This effect of the theological bias, manifest enough every where, lias been forced on my attention by one whose mental attitude often supplies me with matter for speculation — an old gentleman who unites the religion of amity and the religion of enmity in startling contrast. On the one hand, getting up early to his devotions, going to church even at great risk to his feeble health, always staying for the sacrament when there is one, he displays what is ordinarily regarded as an exem plary piety. On the other hand, his thoughts ever tend in the direction of warfare: fights on sea and land furnish topics of undying interest to him; he revels in narratives of destruc tion; his talk is of cannon. To say that he divides his reading between the Bible and Alison, or some kindred book, is an ex aggeration; but still it serves to convey an idea of his state of feeling. Now you may hear him waxing wroth over the dis establishment of the Irish Church, which he looks upon as an act of sacrilege; and now, when the conversation turns on works of art, he names as engravings which above all others he admires, Creur-de-Lion fighting Salndin, and Wellington at Waterloo. Or after manifesting some kindly feeling, which, to give him his clue, he frequently does, he will shortly pass to some bloody encounter, the narration of which makes his voice tremulous with delight. Marvelling though I did at first over these incongruities of sentiment and belief, the ex planation was reached on observing that the subordination- element of his creed was far more dominant in his conscious ness than the moral element. Watching the movements of his mind made it clear that to his imagination, God was sym bolized as a kind of transcendently -powerful sea-captain, and made it clear that he went to church from a feeling akin to that with which, as a middy, he went to muster. On perceiv ing that this, which is the sentiment common to all religions, whatever be the name or ascribed nature of the deity wor shipped, was supreme in him, it ceased to be inexplicable that the sentiment to which the Christian religion specially ap peals should be so readily over-ridden. It became easier to understand how, when the Hyde-Park riots took place, he could wish that we had Louis Napoleon over here to shoot down the mob, and how he could recall, with more or less of chuckling, the deeds of press-gangs in his early days.
THE THEOLOGICAL BIAS. 271 That the theological bias, thus producing conformity to moral principles from motives of obedience only, and not habitually insisting on such principles because of their in trinsic value, obscures sociological truths, will now not be difficult to see. The tendency is to substitute formal recog nitions of such principles for real recognitions. So long as they are not contravened directly enough to suggest dis obedience, they may readily be contravened indirectly; for the reason that there has not been cultivated the habit of contemplating consequences as they work out in remote ways. Hence it happens that social arrangements essen tially at variance with the ethics of the creed, give no offence to those who are profoundly offended by whatever seems at variance with its theology. Maintenance of the dogmas and forms of the religion becomes the primary, all-essential thing; and the secondary thing, often sacrificed, is the securing of those relations among men which the spirit of the religion re quires. How conceptions of good and bad in social affairs are thus warped, the pending controversy about the Athanasian creed shows us. Here we have theologians who believe that our national welfare will be endangered, if there is not in all churches an enforced repetition of the dogmas that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are each of them almighty; that yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty; that one of the Almighties suffered on the cross and descended into hell to pacify another of them; and that whoever does not believe this, " without doubt shall perish everlastingly." They say that if the State makes its priests threaten with eternal tor ments all who question these doctrines, things will go well; but if those priests who, in this threat, perceive the devil- worship of the savage usurping the name of Christianity, are allowed to pass it by in silence, woe to the nation! Evidently the theological bias leading to such a conviction entirely ex cludes Sociology, considered as a science.
Under its special forms, as well as under its general form, the theological bias brings errors into the estimates men make of societies and institutions. Sectarian antipathies, growing out of differences of doctrine, disable the members of each religious community from fairly judging other religious com- 272 THE STUDY OP SOCIOLOGY.
munities. It is always difficult, and often impossible, for the zealot to conceive that his own religious system and his own zeal on its behalf may have but a relative truth and a relative value; or to conceive that there may be relative truths and relative values in alien beliefs and the fanaticisms which maintain them. Though the adherent of each creed daily has thrust on his attention the fact that adherents of other creeds are no less confident than he is — though he can scarcely fail sometimes to reflect that these adherents of other creeds have, in nearly all cases, simply accepted the dogmas current in the places and families they were born in, and that he has done the like; yet the special theological bias which his education and surroundings have given him, makes it almost beyond imagination that these other creeds may, some of them, have justifications as good as, if not better than, his own, and that the rest, along with certain amounts of absolute worth, may have their special fitnesses to the people holding them.
