Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros16Special IssueUtility and Religion

Special Issue

Utility and Religion

Bentham’s Theory of Toleration
Utilité et religion: Tolérance dans la pensée de Bentham
Shuntaro Obata

Résumés

De nombreux érudits croient que Bentham envisageait davantage que la simple séparation des sphères religieuse et politique dans la vie sociale. Ils considèrent non seulement que Bentham exigeait la rupture de tout lien entre l’Église et l’État, mais aussi qu’il envisageait une Utopie de « Société laïque utilitariste » dans laquelle les individus pussent être émancipés de la religion. Toutefois, cette interprétation semble confondre sa critique de l’Église d’Angleterre avec un rejet général de la religion en soi. S’il est vrai qu’il considérait la religion établie comme une source fondamentale de l’influence corruptrice sur le bonheur temporel, Bentham ne pensait toutefois pas que toutes les églises étaient nécessairement pernicieuses. En effet, il avait une très grande estime pour les « sectes » volontaires qu’il considérait comme des formes de la « religion de Jésus ». La présente étude se propose d’examiner la conception de la « tolérance » dans la pensée religieuse de Bentham. Elle démontrera donc deux points : premièrement, que Bentham reconnaissait l’utilité inhérente de la religion, et deuxièmement, qu’il considérait la séparation de l’Église et de l’État comme une condition institutionnelle pour réaliser l’utilité de la religion.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1Bentham published three important works on religion between the late 1810s and the early 1820s: Church-of-Englandism and its Catechism examined (1818), Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind (1822), and Not Paul, but Jesus (1823). These texts were produced in the context of toleration being a main religious and political issue. Therefore, they seem to most clearly elucidate Bentham’s design with regard to toleration, religious liberty, and the relationship between Church and State.

  • 1 See e.g. Steintrager 1977, p.120.

2This paper aims to examine the conception of “toleration” in Bentham’s religious thought. The standard interpretations of Bentham’s perceptions of the notion must first be explained before accomplishing this paper’s stated objective. Many scholars have emphasized the “secular” characteristics of his thought, positing its “anti-religiosity”.1 Among them, Crimmins defined in detail what Bentham meant by “secularization”:

  • 2 Crimmins 1990, pp.293-4.

The secularization envisaged by Bentham thus involved more than the disentanglement of the religious and political sphere of social life …. Ultimately, secularization meant for Bentham the elimination of religious beliefs as influential psychological factors operating on the human mind, and this was to be the task for the legislator.2

3According to Crimmins, Bentham’s ultimate intent was to realize a “secular Utilitarian society” without religion:

  • 3 Ibid., p.305.

Religion must be entirely absent form this utopia; in its most perfect condition the secular Utilitarian society is peopled by atheists …. In short, a precondition for the maximization of utility is universal atheism.3

  • 4 Crimmins 1985, pp.26-7. See also Crimmins 1986, pp.95-110.
  • 5 Many Japanese studies on Bentham’s religious thought have agreed with Crimmins.

4Crimmins’ image of Bentham’s religious thought was self-admittedly very “authoritative”. He argued that Bentham was “emphatic that individuals and communities in general would be happier if they could find a way of living without religion. In this respect the Analysis rounds off the political critique of the Church Establishment, its institutions and modes of instruction, mounted in Church-of-Englandism”.4 This interpretation implies that Bentham’s insistence on the separation of Church and State in Church-of-Englandism was a mere provisional and transitional means to the end of eliminating religious beliefs altogether.5

5Schofield raised objections to Crimmins’ argument, contending that Bentham had no intention of using the power of the state to eliminate religion from the minds of its citizens:

  • 6 Schofield 1999, pp.288-9. See also Schofield 2006, pp.171-98.

Although Bentham strongly criticized the influence of religion, and in particular the oppressive effects of religious establishments, he was arguably calling for religious liberty, not enforced atheism.6

  • 7 Crimmins 2001, pp.498.
  • 8 Schofield 2009, p.136.

6Crimmins has acknowledged that he pushed his argument too far: “Schofield is right to say that Bentham’s anti-religiosity did not manifest itself in the advocacy of a government programme to stamp out religion”.7 Nonetheless, he still adheres to his insistence that Bentham dreamed of a Utopia of a “secular Utilitarian society” without religion. As far as this point is concerned, Schofield also has acknowledged that Bentham thought that religion and well-being were completely incompatible: “Bentham wanted his contemporaries to rethink their whole attitude towards morals and legislation, but knew that they could not do this in a way which would promote well-being until they had put aside or isolated the teachings of religion …”.8

7However, there seems to be little evidence that Bentham intended to ultimately extirpate religious beliefs, albeit in an unforced manner, through his critique of the established Church. Therefore, to clarify the actual and precise intentions underlying his critique on the established church this paper will initially focus on Bentham’s criticism of the Church of England during his days as a student of Oxford University. Next, it will reveal the political and religious circumstances concerning “toleration” in England in the 1810s, when Church-of-Englandism and other religious manuscripts were written. Finally, the paper will examine Bentham’s critique of the Church of England to evince that Bentham admitted that religion could exert a positive influence under certain conditions, and that the stipulation for such beneficial effects to occur was the separation of Church and State.

Bentham’s perspective of the conception of toleration

8Bentham’s attitudes toward religious problems were far from positive throughout the 18th century. Only in the 1810s did he develop the mature conception of toleration. Nonetheless, his basic perspective of toleration appears to already have been established by this time, although in a less than mature form.

9When Bentham was a student of Oxford University, five Methodist students were expelled from the university on grounds of “heresy”. This incident first drove Bentham to disapprove of the Church of England:

  • 9 CE, Preface, p.xix. / CW, p.35.

by the sentence, by which those readers of the Bible were thus expelled from the University, … my reverence for the Church of England―her doctrine, her discipline, her Universities, her ordinances,―was expelled from my youthful breast.9

10Bentham criticized the exclusion of Methodists on the ground of “heresy” for two reasons: first, he perceived an unhappy contradiction in the fact that “readers of the Bible” were expelled from the University while “atheists” who perjured themselves as pious Christians remained unpunished; second and more importantly, Bentham thought it was impossible to distinguish “heresy” from orthodoxy:

  • 10 Ibid., p.xv. / CW, p.33.

