The clergy vindicated from the charge of hostility to the diffusion of science : being an answer to the pamphlet of Mr. H. G. Wright / by a phrenologist.

Date:
1836
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The clergy vindicated from the charge of hostility to the diffusion of science : being an answer to the pamphlet of Mr. H. G. Wright / by a phrenologist. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    5/12 (page 5)
    Did he never hear, then, of the “ father of lies” personating “ an angel of light^' and will he venture to affirm that this is either a “ novef' or an “ anomalous''' character for him to as- sume ? Is he not aware that a far higher authority than any he can quote in opposition to it, has declared that it is “ no great thing if Satan’s ministers be transformed as the ministers of righteousness ?” Does he really attribute to the prince of dark- ness such wretched policy as to suppose that he would send error abroad in search of victims without first veiling her under the specious covering of truth ; or that he would administer the poi- son of infidelity, pure and unadulterated, instead of infusing it in the cup of knowledge? Is Mr H.G. Wright so ignorant of the past history of the world, as not to be aware that no weapon has been more successfully employed by Satan for the accomplishment of his deep-laid machinations than religion with the alloy of error? And if he make religion subservient to his designs, why not 'phi- losophy too? The history of infidelity abundantly proves that he does. The clergy entertain no dread of the dissemination of truths either religious or secular. On the contrary they encourage both, and that, too, even in the Christian Herald.* But know- ing, as they well do, that error is never so dangerous as when combined with a sufficient amount of truth to give it currency, they do look with suspicion on those teachers of human science who either attempt to undermine the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, or enforce the study of nature as revealing all that is requisite for man to know. Who would deny that in so far as lecturers on science inculcate the duty of keeping the moral faculties “ habitually in action,” and “ expound the great laws by which the universe is governed,” they do well ? But does Mr H. G. Wright suppose that this is all that is necessary to render man a “ highly moral being ?” Far more must be done in order to reclaim the naturally profligate, and to render them fit recipients of secular knowledge, than merely to unfold to them the principles of their constitution, and the relations sub- • The 16th number of this periodical contains an article on “ The Advan- tages to be derived by the Christian from the Study of Natural Science,” in which the author, after alluding to the facilities now afforded for “ promoting the instruction of the young, and of the labouring classes of society,” adds, “ and the mind must be dark that does not approve of the object proposed; and the heart must be hard that does not wish it success,’*