We cannot doubt, for instance, that the feeling with which Mr. Whalley or Mr. Newdegate regards Roman Catholicism, must cause extreme reluctance to admit the services which Roman Catholicism rendered to European civilization in the past; and must make almost impossible a patient hearing of anyone who thinks that it renders some services now. Whether great benefit did not arise in early times from the tendency towards unification produced within each congeries of small societies by a common creed authoritatively imposed? — whether papal power supposed to be divinely deputed, and therefore tending to subordinate the political authorities dur ing turbulent feudal ages, did not serve to curb warfare and further civilization? — whether the strong tendency shown by early Christianity to lapse into separate local paganisms, was not beneficially checked by an ecclesiastical system having a single head supposed to be infallible? — whether morals were not improved, manners softened, slavery ameliorated, and the condition of women raised, by the influence of the Church, notwithstanding all its superstitions and bigotries? — are questions to which Dr. Camming, or other vehement op ponent of popery, could not bring a mind open to con viction. Similarly, from the Roman Catholic the meaning and worth of Protestantism are hidden. To the THE THEOLOGICAL BIAS. 273 Ultramontane, holding that the temporal welfare no less than the eternal salvation of men depends on submission to the Church, it is incredible that Church-authority has but a tran sitory value, and that the denials of authority which have come along with accumulation of knowledge and change of sentiment, mark steps from a lower social regime to a higher. Naturally, the sincere Papist thinks schism a crime; and books that throw doubt on the established beliefs seem to him ac cursed. Nor need we wonder when from such a one there comes a saying like that of the Mayor of Bordeaux, so much applauded by the Comte de Chambord, that " the Devil was the first Protestant; " or when, along with this, there goes a vilification of Protestants too repulsive to be repeated. Clear ly, with such a theological bias, fostering such ideas respect ing Protestant morality, there must be extremely-false esti" mates of Protestant institutions, and of all the institutions associated with them.
In less striking ways, but still in ways sufficiently marked, the special theological bias warps the judgments of Conform ists and Nonconformists among ourselves. A fair estimate of the advantages which our State-Church has yielded, is not to be expected from the zealous dissenter: he sees only the dis advantages. Whether voluntaryism could have done cen turies ago all that it can do now? — whether a State-sup ported Protestantism was not once the best thing practicable? —are questions which he is unlikely to discuss without preju dice. Contrariwise, the churchman is reluctant to be lieve that the union of Church and State is beneficial only during a certain phase of progress. He knows that within the Establishment divisions are daily increasing, while volun tary agency is doing daily a larger share of the work origi nally undertaken by the State; but he does not like to think that there is a kinship between such facts and the fact that outside the Establishment the power of Dissent is growing. That these changes are parts of a general change by which the political and religious agencies, which have been differ entiating from the beginning, are being separated and special ized, is not an acceptable idea. He is averse to the conception that just as Protestantism at large was a rebellion against an Ecclesiasticism which dominated over Europe, so Dissent 19 274 THE STUDY OF SOCIOLOGY.
among ourselves is a rebellion against an Ecclesiasticism which dominates over England; and that the two are but successive stages of the same beneficial development. That is to say, his bias prevents him from contemplating the facts in a way favourable to scientific interpretations of them.
Everywhere, indeed, the special theological bias accom panying a special set of doctrines, inevitably pre-judges many sociological questions. One who holds a creed as absolutely true, and who by implication holds the multitudinous other creeds to be absolutely false in so far as they differ from his own, cannot entertain the supposition that the value of a creed is relative. That a particular religious system is, in a general sense, a natural part of the particular society in which it is found, is an entirely-alien conception; and, indeed, a repug nant one. His system of dogmatic theology he thinks good for all places and all times. He does not doubt that when planted among a horde of savages, it will be duly understood by them, duly appreciated by them, and work on them results such as those he experiences from it. Thus prepossessed, he passes over the proofs found everywhere, that a people is no more capable of suddenly receiving a higher form of religion than it is capable of suddenly receiving a higher form of gov ernment; and that inevitably with such religion, as with such government, there will go on a degradation which presently reduces it to one differing but nominally from its predecessor. In other words, his special theological bias blinds him to an important class of sociological truths.
The effects of the theological bias need no further elucida tion. We will turn our attention to the distortions of judg ment caused by the anti-theological bias. Not only the actions of religious dogmas, but also the reactions against them, are disturbing influences we have to beware of. Let us glance first at an instance of that indignation against the established creed, which all display more or less when they emancipate themselves from it.