The heresy consisted in this―viz. that, upon being, by persons sent to examine them [Methodists], questioned on the subject of the thirty-nine Church of England Articles, the sense which they put upon these articles were found to be in some instances different from the sense put upon those same articles by those their interrogators.10

  • 11 Bentham 1989, p.420.

11For Bentham, “heresy” was merely a label that the Church of England placed on people who expressed divergent opinions on the so-called thirty-nine Articles. There was no way to verify a truth of faith except to ensure the equal freedom of all opinions. As Bentham asserted later, “all truth, and consequently all useful truth” depended upon “the cause of free enquiry”.11

  • 12 CE, Preface, pp.xix-xx. / CW, p.35.

12The second problem of religion occurred within Bentham when he graduated from Oxford University. At that time, both Oxford and Cambridge Universities required students to “subscribe” to the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. Bentham later reflected upon his reaction to the thirty-nine Articles. “In some of them no meaning at all could I find: in others, no meaning but one which, in my eyes, was but too plainly irreconcilable either to reason or to Scripture”.12

13However, he was eventually compelled to endorse to them for his degree. This even marked a decisive turning point in his opinion of the Church of England. He felt from this experience that “outward assent has been compelled” and summarized university education in the following manner:

  • 13 Ibid., p.xxi. / CW, p.36.

Mendacity and insincerity―in these I found … the effects―the sure and only sure effects―of an English University education.13

14The point to consider at this juncture is that Bentham did not commit himself to criticism against “religion in general”. The purport of his critique pertained to the idea that religion had been “compelled” without any voluntary “assent”. This coercion of faith was completely unnecessary and was harmful.

  • 14 Ibid., p.xxi. / CW, p.36.

I signed: but, by the view I found myself forced to take of the whole business, such an impression was made, as will never depart from me but with life.14

15Such references imply that Bentham was convinced that any confession of faith should be made voluntarily. As will be argued in later sections of this paper, this conviction surfaced repeatedly and would ultimately constitute the foundation of his standpoint on toleration: coercion has no effect on beliefs.

  • 15 Bentham 1981, p.201.
  • 16 In Swear not at all (1817), Bentham pointed out again ‘the needlessness and mischievousness, as wel (...)
  • 17 On the unpublished manuscripts in the 1770s see Crimmins 1990, pp.121-5.

16Bentham often mentioned religious difficulties faced from the time of his graduation from university, references that seem to be based on a coherent interest aroused in him from his student days. He especially censured the coercion of an “oath” as “tyranny exercised by the church over the consciences of men”. The supporters of this “profligate system”, according to Bentham, “find no difficulty in disclaiming all regard to liberty of conscience”.15 Once again, his conviction that a religious profession should be voluntary and tendered according to a person’s own conscience may be noted.16 In the manuscripts of the 1770s, Bentham asserted that “religious truth” could only be approached through reliance on “the liberty of making itself heard”. No persuasion could monopolize a religious truth on the assumption of “infallibility”. England was, in fact, far from being the home of the toleration imagined by its foreign observers.17

  • 18 Bentham 1996, p.116.

17Toleration was demanded also from his political point of view. If the state does not protect so-called heretical opinions, why would Dissenters be loyal to the government? Intolerance would result in a threat to the security of society. For Bentham, religion, “good-will,” and the “love of reputation” seemed to encourage the effect of promoting “social motives” in human beings.18 Therefore, diminishing the influence of religion would decrease the state’s power to deter crimes.

  • 19 Ibid., p.202.

To diminish, then, or misapply the influence of religion, is pro tanto to diminish or misapply what power the state has of combating with effect any of the before enumerated kinds of offences; that is, all kinds of offences whatsoever.19

18This viewpoint that religion could have a crime deterrent effect was adopted in Panopticon (1791). He suggested in this text that the chapel should be installed on the upper floor of the panopticon prison he had designed.

  • 20 Bentham 1843, p.43.

Here, too, would be a proper place for the chapel: the prisoners remaining in their cells, and the windows of the lodge, which is almost all window, being thrown open. The advantages derivable from it in point of light and ventilation depending upon its being kept vacant, it can never be wanted for any profane use. It may therefore, with the greater propriety, be allotted to divine service, and receive a regular consecration.20

19Religion thus seemed to be useful to him in cultivating the sociality of prisoners.

  • 21 On the interpretations which emphasize a sort of continuity in Bentham’s religious thought see Mack (...)

20Though they are neither systematic nor mature, these references recur since his student days at Oxford University and indicate his fundamental understanding of toleration. Later, this essential perspective would solidify into a more mature critique of the Church of England. Bentham first insists upon the notion that there is no arbitrator on earth who can decisively distinguish between the sincerity or falsehood of faith. Second, he claims that individuals should commit themselves voluntarily to beliefs on the basis of personal conscience. Third, he states that religious toleration would result in political security and economic prosperity. This cognition implies that such religious beliefs as may destroy other properties should not be tolerated. While the first and second perspectives lay the foundation of religious toleration, the third perspective operates to regulate and to restrict its agency. These three perspectives are intertwined and constitute the base upon which he built his later criticisms on the established church. It seems safe to say, therefore, that Bentham's early experiences with religion acted as a catalyst to the development of his political and religious radicalism which was finally articulated at the beginning of the 19th century.21

  • 22 See Mack 1962, p.305.

21During the 18th century, Bentham did not publicly expound on his criticism of the Church of England. As Mack has suggested, the publication of such views could have provoked social antipathies, because religion was still a most delicate subject.22 At the beginning of the 19th century, however, toleration became a principal political and religious concern in England. The sections that follow will deliberate on the contexts in which toleration became a primary issue for England in the 1810s.

