come first; for if character and conduct are not independent of a man's religious and theological beliefs, those beliefs may after all be the most important factors in life, and the value of institutions may to some extent be directly dependent on their promotion of such beliefs. But in any case it is evident that the key to the whole problem discussed in the book, and involved in the position of the Ethical Societies, lies in the question whether ethical and theological principles can properly be separated, so that ethics can be satisfactorily treated apart from theology. Of course, this question is raised from motives which deserve great respect and sympathy, and which are of immediate practical consequence. As the case is put with touching force by one of the lecturers (p. 59):

"To many of those who have joined the Ethical Societies, this gospel of Righteousness has become a veritable salvation. There was a time when their life seemed utterly dark and desolate. Through no fault of their own, the faith which had been transmitted to them at their mother's knee had become uncertain; corroding doubt had attacked their most cherished beliefs; and, in the bitterness and anguish of the inner struggle which they underwent, it seemed to them that the world was emptied of all that is most sacred, and that life was robbed of all that gave it worth and meaning. But, as a star in the night, there rose above their heads the star of duty, and, as the dawn of day, there came into their hearts the conviction that, whatever else might go, something infinitely precious and sacred remains, something which they could not lose. They felt that the distinction between the better and the baser lite remains, and that they could lead the better life if they only would, and that even in the attempt to do so there is inspiration and support and solace. Though the waters of scepticism might sweep away the whole superstructure of religious belief, the Rock of Righteousness remained upon which they could build up their lives anew."

Deep homage is due to the spirit which is expressed in such statements, or rather such confessions, as this; and it

will be honoured by none more than by those who are convinced that the attempt to treat religion and morality separately is equally disastrous to both. If a man loses his hold of religious belief, let him by all means cling to his convictions of morality. They are the only means by which his religious belief can be recovered; and they may at least save him from shipwreck. But it is no disparagement to them to consider whether in the long run, and on a large scale, they can be maintained, or whether they can be rendered duly effective, without the support and guidance of religious belief; and this is the sole point on which the suggestions of this paper are respectfully offered for

consideration.

Let it then, in the first place, be distinctly understood that no suggestion is here made, such as is sometimes deprecated in these lectures, that morality is destitute of all support if religious beliefs are withdrawn from it. The example of the great ethical teachers of Greece and Rome, and of the East, is sufficient to exhibit the unreasonableness and injustice of such a supposition. Some of the most vital principles of the moral law-such as the golden rule, of doing as you would be done by-are so deeply embedded in human nature as to be universally acknowledged as a general rule of action. The principle on which one of the lecturers in this volume lays such stress-that duty binds a man" is not less generally acknowledged. Conscience, and the sense of the supremacy of conscience, have been shown by Bishop Butler to be part of the true nature of man, and they assert themselves by the mere force of nature. The appeal to the obligation of "whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report," comes home to the heart whatever a man's religious beliefs may be. The promoters of the ethical movement hold a position in that respect from which no friend of religion would wish to dislodge them. But it is in no way inconsistent with respect for that position to inquire whether the true interests of ethics do not require an advance beyond it-whether, in short, it is not a position enforced upon those who rest in it by a temporary necessity, and not one to be adopted as the permanent citadel of ethical forces. The view which the following considerations would endeavour to recall is first that the ultimate foundation of Ethics must, in great measure, be sought, not so much in

religion as in revelation, and secondly that their highest and final development is inseparable from the truths of the Christian religion.

On the former of these points, let us first inquire how the general standard which this ethical movement has in view came to be discerned. Its great object is to promote the good life; the star they follow is that of righteousness. The gospel which they preach," we are told (p. 57), “is essentially this, that the good life is preferable to all without the previous acceptance of any creed, irrespective of religious opinion or philosophic theory; that the way of righteousness is open, and can be entered directly without a previous detour through the land of faith or philosophy." But what is a good life, and what is the righteousness here contemplated? It will not, I think, be questioned that, generally speaking, the good life which all these Societies have in view is that which is recognized as the ideal in modern civilization-generally speaking, the ideal of a Christian gentle

man.

It must be from this point of view that Sir John Seeley, in the opening lecture of the volume (p. 26), advises the Society he addresses to "enter once for all into the heartiest and most unreserved alliance with Christianity," and says (p. 30) that " After all Christianity is the original Ethical Society. It has the ancient tradition and store of precedents, it has the ubiquitous organization, it has the unapproachable classical literature; it has the long line of prophets and saints. We are all, morally, its children, and most of us are not even its grown up children." A similar recognition of the ethical standard of Christianity, and a similarly generous recognition of the ethical services of the Christian Church pervades all the Essays, with perhaps one exception. "A good life" and a true ethical standard is, in short, in the main the Christian life and the Christian standard, though no doubt these writers and societies reserve the right of questioning and modifying it in detail. But taking it on the whole as indicating the ideal in view, it is pertinent to make some inquiries respecting it.

How was it originally called into existence, and how has it since been maintained? There can, I think, be no question that it was called into existence by the authority of Christ and His Apostles. The primary moral principles of Christianity were asserted, no doubt, by the Jewish Church; and deep and noble moral truths and ideals had grown up under