" A Nepaul king, Rum Bahadur, whose beautiful queen, finding that her lovely face had been disfigured by small-pox, poisoned her self, ' cursed his kingdom, her doctors, and the gods of Nepaul, vow ing vengeance on all.' Having ordered the doctors to be flogged, and THE THEOLOGICAL BIAS. 275 the right ear and nose of each to be cut off, ' he then wreaked his vengeance on the gods of Nepaul, and after abusing them in the most gross way, he accused them of having obtained from him twelve thousand goats, some hundred-weights of sweetmeats, two thousand gallons of milk. &c., under false pretences.'...He then ordered all the artillery, varying from three to twelve-pounders, to be brought in front of the palace...All the guns were then loaded to the muzzle, and down he marched to the head-quarters of the Nepaul deities...All the guns were drawn up in front of the several deities, honouring the most sacred with the heaviest metal. When the order to fire was given, many of the chiefs and soldiers ran away panic-stricken, and others hesitated to obey the sacrilegious order; and not until several gunners had been cut down, were the guns opened. Down came the gods and goddesses from their hitherto sacred positions; and after six hours' heavy cannonading not a vestige of the deities remained." B This, which is one of the most remarkable pieces of icono- clasm on record, exhibits in an extreme form the reactive an tagonism usually accompanying abandonment of an old belief — an antagonism that is high in proportion as the pre vious submission has been profound. By stabling their horses in cathedrals and treating the sacred places and symbols with intentional insult, the Puritans displayed this feeling in a marked manner; as again did the French revolutionists by pulling down sacristies and altar-tables, tearing mass-books into cartridge-papers, drinking brandy out of chalices, eating mackerel off pateiias, making mock ecclesiastical processions, and holding drunken revels in churches. Though in our day the breaking of bonds less rigid effected by struggles less vio lent, is followed by a less excessive opposition and hatred; yet, habitually, the thro wing-off of the old form involves a replacing of the previous sympathy by more or less of antip athy: perversion of judgment caused by the antipathy taking the place of that caused by the sympathy. What before was reverenced as wholly true is now scorned as wholly false; and what was treasured as invaluable is now rejected as valueless.
In some, this state of sentiment and belief continues. In others, the reaction is in course of time followed by a re-action. To carry out the Carlylean figure, the old clothes which had been outgrown and were finally torn off and thrown aside 276 THE STUDY OF SOCIOLOGY.
with contempt, come presently to be looked back upon with more calmness, and with recognition of the fact that they did good service in their time — nay, perhaps with the doubt whether they were not thrown off too soon. This re-action may be feeble or may be strong; but only when it takes place in due amount is there a possibility of balanced judgments either on religious questions or on those questions of Social Science into which the religious element enters.
Here we have to glance at the sociological errors caused by the anti-theological bias among those in whom it does not become qualified. Thinking only of what is erroneous in the rejected creed, they ignore the truth for which it stands; con templating only its mischiefs they overlook its benefits; and doing this, they think that nothing but good would result from its general abandonment. Let us observe the tacit as sumptions made in drawing this conclusion.
It is assumed, in the first place, that adequate guidance for conduct in life, private and public, could be had; and that a moral code, rationally elaborated by men as they now are, would be duly operative upon them. Neither of these propo sitions commends itself when we examine the evidence. We have but to observe human action as it meets us at every turn, to see that the average intelligence, incapable of guiding conduct even in simple matters, where but a very moderate reach of reason would suffice, must fail in apprehending with due clearness the natural sanctions of ethical principles. The unthinking ineptitude with which even the routine of life is carried on by the mass of men, shows clearly that they have nothing like the insight required for self-guidance in the ab sence of an authoritative code of conduct. Take a day's ex perience, and observe the lack of thought indicated from hour to hour.