The policy of toleration in England in the 1810s

22Samuel Romilly, a Bentham’s friend and a law reformer, recorded in his diary Bentham’s reasons for writing Church-of-Englandism:

  • 23 See Crimmins and Fuller, “Editorial Introduction” in Bentham 2011, p.xxi.

The work is written against the National School Society, whose aim is to proscribe all education of the poor, except that in which the religion of the Church of England forms an essential part; and the work, therefore, undertakes to prove, that Church-of-Englandism is wholly different from true Christianity, as it is to be learned from the gospel.23

23As Romilly recounts, the work intended to reveal that the “religion of the Church of England” adopted by the National Society was completely different from the “true Christianity” prescribed in the Bible.

  • 24 Its official name is the “National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principle (...)

24The National Society was founded on 16 October 1811.24 According to its First Annual Report, it purposes that:

  • 25 CE, Introduction, p.89 / CW, p.110.

the NATIONAL RELIGION should be made the Foundation of NATIONAL EDUCATION, and should be the first and chief thing taught to the Poor, according to the excellent Liturgy and Catechism provided by our Church for that purpose.25

25In reality, the schools of the National Society restricted admission to the Anglican poor and used the Anglican catechism as the sole textbook through which it taught reading and writing. Herbert Marsh, a professor of theology at Cambridge University and a supporter of the National Society, appealed to the necessity of the national religion as the foundation of national education:

  • 26 Marsh 1811, p.5.

in all countries, both ancient and modern, the Religion of the state has been the basis of Education for the citizens of that state. In other words, the National Religion has been made the foundation of National Education. … And this education is not left to the will of the teacher, but is prescribed by the laws of the respective countries, and is, therefore, national education.26

26According to Marsh, the “Act of Uniformity” enacted in 1662 had to be made the legal basis for national education in England.

27The educational system adopted by the National Society was called a “monitorial system”. It was devised by an Anglican clergyman, Dr. Bell, who sought to resolve the financial difficulties of education by appointing older students as monitors. However, the Bell system was criticized by a Quaker, called Lancaster, and one of his supporters, James Mill. They held that the National Society pretended to be “national” despite the fact that a part of the nation was excluded from its educational system. Lancaster also established many schools founded on the “monitorial system”, but with significant differences from the Bell system. These schools were open to all sects and used only the Bible as the textbook. Lancaster stated:

  • 27 Lancaster 1805, p.25. In response to Lancaster’s criticism, Bell replied to him that: “there is a r (...)

This school is not established to promote the Religious Principles of any particular Sect; but, setting aside all party distinctions, its object is to instruct Youth in useful Learning, in the leading and uncontroverted principles of Christianity.27

28In Schools for All (1812), Mill tried to defend Lancaster and to refute the views of Marsh:

  • 28 J. Mill 1995, p.37.

The education then proposed by the clergy [Marsh] is so far from being national that it is distinctively meant to be confined to a particular part of the nation; and is by its very conditions exclusive of a great proportion of the nation. The term national cannot therefore be applied to it without the most violent abuse of language. The Lancasterian plans, on the other hand, are calculated entirely and purposely to embrace the nation; if they are but properly supported, will exhibit a national education in the truest and happiest sense of the term.28

  • 29 Ibid., p.35.

29According to Mill, the National Society was the symbol of the “Church-of-Englandism to arrogate to itself the name of national”.29

30In 1813, Mill published “Education of the Poor” in The Edinburgh Review. He argued in this piece that the National Society’s true purpose was the oppression of “minority”.

  • 30 J. Mill 1813, p.217.

The “alliance of Church and State,” when rightly interpreted, seems to mean merely the alliance of the majority with the majority, in order to keep down the minority, ―which does not appear either to be a very just or a necessary measure.30

  • 31 Ibid., p.207.

31He thus questions in conclusion “can they, who strain every nerve to hold a large portion of their fellow-citizens under unequal laws ―that is, to a certain degree, to outlaw them, on account of religious opinions, be justly designated by any other name than intolerant?”31 According to Mill and Lancaster, national education should not be confined to any particular denomination.

  • 32 CE, Plan of the Work, p.xxxvi. / CW, p.43.
  • 33 CE, Introduction, p.52. / CW, p.88.
  • 34 On Bentham’s critique of the National Society and his plan of Chrestomathia see also Komatsu 2006, (...)

32Bentham followed them when he criticized the National Society in his Church-of-Englandism. “The system of instruction carried on in these Schools is directed, ―the children of all members of the nation who are not Church-of-Englandists stand excluded from the benefits of it”.32 In the education system of the National Society, “exclusion of one part of the community of the poor from the benefits of education―compelling the other part to come within the pale of the church dominion,―such are the two intimately connected”.33 Thus, like his predecessors, Bentham considered the National Society to be an “exclusionary system of education”.34

  • 35 The official denomination is “An Act to Relieve Persons who impugn the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity (...)

33The second context to Bentham’s views on toleration emanated from the revision of the “Toleration Act” in 1813. William Smith, a Unitarian MP, was pivotal to the negotiations held with the government with regard to this move. Unitarians faced a subtle difficulty in demanding a revision of the Act, because, just like the Unitarians, Catholics had also been excluded from it. “Catholic Emancipation” had been a focal political issue since the establishment of the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. Smith, therefore, chose a more limited and realistic course of action: a repeal of the relevant existent regulations on religion. His efforts bore fruit in the outright abolition of both the Conventicle Act and the Five Mile Act in 1812. These Acts had been never executed since the enactment of the Toleration Act in 1689. Nevertheless, their abolitions were epoch-making in the sense that for the first time since the repeal of the Occasional Conformity Act and the Schism Act in 1718, restrictive legislations were wiped from the statute books. In 1813, the parliament passed the so-called “Unitarian Toleration Act”.35

  • 36 Bentham also argued that, since “toleration” implied the Established Church was right in its belief (...)
  • 37 Monthly Repository 7, 1812, p.473.
  • 38 Davis 1971, p.184.

