1
10
4
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d33aebbb434aec53c20af1f759cb64b0.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=i2Iex8U605EAJiiZcrsJiKLzRpZ4JcrtYlT0ZBj7eFLSueBXWKCnNaShpvwrNob6FA1gNTepzUFnCEfdWOWibtl2QJCH0wwb7AKCQNbxCRc2m0V6az9Bs26RsvnH4SFWyhDYFydDWAalGVtr16MqIT4GL9XSaTv2FAVUJTfM6-S08QTqejYoLJ1ZlQoXC59fhF9tnhm3-yBdx6Kmp1Pstmqe-JsXyLFGo6ZpLC9-cpppPKJbg53lvKHBQVXIPRKBWjg9ko1kCKaMdJLVLffPRkT6l9S%7EUB6ei8tGXG7dl6A6QjMC7r2rjRvOEwQ0FGpQV23ZHt80sxWnvjh6fn7h0w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a525c750e87cdfdd14b1579f68def43f
PDF Text
Text
SPIRITUALISM
By the Rev. R. H. Benson
It is becoming every day increasingly impossible
for any educated man to dismiss the subject of
Spiritualism with mere contempt. A matter which
is engaging the earnest attention of men like Professor
Barrett, Professor Oliver Lodge, and women like Mrs
Henry Sidgwick; a branch of inquiry which absorbs
Professor Richet, which has changed Professor Lombroso from a convinced materialist into a believer in
the spiritual world; a religion which numbers hun
dreds of thousands of adherents throughout the
civilized globe, including many professors at foreign
universities, and has produced societies in every
European country, which can trace back its spiritual
descent in every civilization practically as far as
ordinary theistic religion itself; which claims, unlike
other religions, to produce evidential phenomena
practically at will, and to bring spiritual existences
before the bar of the senses—all this can no longer be
ignored or simply laughed at. A generation or two
ago it was possible to take up such an attitude ; it
appeared then, at least to men of average education,
as if the matter had become finally discredited ; the
thing lurked about among ill-informed people in
slightly disreputable and dingy surroundings; its
professors, when they engaged public attention at all,
were frequently detected in fraud ; there was scarcely
one adherent to its philosophy—scarcely even one
who thought it worth investigation—whose name was
known beyond his own immediate circle. But all
this has changed. The affair has come out into the
light of day; its phenomena are in process of being
36
1
�2
The History of Religions
136
respectfully judged by scientists as well as by theo
logians ; and it must take its place at last among the
recognized religions of the world.
I 0)
Its history is, as has been said, as old as the history
of civilization, and even older, since, under the form
of Necromancy, it is said to be traceable among vari
ous nations in almost every part of the world, and it
survives to-day among peoples so far removed from
one another as the Esquimaux and the Hindus. It
is also one of its characteristics that it usually under
goes strong revivals at periods when established
creeds are beginning to lose their hold, and that it is
one of the most common signs of decadence in re-,
ligious thought. It is mentioned, with decided con
demnation, in book after book of the Old Testament.1Yet it is difficult to determine its creed, since this
appears to take its colouring to a large extent from
the religious thought of the respective countries in
which it flourishes.2 It is by its phenomena, and its
startling claims to bring the spiritual world within
the range of the senses, rather than by its dogmas,
that it may be identified as one religion rather than
many.
It would be impossible therefore to give a coherent
or exhaustive account of Spiritualism considered as a
world-religion. All that is possible is to describe it
as it appears in the world to-day, to state its claims,
and to examine its credentials. In its present form,
especially under the aspect of communication through
1 Lev. xx. 6. “The soul that shall go aside after magicians and
soothsayers ... I will set my face against that soul.’; xix. 31 ;
1 Kings xxviii. 3 • 4 Kings xxi. 6 ; etc.
2 Spiritistic practices have been traced amongst nations so far removed
from one another as the ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, the Jews, the
North American Indians. (Cf. Lapponi, Hypnotism and Spiritism,
pp. 20 ff.)