You rise in the morning, and, while dressing, take up a phial containing a tonic, of which a little has been prescribed for you; but after the first few drops have been counted, succeeding drops run down the side of the phial, for the rea son that the lip is shaped without regard to the require ment. Yet millions of such phials are annually made by glass-makers, and sent out by thousands of druggists: so THE THEOLOGICAL BIAS. 277 small being the amount of sense brought to bear on busi ness. Now, turning to the looking-glass, you find that, if not of the best make, it fails to preserve the attitude in which you put it; or, if what is called a " box " looking-glass, you see that maintenance of its position is insured by an expensive appli ance which would have been superfluous had a little reason been used. Were the adjustment such that the centre of grav ity of the glass came in the line joining the points of support (which would be quite as easy an adjustment), the glass would remain steady in whatever attitude you gave it. Yet, year after year, tens of thousands of looking-glasses are made with out regard to so simple a need. Presently you go down to breakfast, and taking some Harvey or other sauce with your fish, find the bottle has a defect like that which you found in the phial: it is sticky from the drops which trickle down, and occasionally stain the table-cloth. Here are other groups of traders similarly so economical of thought, that they do noth ing to rectify this obvious inconvenience. Having break fasted, you take up the paper, and, before sitting down, wish to put some coal on the fire. But the lump you seize with the tongs slips out of them, and, if large, you make several at tempts before you succeed in lifting it: all because the ends of the tongs are smooth. Makers and venders of fire-irons go on, generation after generation, without meeting this evil by simply giving to these smooth ends some projecting points, or even roughening them by a few burrs made with a chisel. Having at length grasped the lump and put it on the fire, you begin to read; but before getting through the first column you are reminded, by the changes of position which your sensa tions prompt, that men still fail to make easy-chairs. And yet the guiding principle is simple enough. Just that advan tage secured by using a soft seat in place of a hard one — the advantage, namely, of spreading over a larger area the pres sure of the weight to be borne, and so making the pressure less intense at any one point — is an advantage to be sought in the form of the chair. Ease is to be gained by making the shapes and relative inclinations of seat and back, such as will evenly distribute the weight of the trunk and limbs over the widest- possible supporting surface, and with the least. straining of the parts out of their natural attitudes. And yet only now, after 278 THE STUDY OP SOCIOLOGY.
these thousands of years of civilization, are there being reached (and that not rationally but empirically) approxima tions to the structure required.
Such are the experiences of the first hour; and so they con tinue all the day through. If you watch and criticize, you may see that the immense majority bring to bear, even on those actions which it is the business of their lives to carry on effectually, an extremely-small amount of faculty. Employ a workman to do something that is partly new, and not the clearest explanations and sketches will prevent him from blundering; and to any expression of surprise, he will reply that he was not brought up to such work: scarcely ever be traying the slightest shame in confessing that he cannot do a thing he was not taught to do. Similarly throughout the higher grades of activity. Remember how generally improve ments in manufactures come from outsiders, and you are at once shown with what mere unintelligent routine manufactures are commonly carried on. Examine into the management of mercantile concerns, and you perceive that those engaged in them mostly do nothing more than move in the ruts that have gradually been made for them by the process of trial and error during a long succession of generations. Indeed, it almost seems as though most men made it their aim to get through life with the least possible expenditure of thought.
How, then, can there be looked for such power of self- guidance as, in the absence of inherited authoritative rules, would require them to understand why, in the nature of things, these modes of action are injurious and those modes beneficial — would require them to pass beyond proximate re sults, and see clearly the involved remote results, as worked out on self, on others, and on society?
The incapacity need not, indeed, be inferred: it may be seen, if we do but take an action concerning which the sancti fied code is silent. Listen to a conversation about gambling; and, where reprobation is expressed, note the grounds of the reprobation. That it tends towards the ruin of the gambler; that it risks the welfare of family and friends; that it alienates from business, and leads into bad company —these, and such as these, are the reasons given for condemning the practice.
THE THEOLOGICAL BIAS. 270 Rarely is there any recognition of the fundamental reason. Rarely is gambling condemned because it is a kind of action by which pleasure is obtained at the cost of pain to another. The normal obtaiiiment of gratification, or of the money which purchases gratification, implies, firstly, that there has been put forth equivalent effort of a kind which, in some way, furthers the general good; and implies, secondly, that those from whom money is received, get, directly or indirectly, equivalent satisfactions. But in gambling the opposite hap pens. Benefit received does not imply effort put forth; and the happiness of the winner involves the misery of the loser. This kind of action is therefore essentially anti-social — sears the sympathies, cultivates a hard egoism, and so produces a general deterioration of character and conduct.
Clearly, then, a visionary hope misleads those who think that in an imagined age of reason, which might forthwith re place an age of beliefs but partly rational, conduct would be cor rectly guided by a code directly based on considerations of util ity. A utilitarian system of ethics cannot at present be rightly thought out even by the select few, and is quite beyond the men tal reach of the many. The value of the inherited and theolog ically-enforced code is that it formulates, with some approach to truth, the accumulated results of past human experience. It has not arisen rationally but empirically. During past times mankind have eventually gone right after trying all possible ways of going wrong. The wrong-goings have been habitually checked by disaster, and pain, and death; and the right-goings have been continued because not thus checked. There has been a growth of beliefs corresponding to these good and evil results. Hence the code of conduct, embodying discoveries slowly and almost unconsciously made through a long series of generations, has transcendent authority on its side.