34Still, the revised Act did not always meet with the approval of contemporary scholars and activists. For example, Lord Stanhope, a radical Whig, criticized the Act as still being “partial and conditional”. Some restrictive clauses had remained unrepealed: all places of worship had to be registered, ministers who pursued professions other than teaching in schools were excluded from the receipt of exemptions, and so on. Lord Stanhope, therefore, argued that it was necessary to establish, not “toleration”, but “religious liberty”.36 In commenting on the controversy, a radical unitarian magazine named Monthly Repository expressed its sympathies for Lord Stanhope. “We are inclined to prefer the mode pursued by the Lord Stanhope, which comprehends and unites all bodies dissenting from the church”.37 Smith conceded the Act was imperfect; nonetheless, he considered it to be appropriate as a measure that was likely to pass the test of parliament. As Davis asserts, Smith favoured a policy of slow, piecemeal reform, attacking every problem as it arose, and thus gradually extending the structure of religious liberty.38

  • 39 Bentham, 1989, p.151.

35What then, was the relationship between Smith and Bentham with regard to the Toleration Act? Bentham first evaluated the revision of the Toleration Act achieved by Smith: “the religion and liberty of the country are so eminently indebted to yourself”.39 However, like Lord Stanhope, he thought that the Act was imperfect because certain relevant common law clauses remained unrepealed. Bentham confirmed with Smith that the Unitarian Toleration Bill completely protected religious liberty before being voted into law by parliament:

  • 40 Ibid., p.152.

What I heard was to this effect: viz. that, on the occasion of the Unitarian Toleration Bill, … it went so far as to give a compleat indemnity not only to Unitarianism, but to all opinions without distinction respecting the constitution of the Godhead: … and this, not only as against punishment under statute law, but also as against punishment at common law. No effect approaching to this … has been produced by the Act as it stands at present.40

  • 41 Ibid., p.163.
  • 42 Ibid., p.168.
  • 43 Ibid., pp.176-7.

36Smith replied to Bentham that the Bill met with opposition from Lord Eldon at the House of Lords, and that parliament had subsequently passed his revised Bill. About abolishing the relevant clauses of common law, Smith said that “such Latitude is not here necessary or even advantageous to the legitimate Object of all Controversy”. For him, the “legitimate object” was the passing of the Unitarian Toleration Bill. His moderate strategy is briefly shown in the following passage: “in the progress of the Bill, I would not, by unnecessary discussion, incur the risk of exciting a spirit of alarm and opposition”.41 Bentham replied again to Smith that “in the state of things, as reported by you, I am unable to see any such security”.42 According to Bentham, “wheresoever common law reigns, security―whether it be for life, liberty, property, or any thing else―is an empty name”.43

37At this point, there is little doubt that Bentham’s aim in asking this question was to demand that all restrictions imposed on toleration be completely repealed. In other words, Bentham purposed to lay the foundation of religious liberty. The most impregnable obstacle to his aim seemed to be the Church of England.

The development of Bentham’s criticism against the Church of England

38How did Bentham view the Church of England? With regard to the “essential character of an established Church” Bentham stated:

  • 44 CE, Appendix, p.179. / CW, p.332.

the Bible was really the standard of opinion and practice. But to what established Church is the Bible the standard of opinion and practice? No: it is the very essential character of an established Church, ―in so far as a written declaration of opinions is joined in by its members, and that declaration an unalterable one, ―there exists in it a standard of opinion and practice, by which, as to every part to which that standard extends, the Bible has been turned into a dead letter.44

39In this manner, the methodological stance through which Bentham critiqued the Church of England was a sort of “Biblicism”. The Church of England and the Church of Rome could not but violate the Bible as soon as they were “established”.

  • 45 CE, Introduction, p.25. / CW, p.70.

To keep the Bible as much as may be out of sight, is a policy, which, … has ever been pursued in common, by Church-of-Romanism and Church-of-Englandism.45

40The natural next question is, what are the problems that result from the neglect of the Bible?

41As noted in the Lancasterian controversy, the first difficulty pertained to the Church of England’s adoption of the Anglican catechism instead of the Bible as its textbook in the schools run by the National Society. For Bentham, such an act implied that the “spurious religion” was substituted for the “religion of Jesus”:

  • 46 CE, Plan of the Work, pp.xxxv-xxxvi. / CW, p.43.

the Church of England Catechism, in so far as it is substituted to the Bible, is a bad substitute: and … in the National Society’s Schools, in effect it actually is substituted to it:―substituted, not simply added. … Church of Englandism is a religion different from the religion of Jesus, and … in these Schools, principally by means of that Catechism this spurious religion actually is substituted to the religion of Jesus.46

42According to Bentham, Christian instruction should impart “religion of Jesus” as it appeared in the Bible.

  • 47 CE, Introduction, p.8. / CW, p.60.

The religion of Jesus―and not the religion of any other person―is the religion to be taught. But the religion of Jesus―in whose words shall it be sought for, but in the words of Jesus?47

  • 48 J. S. Mill also regarded the words of Jesus very highly from the viewpoint of utilitarianism: “I gr (...)

43The words of Jesus in the Bible would be more compatible with utilitarianism, if not completely in harmony with the philosophy, as it could inspire “social motives”. The importance of the religion of Jesus was also emphasized in Not Paul, but Jesus. Later, J. S. Mill would adopt a similar view in Utility of Religion.48

  • 49 CE, Introduction, p.21. / CW, pp.67-8.

44In addition, Bentham believed that espousing the Anglican catechism would corrupt both the “moral part” and the “intellectual part” of the human mind because it did not incorporate either “quotations” or “references” from the original.49 According to Bentham, the Church of England utilized catechism without quotations because it desired to monopolize the “orthodox interpretation” of the Bible and sought to provide the “sole standard of belief and practice”. Readers of the Anglican catechism were not required to independently verify the signification of its words. Bentham referred to A Charge to the Clergy of London (1815) as the symbol of the religious spirit of the Church of England. This work was written by the Bishop of London, William Howley, who was a supporter of the National Society. He asserted on the religious spirit of “Unitarians” that: 

  • 50 Howley, A Charge to the Clergy of London at the Primacy Visitation of that Diocese in the Year 1814 (...)

loving rather to question than learn, [they] have approached the oracles of divine truth without that humble docility, that prostration of the understanding and will, which are indispensable to proficiency in Christian instruction.50

45However, for Bentham, the “prostration of the understanding and will” merely indicated prostration to “what cometh out of the mouth of the Church of England Clergy”. He thus felt that Anglican catechism was very problematic because it constrained critical thinking.