�361
Spiritualism
3
rapping on tables, it first appeared in America in
the year 1848, whence it spread quickly all over
Europe.1
(ii)
Briefly speaking, the spiritualist claims that the
“ other world ” is directly accessible to this, not merely
by one revelation made once for all and preserved in
its integrity, not merely by sacraments or the recep
tion of supersensual grace, not merely by exceptional
and abnormal apparitions very occasionally granted
by direct Divine permission; but by constant com
munications from the spirits of the departed, through
which men can be assured of the survival of human
souls, and can receive a kind of progressive revelation
of the supreme laws of the universe.
These communications are made (it is said) in a
variety of ways; but for all of them there is required
what is known as the mediumistic faculty on the part
of at least.one of the inquirers. The medium in fact
is a person living in this world who, through his
peculiar constitution, is enabled to act as a channel
between'the two worlds, and to be so used by the
discarnate personalities who desire to communicate
with human beings. For those communications to
take place it is usually necessary for the medium to
pass into a state of trance, such as was that into
which the priests and priestesses of the old oracles
were accustomed to pass. The usual method of
procedure at spiritualistic meetings then, though not
the invariable method, is as follows:—
The inquirers themselves sit round a table and
endeavour to put themselves into a sympathetic
attitude of mind, placing their hands upon the table
in order to establish the “ circle ”—that is, a kind of
psychical ring, connected perhaps with some unknown
1 Its revival at the present day is no doubt largely due to the Pro
testant disregard of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints.
�4
The History of Religions
[36
laws of magnetism—through which the communica
tions may be more easily made. The “spiritual
atmosphere” is often helped by the singing of hymns,
the playing of soft music, or the offering of prayer.
The medium, according to circumstances, sits either
with the inquirers or in a cabinet apart by himself.
Precautions are usually taken intended to guard against
possible fraud, conscious or unconscious.
After a certain period has passed it is claimed that
phenomena frequently take place that put it beyond
a doubt that discarnate and intelligent spirits are
present and are beginning to communicate. These are
generally of one or more of the following kinds :—
(a) Movements of inanimate objects.—The table at
which the inquirers are seated begins to tremble, to
move, to emit rapping sounds, to rise from the floor
in such a manner as cannot be explained by human
agency. Objects in the room are seen (in the twilight,
in which the seances are usually held) to move through
the air ; or, in darkness, are felt by the sitters to touch
therrf. Objects are brought through closed doors and
placed upon the table. Other objects are actually
“ materialized,” that is, are brought into existence in
a manner to be discussed later. Lights of a peculiar
nature are formed in the air and move about fast or
slowly. A pencil placed upon a sheet of paper or
within locked slates is heard to move upon the paper,
and messages are found later written upon the paper
or slates.1
1 Extract from “Report on a Series of Sittings with Eusapia Palla
dino,” reprinted from the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical
Research, part lix,, vol. xxiii. pp. 404, 431, 498. By the Hon.
Everard Feilding, W. W. Baggally, and Hereward Carrington:—
(<z) “ 12.5 a.m. Complete levitation of the table.
C. I hold both her ankles with my two hands.
F. I was holding her right hand in the middle of the table.
Prof. G. I was holding her left hand on the rim of the table.
I1. Prof. G.’s left hand was on my right hand (across the table).
Note by M. Large movements of the table; I can just see the
table up in the air. ...”
(Extract from shorthand report taken at the time.)
�36]
Spiritualism
5
(jo) Messages delivered through the mouth of the
medium.—These consist in sentences spoken by the
medium, generally in a voice alien to himself, pur
porting to come from one or more discarnate spirits
present in the room, known either personally or by
repute while they lived in the body to one or more
of the inquirers. It is claimed that these messages
often concern private matters utterly unknown to the
medium, known only to the inquirer and to the
departed soul who is present. Sometimes these
messages are of a private nature, sometimes of public
interest, and concern spiritual and religious truths.
(c) Messages delivered through inanimate objects.—
These come sometimes, as has been said, by means of
a pencil placed on paper or within locked slates,
sometimes by means of raps upon the table or the
walls of a room, interpreted by a code agreed upon
by the sitters. Three raps usually are taken to stand
for “yes,” one rap for “ no.”1
“ 11.26 p.m. The small table is levitated right on to the seance
table, through the curtains between B. and the medium.
It rose to a height of two and a half feet from the floor,
and is now resting on the seance table. ...”
“ 12.5° a. m. F. She taps with her right hand on mine, and the
tambourine shakes synchronously within the cabinet.
