Intolerance and Persecution [pp. 169-173]

APPLETONS' JOURNAL.
heresy and atheism is a noticeable instance of
this. In former times she invariably regarded
these as crimes; now she is growing to regard
them as, at least in most cases, misfortunes. Her
intolerance is, therefore, gradually losing its old
vindictive character. And this change seems to
have come about from the recognition of two
facts; of which, while they both make misbelievers seem less deserving of consideration,
the second makes misbelief seem even more
so.
The first of these facts is the general intellectual confusion in which the world is at present,
and the evident desire for light in many who proclaim most loudly that for the human eye, when
open, the only possible spectacle must be always
but darkness visible. In other words, the existence of invincible ignorance is becoming more
and more clearly recognized.
The second fact is, though less obvious, perhaps even more important. It is, that erroneous
opinions must not be judged by their immediate
fruits. They may take a long time before they
become practically operative, and thus, though
their present exponents may themselves be excellent men, the results of the system they advocate
may be by and by practically execrable. The
history of Protestantism, though it is not an examlle of this, is an excellent illustration. The
original reformers did not deny the validity of
dogmatic teaching themselves; on the contrary,
they strenuously supported it; and for a long
while their position, thus far, seemed a secure
one. But, as time has gone on, the real meaning
of their position has become slowly apparent. It
is seen that their principles have an application
far wider than they ever dreamed they could
have; and this application is now being made
daily with a more and more pitiless logic. Protestantism is dividing itself into sects more and
more numerous, and these naturally regard each
other with an increasing tolerance. They have
nothing to hold them together; they have no
common standards to appeal to; and thus, each
for a time having claimed exclusive truth for itself, the conviction is now dawning that it can
rationally be claimed for none. But it has taken
three centuries to make this quite evident to
deduce the theological conclusions of Dean Stanley from the theological premises of Luther. In
the same way the present advocates of atheism
or agnosticism may themselves be moral men,
just as Luther was a dogmatic man; but their
morality, in the course of years, will meet with
the same fate as Luther's theology. This view
of the matter will at once justify the largest charity toward atheists, combined with the most absolute condemnation of atheism. It will enable
us, without the least confusion of either thought
or feeling, to love the former while we hate the
latter.
This absolute dependence of morality upon
religion, or rather the interdependence of the two,
is of course denied by many. But I am speaking
now from the standpoint of those who admit it;
and these include many who are opposed, theoretically, alike to dogmatism and intolerance.
Sir James Stephen himself, than whom no one
on religious points could be less dogmatic, has
said that, to see the moral value of a belief in
God, we must wait to see a generation grow up
on whom this belief has not had the slightest influence; and then he says, "the light thrown on
the subject may prove possibly to be a very lurid
one."
All this I have just said as to intolerance and
persecution is, I am well aware, not new. My
arguments, as it were, lie upon every man's table;
but, to judge from the language heard and the
ideas held so commonly, they lie in general in a
state of litter and confusion, which renders them
worse than useless for any practical purpose. In
a former paper I described my aim in writing as
that of an intellectual chimney-sweeper. I may
compare it, in the present one, to that of an intellectual housemaid. I have been trying to arrange the litter which every man has at his elbow
-to sort and dust his thoughts for him, and show
him what they really come to.
There are one or two things further that still
remain to be said. The matter in question may
be rendered clearer, if we look a little more narrowly into our own daily practice, and see how
much of intolerance, and of persecution also, of
necessity enters into them. Let us consider the
law of our own country first. That law is largely
based upon certain definite views as to morality,
and is to a certain extent enforced by reason of
them. There is a certain censorship of the press
and of the theatre; and there are certain offenses
which, simply from their supposed immorality,
are treated and punished as crimes of the gravest
kind. Now all these are offenses which, from
the principles of modem agnosticism, may not
only be logically defended, but can not be logically blamed. When the law, therefore, punishes them, it acts strictly as a religious persecutor. It is the expression of the intolerance
of a moral dogmatism. The man who gives a
sentence of penal servitude for a revolting moral
offense, and the licenser who prohibits a play
because of its violation of decency, are respectively in the exact logical position of an ecclesiastical persecutor. If, then, there is any degree
of immorality which the law will be justified in
prohibiting, any speculative opinions which will
lead to such immorality must surely fall equally
within the law's cognizance. The most tolerant
17z