  • 51 CE, The Church of England Catechism Examined., p.47. / CW, p.233.

46Bentham’s second problem related to the “sacrament” comprising the “Lord’s Supper” and “Baptism”. According to Bentham, the sacrament was not ordained by Jesus: “as to Christ, the question being how many sacraments hath Christ ordained, the true answer would have been―none”.51 However, considering that Bentham had suggested that the chapel for receiving a regular consecration should be placed in the panopticon prison, his criticism seems to be directed not to the sacrament itself but to the perfunctory ritualism. He criticized that the Church of England excluded the poor from the “Lord’s Supper”:

  • 52 CE, Appendix, p.165. / CW, p.320.

the poor―those whose poverty is certified by the state of their clothing and other tokens―are they really admitted the altar―are they admitted to a sip of the precious liquor, thus metamorphosed into the still more precious blood? ―Ah no: it cannot be: this would be incompatible with all notions of Church-of-England decency.52

47Consequently, the poor were excluded also from the object of salvation:

  • 53 Ibid., pp.166-7. / CW, p.321.

for the great bulk of mankind, no more has salvation been ever intended by the Church-of-England Priest, than justice, or so much as the shew of it, by the English Lawyers. By the founders of Church-of-England Religion, had salvation been designed for any but the rich, Bacchus would never have thus been seated by the side of Jesus.53

48In the Church of England, money was “the sole real object of regard”, whereas the salvation for the poor was not taken into account at all. Thus, Bentham’s issue with the “Lord’s Supper” was that Anglican clergy did not dedicate itself to its duty as saviour of souls.

  • 54 CE, Introduction, p.245. / CW, p.200.
  • 55 CE, The Church of England Catechism Examined, p.59. / CW, p.240.
  • 56 CE, Introduction, p.239. / CW, p.197.

49With regard to “Baptism”, Bentham’s critique pertained largely to infant Baptism since he was convinced that it was impossible for an infant to grasp its own sins to repent. “At this age, in relation to any such subject, a declaration of persuasion, what can it be but an untruth? ―the habit of making such declarations, what is it but a habitual course of lying?”54 If Baptism requires repentance, infant Baptism was absurd. “In the natural course of things, the motive comes before the act. If the course here prescribed were to be pursued, the act would take the lead”.55 However, as long as it was based on the assent of an adult, Baptism had “no absurdity ―no impropriety in any shape”.56 Thus, his conviction that the essence of faith consisted in the voluntariness of the believer is underscored once again.

50Bentham’s final issue with the Church of England and the Church of Rome was their institution of the “clergy” as a ruling class. According to Bentham, the Anglican clergy was essentially different from the other clerics in that they were ordered in a strict hierarchy.

  • 57 CE, Appendix, p.147. / CW, p.306.

The Quaker, the Baptist, the Methodist, the Independent, the Presbyterian, the Unitarian Christian, the Deist, the Atheist, the Church-of-England layman―all these, ―but, above all, this layman―find, … oppressors, and as such adversaries, in the Church-of-England Clergy, headed by the Church-of-England Hierarchy.57

51In addition, the Anglican clergy’s close connection with the state as lord spiritual was another aspect of concern.

  • 58 Ibid., p.129. / CW, pp.289-90.

The Ecclesiastical Establishment―including the Bench of Bishops in the Upper House of Parliament―is necessary to the existence of the Constitution. In this proposition we behold a fundamental axiom or postulate. Obedience, passive and active, to the will of the Monarch, … is the universal and incontestably constant habit of that holy Bench. … Therefore constant corruption is a vital and indispensable part of the Constitution of this country.58

52According to Bentham, the relationship between the monarch and the clergy were interdependent in the English Constitution: while the monarch met with the approval of the Upper House for his bill, the clergy was able to attain office through the patronage of the monarch.

  • 59 CE, Introduction, p.99. / CW, p.116.

53Therefore, the catechism, the sacrament, and the Anglican clergy were nothing less than “a state engine:―an engine, employed in the manufactory of the matter of corruption, for a cement to … Alliance between Church and State”.59 On the one hand, the state guaranteed the docility of its subjects through the educational system and the church sermon; on the other hand, the church reinforced the impact of its discourse through the coercive power of the state. The close relationship between the church and the state constituted a core of “sinister interest”.

  • 60 Ibid., p.246. / CW, p.200.

Under every system of government, in proportion as it is corrupt, it is the interest of the ruling few that the intellectual, and thence the moral part of the public mind, should be in the most perfect and convenient state of depravation possible.60

54How then, did Bentham himself reconstitute the relationship between the church and the state?

Bentham on Church and State

  • 61 William Paley also called for complete religious toleration, but he excluded “Papists, Anabaptists (...)

55Although Bentham severely criticized the Church of England, he did not equate it with other churches. It is interesting that Bentham regarded Puritans and their churches most highly.61 Strictly speaking, when Bentham referred to the “Puritans”, he kept such “schismatics” as the Baptists or the Independents in mind. Bentham’s view of the church is clearly expressed in the following passage:

  • 62 CE, Appendix, p.299. / CW, p.423.

In the English Established Church may be seen the forms of discipline without the substance: in the Scottish, form and substance both: in the Non-Established Churches no form, but nevertheless the substance: and this but the better, for being without the forms.62

  • 63 CE, Introduction, p.23. / CW, p.69.
  • 64 Ibid., pp.23-4. / CW, p.69.