C. The bell rings, and has been brought on the top of the
medium’s head from the cabinet, and remains there.
F. I was holding her right hand on the top of the table. I saw
the bell arrive on her head. ...”
(5) “F. A light flashed out about a foot behind and above the
medium’s head. It was of a brilliant bluish-green colour.
(It was a steady light, and lasted about two seconds.)
11.37 p.m. F. Now another light has come out, this time on
the medium’s lap.
B. Both C. and F, saw a brilliant light inside the cabinet,
about two and a half feet from the medium, inside the
right-hand curtain. ...”
It must be noted that these seances were conducted by trained
observers under stringent test-conditions. The extracts are given from
this report as containing, on the whole, descriptions of the most
accurate and scientific observations made in recent times.
1 “Report,’’etc., pp. 470, 475.
“ 11.1 p.m. Four nods of her head are followed by four thumps on
the table. She did not touch the table with her head.
II.54 p.m. Table tilts four times, meaning ‘ talk.’”
36
I*
�6
The History of Religions
[36
(d) Automatic handwriting.—For this two methods
are employed, (i) Some person, usually the medium,
holding a pencil passively in his fingers, begins after
a little preliminary scribbling to write, sometimes at
a superhuman speed, sometimes with a superhuman
minuteness, sometimes in a handwriting closely re
sembling that used by the person whose spirit is said
to be present, messages and sentences concerning
private matters known to none present except the
one to whom the message is directed. (2) The same
results are obtained by the use of an instrument
called planchette—that is, a little heart-shaped board
running on three castors, pierced by a pencil whose
point just touches a paper placed beneath. The
medium’s fingers are placed lightly upon the board,
and the pencil moves apparently without the medium’s
volition. It must be noted that both these methods
of communication are frequently employed by in
quirers quite apart from any seance, and results are
often equally well obtained.
(e) Materialization.—This is considered the triumph
of spiritualism, and consists in its full form in the
actual appearance, before the senses of sight, hearing,
and touch, of a discarnate soul that has clothed
itself with a body for the occasion. The phenomenon
takes place in a variety of ways. It will be enough
to describe the more usual.
The medium seats himself, generally partly in view
of the sitters, or, if not, tightly secured by cords,
within the cabinet, and passes into the state of trance.
After a certain period, often of apparent distress to
the medium, a certain disturbance makes itself felt:
sounds are heard, or movements perceived, or a
sensation of cold. There appear then, sometimes in
the full sight of the sitters, a luminous cloud that
gradually takes shape and existence, and is ultimately
recognized by some one present as possessing the
form and features of a dead friend. The degree of
“ materialization ” varies with the amount of “ power ”
�36”)
Spiritualism
7
that is present. Sometimes it is little more than a
faint vaporous intangible model, generally swathed
in drapery; sometimes, it is said, the power is great
enough to produce a figure that can be handled and
touched, and is, apparently, in all respects like a
human body, with powers of free speech and move
ment. Further claims are made with regard to the
effect of this appearance upon the photographic lens.
Photographs are shown, declared to be taken under
test-conditions, representing such figures which were
at the time invisible to the human eye; in such cases
it is said that the “ materialization ” took place, but
not with sufficient power to manifest itself to a less
delicate instrument than the camera. The disappear
ance of the apparition takes place in various manners.
Sometimes it passes back into the body of the medium
from which it has been seen to emerge ; sometimes
it retires behind a curtain; sometimes it disintegrates
visibly before the eyes of the sitters into a small in
coherent mist, which presently itself disappears.1
(iii)
The spiritualist theory as to the manner of these
phenomena is commonly as follows:—There is said
to be resident in the human body a certain force or
matter called “ astral ”; and a medium is a person
from whom this substance can be easily detached.
This “ astral ” substance is situated on the border line
between matter and spirit, and is the means by which
discarnate spirits can communicate.2
1 “ Report,” etc., pp. 448, 449, 453, 463
“ B, A hand comes out from behind the curtain and presses me tightly
on my shoulder. I feel the thumb and the four fingers, which are
now pressing downwards with very considerable force. ...”
* ‘At 11.38 there appeared one of these strange objects seen from
time to time at Eusapia’s seances, to which, for want of a better
name, the word ‘head’ is applied. ...”
