SCEPTICISM OLD AND NEW.

[From St. James's Budget of March 22.]

Perhaps the most satisfactory circumstance connected with the recent trial for blasphemy is that it has brought out distinctly the abhorrence with which educated men, whatever may be their theological opinions, regard outrageous assaults on religion. Some "Free-thinkers" may be of opinion that the punishment of Foote and his accomplices is excessive, or even that such persons do least harm when they are let alone; but no one whose judgment commands the slightest respect has failed to condemn crude and offensive manifestations of unbelief. Now, it is by no means certain that on such a matter as this there would always have been unanimity of sentiment among educated sceptics. In the eighteenth century the spirit of the Illuminati with regard to Christianity was not very different from that of the vile print which has now become so notorious. The tone of these writers was accurately expressed in the letter to D'Alembert in which Voltaire said that "surely five or six men of genius like them could overthrow a religion founded by twelve beggars." They not only dissociated themselves from the church—they loathed it; and almost any device which appeared likely to weaken its influence seemed to them justifiable. At the present day their method survives only among ignorant and fanatical atheists. Even in France the most influential sceptical writers are careful not to wound unnecessarily the feelings of those who differ from them. M. Renan has even been accused of talking too much in the unctuous style of a pious village priest. Distinguished German writers who advocate a theory of the world opposed to that of Christian teachers manifest the same tendency. In the Prussian Parliament the other day a violent attack on men of science, especially on adherents of the doctrine of evolution, was made by Herr Stocker, the court preacher, who has obtained a kind of fame by the vehemence of his ardour in Jew-baiting. Professor Virchow, in the course of a masterly reply, emphasised the fact that the church has now no reason to complain of the manner in which it is treated by those who have broken away from it, "Herr Stocker is mistaken," he declared, "when he asserts that modern men of science are worse than the contemporaries of Voltaire; nobody tries in our day to make religious conceptions ridiculous." At this point the speaker was interrupted by members of the Centre party; but he continued:—" At all times it has been the tendency of some men to make sacred things ridiculous; and in Voltaire's time this was the general custom—it was considered a mark of good breeding. All that is now completely changed." Englishmen may fairly claim that in this respect their country has been for many years pre-eminent. No investigator, either here or elsewhere, has done so much as Darwin to modify religious beliefs; yet in all his writings there is not a word that ought to give offence to the most sensitive readers, however much they may dislike some of his doctrines. The same thing may be said of the works of such writers as Mr. Spencer and Mr. Huxley, who have never sought to conceal how widely they diverge from "the creed of Christendom." This change, which deserves to rank among the most remarkable characteristics of the present age, is due in part, of course, to the general improvement in manners. If Squire Western lived now he would not get drunk every day after dinner; and the movement of society which has led, among the educated classes, to moderation in drinking has helped to produce moderation in debate. The church itself, too, has done something to promote the development of temperate modes of discussion. In the eighteenth century its condition afforded some excuse (or the bitterness with which it was assailed. Both in France and in Germany the Roman prelates were almost always on the side of despotism; many of the clergy had no sincere belief in the doctrines it was their duty to proclaim; and a still larger number of them were far behind the average moral sentiment of the time. The Church of England was very different, no doubt: Mr, Froude has even tried to prove lately that it was never more healthy and prosperous than in the eighteenth century. It must be admitted, however, that it was rather indolent and unsympathetic, and that with regard to large classes of the population it had altogether lost "touch." At present, whatever may be the faults of the Church of England and the Church of Rome, they cannot be charged with lack of zeal; and there are many religious writers who, while meeting the arguments of opponents, show an increasing inclination to distinguish sharply between what is essential and what is accidental in their own convictions. The temper of the church having changed, it was inevitable that there should be some corresponding change in the temper of its critics.
But the most potent of all the causes which have aided the growth of the new spirit is the revolution effected by science and history in the manner of conceiving the phenomena of religion. In the opinion of Voltaire and those of his contemporaries who shared his way of thinking, all forms of religious dogma were invented by priests ; who were supposed to have fabricated them, and to have continued to work through them on the superstitious fears of mankind for the accomplishment of their own selfish ends. The history of religion was believed to be a history of boundless trickery on the one hand and of inexhaustible credulity on the other. This childish theory has now died out except among the noisy class who find it profitable to spout against theology without thinking about it. The earliest known religions were nature-worship and the worship of spirits; and the whole tendency of modern investigation has been to demonstrate that these forms sprang not from the cunning of priests, but from irresistible impulses of the human mind at particular stages of its evolution. As for the historic religions which are associated with individual names, and which have moved many generations of mankind, it is becoming more and more clear that their origin was wholly misconceived by the Illuminati. The founder of Buddhism, for instance, is by far the most illustrious figure in the history of India. Scholars have appreciated his sincerity, his earnestness, and the truth and beauty of much of his teaching, exactly in proportion as they have been brought nearer to his own time by the study of ancient documents. With regard to Christianity, there are few sceptics who would not admit that in the early ages of its growth it represented ideas of incalculable value for the race, and that it attracted to itself all that was most vital in the spiritual aspirations of mankind during the period of transition from the decay of the Western Empire to the formation of the State system of modern Europe. Even Mahommedanism is no longer regarded as a work of mere imposture. Carlyle excited astonishment when he expressed his belief that Islam succeeded mainly in virtue of what was true, not in virtue of what was false, in its doctrine; but it is the opposite statement that would evoke surprise now. Writers who deny that any of these religions embody absolute truth do not dispute that they appeal to a sentiment which is likely to be as enduring as human nature itself; and it is not only conceded but maintained that each of them has in its own way contributed to moral progress. Instead of arousing hatred, therefore, every manifestation of religious feeling has acquired a certain sacredness even for those who find themselves unable to believe that any final solution of ultimate problems is attainable by man. Men who may be, intellectually, of a thoroughly sceptical tendency are, indeed, overcome sometimes by what appears to them to be the pathos of religious symbols and ceremonies. Their inclination is not to jeer at the forms with which the invisible world has been peopled, but to wish that among contending creeds they could discover one which would not remind them of disappointed hopes and of a baffled search for truth.
It may be doubted whether this method of approaching the consideration of religious questions does not create more difficulties for theologians than the old mocking spirit. There can be no sort of doubt, however, that it disposes of the principal objection which has been advanced against the punishment of men who outrage the religious sentiments of their neighbors. A law framed for the purpose of putting down this offence could not be used for the suppression of serious thought, for the offence is one of which serious thinkers have become incapable. True, the conclusions of an original writer may often shock those who do not agree with them; but it is not hard to distinguish distress caused by the legitimate expression of new or unpopular opinions from the horror excited by wanton disregard of the elementary rules of decency.

 The South Australian Advertiser 12 May 1883,