56Bentham most severely criticized the Church of England because it adopted the “Episcopacy”. The Church of Scotland that espoused the “Presbyterianism” was better than the Church of England. However, they were common in the “domination of the ruling few”. The non-established churches of the Puritans were ideal because of the Congregationalism, namely, the “management of the equal many”.63 For Bentham, the contrast between “Church-of-Englandism”, “Church-of-Scotlandism” and “Puritanism” was decisively important: “by no English readers, ought this contrast to be lost sight of. … It will present itself again and again in the course of these pages: and all along what purity and impurity are, will be shewn―not by declamation, but by example”.64

57Bentham’s view of the Puritans seems to be similar in part to the opinions of David Hume. He asserted the historical significance of the Puritans in establishing “liberty”, thus:

  • 65 CE, Appendix, pp.144-5. / CW, p.304.

It is to the Puritans, mostly if not exclusively, that, by the acknowledgement of David Hume, … we stand indebted, for whatsoever of those things called liberties are still, in practice, left to us, and for the advantage of having gold for a covering to the rods by which we are ruled. Even to David Hume, those enthusiasts―those sectaries―those schismatics … were known by the liberties which they gained for us, and left to us.65

  • 66 Hume had said the following about the Puritans: “So absolute, indeed, was the authority of the crow (...)

58These descriptions seem to refer to certain passages in Hume’s the History of England.66 However, whereas Hume emphasized that the Puritans contributed to the establishment of the “principles of civil liberty” by opposing royal authority, Bentham attended more to the establishment of “religious liberty” through the efforts of the Puritans.

  • 67 CE, Appendix, p.149. / CW, p.307.

Witness all the sects: witness every sectary in the Kingdom. In what sect, in the breast of what sectary, is religion a matter of indifference? In what sect does a man declare himself to believe any thing he does not believe? In what sect does a Minister extort money for doing nothing?67

  • 68 Ibid., p.298. / CW, p.422.

59According to Bentham, the Puritan “sect” was the “perfection of all Church management”. He argued as well that Schism is “conducive to truth in doctrine: it is no less so to goodness of discipline”.68 The discussion so far should have elucidated and demonstrated that Bentham’s ideal Church was envisioned as a voluntary association based on the Bible and that he severely criticized the Church of England, not to realize a “secular Utilitarian society” without religion, but to purify religion as it was followed in England.

60On the other hand, Bentham wrote as a “maxim of government” that:

  • 69 CE, Introduction, p.61. / CW, p.94.

the securing the temporal well being of mankind … and not the salvation of souls, is the proper ground―the only proper ground―for the application for the powers of government to matters of religion.69

61This passage evidences that Bentham believed that the government’s authority should be restricted to the securing of the temporal well-being of mankind. His stance regarding the relationship between the church and the state becomes more clearly visible in another passage:

  • 70 CE, Appendix, p.149. / CW, p.307.

the best thing that a government could now do, would be not to meddle with it [religion], always excepted the purifying it from whatsoever portions of the matter of wealth, power, or dignity, in the shape of the matter of corruption, superstition has ever daubed it with.70

  • 71 Bentham points out the importance of the benefits of faith in another work as well: “Le choix d’une (...)

62With respect to the Church of England, Bentham thought it was necessary for the state to offer a remedy for the kind of “political mischief” or the “matter of wealth, power, or dignity”. Apart from the purifying of religion from the “matter of corruption”, Bentham demanded a rigid separation between politics and religion.71 It is his consistent position that the state should not interfere in religious issues such as the “salvation of souls”.

  • 72 It can be still disputable whether this text fully reflects Bentham's religious views, because Geor (...)

63But then, how should the church and the state correlate? In other words, what restrictions should be imposed on the practice of religious belief? Arguments concerning the restriction of toleration may be found in Bentham’s Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind.72 In this work, Bentham argues that:

  • 73 Bentham 2003, p.66.

the doctrine of toleration, or that of leaving every man to recommend himself to God by the methods which he himself prefers, so long as he abstains from injuring others, seems to be fully recognised.73

  • 74 Bentham shows the similar view concerning the restriction of toleration in another work: “Règle gén (...)

64He suggests that “injuring others” constitutes the limit of toleration.74

  • 75 Howley, A Charge to the Clergy of London, p. 13, cited from CE, Appendix, p.117. / CW, p.280.
  • 76 On the distinction of “real injury” and “imaginary alarms” see also Schofield 1999, p.286.

65What does “injuring others” mean, however? The Bishop of London William Howley impeached “all schism” as “guilty” because “[w]e are indeed exposed to dangers”.75 Bentham, therefore, separated “public hate” into two instances: “real injury” and “imaginary alarms”.76 He insisted that:

  • 77 Bentham 2003, pp.112-3.

the efficacy of the public hate … depends upon its being constantly and exclusively allied with the real injury of the public … and never upon any mistaken or imaginary alarms. Whatever, therefore, tends to make men hate that which does not actually hurt them, contributes to distort or disarm public opinion.77

66Thus, valid “public hate” must be restricted to those cases that invited “real injury”. Conversely, when “public hate” was based on “imaginary alarms” such as that of the Bishop of London, it tended to “make men hate that which does not actually hurt them” and helped to “distort or disarm public opinion”.

  • 78 In Bentham’ view, the hatred of homosexuality also pertained to “imaginary alarms” because it does (...)

67According to Bentham, the Church of England’s hate for heresies was nothing less than a case of “imaginary alarms”.78 He described the “genealogy” of religious oppression and persecution in the following manner:

  • 79 CE, The Church of England Catechism Examined, p.85. / CW, p.255.

From imaginary grace, imaginary mystery, imaginary sacrament, come imaginary blasphemy, imaginary sin; from imaginary sin, comes real antipathy; and from men, in ruling and otherwise influential situations, real oppression and real persecution, on that one part; real suffering on the other.79

68Thus, Bentham thought “imaginary alarms” were mainly spread by “men in ruling and otherwise influential situations”, because rulers needed to fix a prejudice to maintain their “sinister interest”. Therefore, the disorganization of the Church of England should not merely aim to retrieve the purity of religion; it should also remedy the distortion of public opinion and secure the rational exercise of political power.