“ C. I saw a head come out from the curtains slowly, and within
six inches from my head, and it stayed out about two seconds
and then went back.”
2 The word “astral” would seem to have been imported into
Spiritualism from the East through Theosophy.
�8
The History of Religions
[36
For example:—In the case of the sounds and
movements mentioned above, it is believed that it is
through this “astral force” that the relations with
matter are set up. In the case of “ materialization ”
it is this “ astral substance ” that is drawn off in great
quantities, not only from the medium but even from
the persons of the sitters, and moulded by the will
of the communicating soul into the aspect of that
body which it inhabited on earth. To the loss of
this “astral substance” is attributed the state of
nervous exhaustion in which mediums are so often
found after emerging from trance; and to its vital
relations with the medium is attributed the violent
shock caused to the medium if the “materialized”
figure is in any way interfered with. Opinions differ
as to the extent in which the substance is reabsorbed
by the person from whom it was taken after the close
of the phenomena.
With regard to the explanation of the phenomena
of automatic handwriting, it is held by spiritualists
that the communicating spirit, through means of the
astral power with which the writer is charged, controls
his hand and his brain; with regard to the com
munications made through the mouth of the medium,
it is his voice that is so used. It is freely conceded
by spiritualists that certain well-defined dangers to
the nervous centres of the medium usually accompany
all attempts (especially by means of “materializa
tion ”) to communicate with the spiritual world ; that
deceiving spirits occasionally seek to play tricks upon
the inquirers, and even to impersonate their dead
relatives; but it is claimed that those perils are
reduced to a minimum by the methods used, and
that the gain to spiritual knowledge is incalculably
greater than the loss to health or serenity.
(iv)
The Spiritualist Creed, as has been said, is exceed
ingly difficult of definition, since professed spiritual
�36]
Spiritualism
■-
9
teachings, when brought together, are frequently found
to be mutually exclusive. Yet, on the whole (at
least at the present day in European countries), spirit
ualist dogmas seem to be emerging into some kind
of coherent form.
The existence of God is usually acknowledged ;
indeed, Sunday schools and churches organized for
purposes of worship as well as of instruction, and for
the training of children as mediums, have been in
existence in England for many years. Beyond this
it is taught that the actions of life here have a
corresponding effect upon the state of existence
hereafter, though the doctrine of eternal punishment
is, practically always, explicitly denied. The con
dition of life in the next world is said to be one of
progressive purification, rising, it would seem, up to
some kind of absorption into the Supreme Spirit,
to whom the name of God is given. All distinctively
Christian doctrines are usually denied, although it
is said of Jesus Christ that as a spiritual teacher
He has had few equals and no superiors. It is
claimed that He Himself was an adept medium, and
that His appearances after the Resurrection were in
stances of “ materialization.” His Divinity is practi
cally always explicitly denied.
It is exceedingly difficult to say more than this
of the Spiritualistic creed, since, besides the diverg
ences in various countries already mentioned, there
is occasionally a further divergence even in teaching
given to the same inquirer as he advances in know
ledge. The disciple is at first told to practise his
religion; but later on is informed that Christian
worship and doctrine are only embryonic stages of
the truth, and that the initiate will find all that he
needs in the teaching given him by the spirits.
The dogmatic system of the Spiritualists, therefore,
is best described as a vague kind of Theism, at times
closely resembling Pantheism.
�IO
The History of Religions
[36
II
It will be seen plainly from the foregoing pages
that it will be impossible within the limits of a
pamphlet to do more than sketch very lightly the
criticisms that may be passed upon Spiritualism,
and the reasons why the Catholic Church (and in
deed all the historical religions of the world) has
condemned and rejected it, and forbidden it to her
children, both in its present form and under its old
presentment in Necromancy. The Jewish Church
herself always regarded it with horror, and inflicted
the severest penalties upon all her people who meddled
with it.
Very briefly, however, the reasons and criticisms
are as follows :—
(i)
First, it is necessary to remember the enormous
amount of fraud that has always accompanied the
practice of Spiritualism—fraud that is acknowledged
and deplored, to be frank, by Spiritualists themselves.