Conclusion

69As has been observed, Bentham never pursued the elimination of religion per se from the human mind in Church-of-Englandism or in his other treatises. He purposed to dissolve hate or prejudice promoted by influential rulers and therefore, to purify both religion and public opinion. In Bentham’s view, religion had the positive effects such as the cultivation of “social motives” or the sense of “salvation”. Only a rigid separation of the church and the state could ensure that each domain would operate on its own ground. The “secularization” envisaged by Bentham must be appreciated in this sense.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

CE: Bentham, J. (1818), Church-of-Englandism and its Catechism examined, London.

CW: Bentham, J. (2011), “Church-of-Englandism and its Catechism examined”, in J. E. Crimmins and C. Fuller (eds.) The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, Clarendon Press.

Bell, A. (1805), An Experiment in Education, made at the Male Asylum at Egmore, near Madras, London.

Bentham, J. (1802), Traités de Législation Civile et Pénale, par Jérémie Bentham, publiés en François par Ét. Dumont, Paris, Tome 1.

Bentham, J. (1843), “Panopticon: or, the Inspection-House”, in J. Bowring (ed.) The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol.4, William Tait.

Bentham, J. (1981), The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham, vol.4, ed. A. T. Milne, Athlone Press.

Bentham, J. (1989), The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham, vol.9, ed. S. Conway, Clarendon Press.

Bentham, J. (1996), An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ed. J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart, Clarendon Press.

Bentham, J. (2003), Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind, Prometheus Books.

Crimmins, J. E. (1985), “Bentham’s Religious Writings: A Bibliographic Chronology”, The Bentham Newsletter, 9. pp.21-33.

Crimmins, J. E. (1986), “Bentham on Religion: Atheism and the Secular Society”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 47, pp.95-110.

Crimmins, J. E. (1990), Secular Utilitarianism: Social Science and the Critique of Religion in the Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Clarendon Press.

Crimmins, J. E. (2001), “Bentham’s Religious Radicalism Revisited: A Response to Schofield”, History of Political Thought, 22, pp.495-500.

Davis, R. W. (1971), Dissent in Politics 1780-1830: the Political Life of William Smith MP, Epworth Press.

De Champs, E. (2015), “Religion, politique et utilité chez Jeremy Bentham”, Archives de Philosophie, 78, pp. 275-90.

Hume, D. (1983), The History of England, vol.4, Liberty Classics.

Komatsu, K. (2006), Social Government and Education: The Educational Thought of Bentham, (in Japanese) Ryutsu Keizai U. P.

Lancaster, J. (1805), Improvements in Education, as it respects the Industrious Classes of the Community, London.

Mack, M. P. (1962), Jeremy Bentham: an Odyssey of Ideas 1748-92, Heinemann.

Marsh, H. (1811), The National Religion, The Foundation of National Education: A Sermon preached in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London.

Mill, J. (1813), “Education for the Poor”, The Edinburgh Review, 21.

Mill, J. (1995), Schools for all, in preference to Schools for Churchmen only: of, the State of the Controversy between the Advocates for the Lancasterian System of Universal Education, and those who have set up Exclusive and Partial System under the Name of Church and Dr. Bell, Thoemmes Press.

Mill, J. S. (1998), “Utility of Religion” in Three Essays on Religion, Prometheus Books.

Obata, S. (2017), “Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism and Human Dignity”, (in Japanese) Konan Law Review, 58, pp.1-37.

O’Flaherty, N. (2019), Utilitarianism in the Age of Enlightenment: The Moral and Political Thought of William Paley, Cambridge U. P.

Okubo, M. (1997), “The Authorship of Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind”, (in Japanese) Bulletin of Sugino Women's College, Sugino Women's Junior College, 34, pp.21-33.

Schofield, P. (1999), “Political and Religious Radicalism in the Thought of Jeremy Bentham”, History of Political Thought, 20, pp.272-91.

Schofield, P. (2006), Utility and Democracy: The Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford U. P.

Schofield, P. (2009), Bentham: A Guide for the Perplexed, Continuum.

Schofield, P. (2014), “Bentham on Taste, Sex, and Religion”, in X. Zhai and M. Quinn (eds.) Bentham’s Theory of Law and Public Opinion, Cambridge U. P., pp.90-118.

Steintrager, J. (1977), Bentham, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Steintrager, J. (1980), “Language and Politics: Bentham on Religion”, The Bentham Newsletter, 4, pp.4-20.

Haut de page

Notes

1 See e.g. Steintrager 1977, p.120.

2 Crimmins 1990, pp.293-4.

3 Ibid., p.305.

4 Crimmins 1985, pp.26-7. See also Crimmins 1986, pp.95-110.

5 Many Japanese studies on Bentham’s religious thought have agreed with Crimmins.

6 Schofield 1999, pp.288-9. See also Schofield 2006, pp.171-98.

7 Crimmins 2001, pp.498.

8 Schofield 2009, p.136.

9 CE, Preface, p.xix. / CW, p.35.

10 Ibid., p.xv. / CW, p.33.

11 Bentham 1989, p.420.

12 CE, Preface, pp.xix-xx. / CW, p.35.

13 Ibid., p.xxi. / CW, p.36.

14 Ibid., p.xxi. / CW, p.36.

15 Bentham 1981, p.201.

16 In Swear not at all (1817), Bentham pointed out again ‘the needlessness and mischievousness, as well as anti-Christianity of the ceremony of an oath’. As he says, “swear not at all” was a word of Jesus in Matthew 5:34.

17 On the unpublished manuscripts in the 1770s see Crimmins 1990, pp.121-5.

18 Bentham 1996, p.116.

19 Ibid., p.202.

20 Bentham 1843, p.43.

21 On the interpretations which emphasize a sort of continuity in Bentham’s religious thought see Mack 1962 and Steintrager 1980. But they seem to confuse the criticism of the Church of England with the one of religion in general.