While, therefore, fraud on the part of the professors
of a religion is not enough to discredit entirely the
religion itself (for in that case hardly any creed would
be immune), it is yet, in this instance, of sufficient
gravity to cause us to doubt very seriously the reck
less assertions occasionally made by Spiritualists, and
to demand very searching tests indeed before any of
the more startling phenomena are accepted as facts.
In addition to the instances of this deliberate and
conscious fraud—instances known to all who have
studied the history of the movement (as, for example,
in the case of the famous William Eglinton)—there
must also be added unconscious fraud, exaggeration
and doubtful testimony, due on the one side to the
almost irresistible desire of the medium to produce evi
dence, and on the other to the very fierce state of
nervous excitment of most inquirers under the cir-
�36]
Spiritualism
11
cumstances described above.1 Large deductions,
therefore, must be made with regard to the whole
body of evidence that is circulated generally among
the public.
(ii)
There remains, however, when all such deductions
have been made, a residuum (and of a very startling
nature) which it is impossible to disregard ; evidence,
too, that fits in in a remarkable manner with much
that has always been believed by Catholics ; though
these, as will be shown presently, give a very different
explanation of it from that offered by Spiritualists.2
But even this, however, must be sifted further before
anything even resembling a Spiritualistic theory can
be deduced from it.
It is now an established fact among psychologists
that ideas, or sense-images, can be transmitted from
the brain of one living person to that of another, and
that the transmission takes place with increased ease
if the mind of the recipient or the agent is in a
1 The most recent opinion of competent judges in the case of Eusapia
Palladino is that the medium in question, while possessing und ubted
“ powers,” supplements them by fraud, both conscious and unconscious.
2 From “Report of Sittings with Eusapia Palladino,” etc., p. 463 :—
“ B., who is evidently passing through the same stages as I did in my
earlier seances, toys with the suggestion of an apparatus, by way of
easing his mind. It would be an interesting problem to set before a
manufacturer of conjuring machines to devise an apparatus capable of
producing alternatively a black, flat, profile face, a square face on
a long neck, and a ’cello-like face on a warty, wobbly body two feet
long ; also a white hand with movable fingers, a yellowish hand, and
a hand invisible altogether—all these for use outside the curtain.
Further, for use within, a hand with practicable living thumb and
fingers having nails. . . . Our manufacturer must so construct the
apparatus that it can be actuated unseen by a somewhat stout and
elderly lady, clad in a tight plain gown, who sits outside the curtain,
held visibly by hand and foot, in such a way as to escape the obser
vation of the practical conjurers clinging about her, and on the look-cut
for its operation. It must further be of such dimensions as to be con
cealed about the lady while parading herself for inspection upon a
chair, clad in her stays and a short flannel petticoat.—E. F., Dec. 6,
1908.”
�12
The History of Religions
[36
passive condition.1 We are bound, therefore, in
approaching the subject from the purely scientific
side, to allow that a great number at least of the
alleged messages from the dead, whether given by
the voice or the hand of the medium, may be nothing
more than the result of this transmission of thought,
or telepathy. It is of no evidential value to say that
the inquirer in this or that instance has been re
minded through such a message of a fact he had
forgotten : the very fact that he recognized it as true
shows that the thought somewhere resided in his
brain.
(iii)
There remain the physical phenomena—all such
things as sounds, lights, the movement of objects
and “materializations”—the physical phenomena that
remain, that is to say, after due deductions have been
made for fraud, conscious or unconscious. There
remains further to be discussed the Spiritualistic
philosophy concerning them.
First, then, it must be said in fairness that, at any
rate until recently, many eminent scientists who have
gravely examined the physical phenomena are dis
satisfied with the evidence presented in their favour.
They deny, in fact, the assertion that the things in
question prove the presence of discarnate spirits.
Fraud and imagination, they say, are sufficient to
account for all. To this, again in fairness, it must
be answered that, as a rule, these inquirers approach
the question in a state of convinced scepticism, and
1 It is impossible, in view of recent researches, to deny any longer
that Telepathy is an established conclusion of science. It need not be
concluded, however, that what St. Thomas appears to teach as to the
impossibility of purely mental communications is at all assailed by this
discovery. For, curiously enough, some of the characteristics of tele
pathy are markedly in accordance with the philosophy of St. Thomas.