22 See Mack 1962, p.305.

23 See Crimmins and Fuller, “Editorial Introduction” in Bentham 2011, p.xxi.

24 Its official name is the “National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church in England and Wales”.

25 CE, Introduction, p.89 / CW, p.110.

26 Marsh 1811, p.5.

27 Lancaster 1805, p.25. In response to Lancaster’s criticism, Bell replied to him that: “there is a risk of elevating, by an indiscriminate education, the minds of those doomed to the drudgery of daily labour, above their condition, and thereby rendering them discontented and unhappy in their lot”. Bell 1805, p.62.

28 J. Mill 1995, p.37.

29 Ibid., p.35.

30 J. Mill 1813, p.217.

31 Ibid., p.207.

32 CE, Plan of the Work, p.xxxvi. / CW, p.43.

33 CE, Introduction, p.52. / CW, p.88.

34 On Bentham’s critique of the National Society and his plan of Chrestomathia see also Komatsu 2006, pp.79-127.

35 The official denomination is “An Act to Relieve Persons who impugn the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity from certain Penalties”.

36 Bentham also argued that, since “toleration” implied the Established Church was right in its beliefs, it is desirable to use the word “religious liberty”. See Crimmins 1990, p.110. But actually he often uses the terms “toleration” and “religious liberty” interchangeably.

37 Monthly Repository 7, 1812, p.473.

38 Davis 1971, p.184.

39 Bentham, 1989, p.151.

40 Ibid., p.152.

41 Ibid., p.163.

42 Ibid., p.168.

43 Ibid., pp.176-7.

44 CE, Appendix, p.179. / CW, p.332.

45 CE, Introduction, p.25. / CW, p.70.

46 CE, Plan of the Work, pp.xxxv-xxxvi. / CW, p.43.

47 CE, Introduction, p.8. / CW, p.60.

48 J. S. Mill also regarded the words of Jesus very highly from the viewpoint of utilitarianism: “I grant some of the precepts of Christ as exhibited in the Gospels―rising far above the Paulism which is the foundation of ordinary Christianity―carry some kinds of moral goodness to a greater height than had ever been attained before. … [T]hese [the words of Jesus] are surely in sufficient harmony with the intellect and feelings of every good man or woman, to be in no danger of being let go, after having been once acknowledged as the creed of the best and foremost portion of our species”. See J. S. Mill 1998, pp. 97-9.

49 CE, Introduction, p.21. / CW, pp.67-8.

50 Howley, A Charge to the Clergy of London at the Primacy Visitation of that Diocese in the Year 1814, (London, 1815), p. 17, cited from CE, Appendix, p.88. / CW, p.258.

51 CE, The Church of England Catechism Examined., p.47. / CW, p.233.

52 CE, Appendix, p.165. / CW, p.320.

53 Ibid., pp.166-7. / CW, p.321.

54 CE, Introduction, p.245. / CW, p.200.

55 CE, The Church of England Catechism Examined, p.59. / CW, p.240.

56 CE, Introduction, p.239. / CW, p.197.

57 CE, Appendix, p.147. / CW, p.306.

58 Ibid., p.129. / CW, pp.289-90.

59 CE, Introduction, p.99. / CW, p.116.

60 Ibid., p.246. / CW, p.200.

61 William Paley also called for complete religious toleration, but he excluded “Papists, Anabaptists and Puritans” from the object of toleration on the issue of subscription to the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. See O’Flaherty 2019, p.248.

62 CE, Appendix, p.299. / CW, p.423.

63 CE, Introduction, p.23. / CW, p.69.

64 Ibid., pp.23-4. / CW, p.69.

65 CE, Appendix, pp.144-5. / CW, p.304.

66 Hume had said the following about the Puritans: “So absolute, indeed, was the authority of the crown, that precious spark of liberty had been kindled, and was preserved, by the puritans alone; and it was to this sect, whose principles appear so frivolous and habits so ridiculous, that the English owe the whole freedom of their constitution”. Hume 1983, pp.145-6.

67 CE, Appendix, p.149. / CW, p.307.

68 Ibid., p.298. / CW, p.422.

69 CE, Introduction, p.61. / CW, p.94.

70 CE, Appendix, p.149. / CW, p.307.

71 Bentham points out the importance of the benefits of faith in another work as well: “Le choix d’une religion est uniquement du ressort de la prudence des individus. S’ils sont persuadés que leur bonheur éternel depend d’un certain culte ou d’une certaine croyance, que peut opposer le Législateur à un intérêt aussi grand?” Bentham 1802, p.103.

72 It can be still disputable whether this text fully reflects Bentham's religious views, because George Grote, a combatant atheist and the editor of Analysis, neglected Bentham’s drafts that approved of a religious “comfort”. See Okubo 1997, p.30.

73 Bentham 2003, p.66.

74 Bentham shows the similar view concerning the restriction of toleration in another work: “Règle générale. Laissez aux individus la plus grande latitude possible dans tous les cas où ils ne peuvent nuire qu’à eux-mêmes; car ils sont les meilleurs juges de leurs intérêts”. Bentham 1802, p.103.

75 Howley, A Charge to the Clergy of London, p. 13, cited from CE, Appendix, p.117. / CW, p.280.

76 On the distinction of “real injury” and “imaginary alarms” see also Schofield 1999, p.286.

77 Bentham 2003, pp.112-3.

78 In Bentham’ view, the hatred of homosexuality also pertained to “imaginary alarms” because it does not produce any mischief in anyone: “The antipathy in question (and the appetite of malevolence that results from it) as far as it is not warranted by the essential mischievousness of the offence is grounded only in prejudice”. On Bentham’s Offences against One’s Self: Paederasty see Obata 2017, pp.21-7. See also Schofield 2014, pp.109-15.

79 CE, The Church of England Catechism Examined, p.85. / CW, p.255.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Shuntaro Obata, « Utility and Religion »Revue d’études benthamiennes [En ligne], 16 | 2019, mis en ligne le 20 décembre 2019, consulté le 14 février 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/etudes-benthamiennes/6072 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/etudes-benthamiennes.6072

Haut de page

Auteur

Shuntaro Obata

Konan University (Japan)

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search