For example, communications by telepathy are nearly always conveyed
by faint visualized pictures. The idea is not communicated direct.
This seems to correspond remarkably with what St. Thomas implies, at
least, with regard to sense-images.
�36]
Spiritualism
13
that convinced scepticism is exactly that condition of
mind that prevents the best manifestations. Certainly
it is an unfortunate dilemma, but a perfectly legitimate
one. It is the dilemma in which both Huxley and his
Christian adversaries were placed when the former
proposed testing the efficacy of prayer by the ex
pedient of praying for the recovery of the patients in
one selected ward of a hospital, and of comparing
results with those of the other wards. Faith, or at
least passivity of mind, it is claimed by Spiritualists,
is a condition necessary to manifestations.
To Catholics,however,and indeed to most Christians,
the evidence must naturally be of a very different value
from that which it has to those who are not satisfied
that a spiritual world exists at all. Catholics are
persuaded that it does exist, that it does manifest
itself (as in the lives of the saints) to the dwellers in
this. They are bound, therefore, to be predisposed to
accept good evidence to the effect that in this or that
instance it has manifested itself; and the only questions
that remain to be settled are, firstly, do these phe
nomena take place among spiritualists? secondly, how
are they to be interpreted ?
To this first question, no adequate answer can, of
course, be given. A Catholic is perfectly free to deny
that such things happen if he has examined the
evidence and found it insufficient. He is not free,
however—if he claims to be an intelligent man—to
deny its possibility. Allowing, then, that the evidence
has been found sufficient to show that at seances
phenomena take place—of the kind described above—
in sufficient number to be considerable, and of such
a nature that they cannot be attributed to human
agency1—what further criticisms can be passed upon
them, and what conclusions can be drawn ?
1 It would occupy too much space to discuss adequately the theory put
forward tentatively by some observers to the effect that the ‘ ‘ subconscious
self” {i.e. the range of these powers and faculties, such as the power of
thought-transference, unconscious cerebration, etc., lying beneath the
ordinary faculties of man) is capable of producing actual physical phe-
�14
The History of Religions
[36
These criticisms are of various kinds—founded
respectively upon observation, and on the principles
of theology.
A. Criticisms founded on observation.
(a) First it cannot but be remarked that the phe
nomena are extremely frequently of a very trifling
nature at the best. Foolish tricks are continually
played upon the sitters; mocking answers given, or
evasions, to their questions.1 These are explained by
spiritualists as being the work of low-caste or earthbound spirits who intrude themselves into the circle.
Yet the very possibility of this—and it is not denied
that this phenomenon is fairly common—throws a
very great doubt upon the genuineness of the other
communications. If it is found impossible for in
quirers, even with the best intentions, to protect
themselves against these annoyances, how can it be
possible for them to be sure that even the graver
nomena such as some of those described in these pages. It is, of course,
a possible explanation—(possible, at least, in the sense that such an
assertion cannot possibly be disproved, since it attributes to an almost
wholly unknown part of human nature forces completely unanalogous to
any others possessed by man)—but so also might it be attributed to
electricity or ether, or some completely unknown but natural agency.
To those, however, who believe at all in the existence of a spiritual world,
it will seem a far more tenable hypothesis to suppose that it is from this
spiritual world that the force is generated ; and therefore, so far as the
evidence goes, a more scientific hypothesis.
1 (a) “ I was suddenly startled by a noise like that of hammering, and
of occasional footsteps, clearly emanating from the bedroom occupied by
my friend. . . . The strange noises, which appeared to have ceased at
the moment of my entrance, recommenced almost immediately with the
utmost vigour, and I became the witness of a scene such as I have
never witnessed before. ... A hundred hands seemed to be hammering
away on walls and doors and table and bed, and every now and then
there was the sound of feet tramping along the floor. ... As morning
dawned the noises gradually ceased.”—{Dangers of Spiritualism, pp.
45> 46.)
.
.
, ,
(5) “The moment the door is opened, it may be by the presence of
persons of like inclinations, of ignorant or credulous mediums . . . or
men of immoral or intemperate habits, troops of so-called ‘dark’ spirits
rush in, and indulge these propensities to silly tricks, lying deception,
and temptation to evil.”—(Letter from a spiritualist of twenty years’
standing, quoted in Dangers oj Spiritualism, p. 125.)
�36]
Spiritualism
15 •
messages come from those personalities that profess
to send them ?
(p) This doubt is further enhanced by the extra
ordinary meagreness even of the most solemn
“spiritual teachings.” If the spiritualistic theory
were true, if it were a fact that some of the greatest
thinkers and scientists in the world’s history, con_ sumed by a desire to illuminate their brethren still living
on earth, returned to give them that teaching, how is
it that no historical mystery has ever yet been solved
by this means, no scientific problem answered, no
ascetical doctrine superior to that already given by
teachers on earth ever yet bestowed ? The collections
of “ spiritual teachings ” circulated from time to time
among the public seldom surpass in intelligence or
knowledge the average works of writers even still
incarnate; much less do they approximate in know
ledge or spirituality to the teachings of the greatest
spiritual Leaders of the past.
(f) It is a matter of regret among spiritualists them
selves that occasionally, after the most poignant
scenes, when the presence of some departed friend
has been recognized by one of the inquirers, further
investigation has shown that the communicating
personality has broken down in some perfectly simple
test of identity.1 This seems to lead to the inevitable
conclusion that in some cases at least the discarnate
spirit that has manifested itself has been deliberately
1 “The absolute futility of any attempt at identifying spirits is another
discouraging or unsatisfactory circumstance. It is no proof that the
spirit communicating is A. B. if he tells me of words or circumstances
(supposed to be) known only to A. B. and myself. . . . The alleged
‘ friend ’ of a few years ago (while he was writing through me, and
turning my ideas upside down through his extraordinary ‘ counsel ’ and
hypocrisy) certainly was possessed of knowledge of my present history
unknown to anybody else. . . . Now if one’s diary of thoughts and acts
is an open book for one spirit and another to read at his convenience,
nothing that he may resurrect to one’s mind is any proof that he is trust
worthy .... any more than would be the case if a shoeblack read over
one’s shoulder what one had written . . . . and claimed by virtue of his
knowledge that he was one’s father or mother.”—(Extract from a
letter quoted in Dangers of Spiritualism, pp. 115, 116.)
�16
The History of Religions
[36
impersonating another in a most heartless manner.
Grave suspicion then is bound to remain even in cases
where fraud of this kind has not been detected.
(<7) It is a matter of common knowledge among
spiritualists that the nervous exhaustion which so often
comes upon the medium during or after a seance has
led in many cases to a complete breakdown of the
mental and moral powers. This is not, of course, in
any sense a conclusive argument; religious mania is
known in every creed; but the fact becomes more
significant when it is remembered that, on the other
side, Spiritualism has not produced characters of any
extraordinary sanctity or eminence. Except in the
cases where materialists have been convinced through
means of Spiritualism of the existence of another
world, it is impossible to point to any spiritual or
mental gain to balance the extremely numerous losses
on the other side.
(e) Further, it is exceedingly easy to adduce testi
mony after testimony from those who, once spiritualists,
have relinquished the life because of the loss not only
of mental but also moral virtues. An extremely un
pleasant symptom in the case of inquirers too much
absorbed in such practices as those of planchette or
ordinary automatic handwriting is the appearance of
the obscene and blasphemous element in the communi
cations received. Of course such results as those, as
well as others less terrible (such as loss of will-power,
morbidity, etc.) may very well arise from the mere
passivity of mind necessary for success in such experi
ments, and from the consequent uprush of those
realms of human consciousness not directly controlled
by the will (as in the case of delirium). Yet, even
with all allowances made for such possibilities, there
would seem to remain a certain malignancy of delib
erate purpose, a certain design followed in the process,
certainly not intended by the inquirer, that would
argue strongly in favour of another personality being
at work. At any rate, in such cases, there is an inten-
�36]
Spiritualism
17
tion of communicating with the spiritual world; and if
this means of communication were according to the
Divine will—if even it were true that the communi
cating personalities were those which they professed
to be—it would be difficult to account for the per
sistence of this phenomenon.
The following extract from a letter to the author of
The Dangers of Spiritualism is given at length, as
containing an excellent analysis of the state of brain
and nerves—to say the least—brought on by the
continued practice of automatic handwriting.
“ But now comes the worst part of the whole story.
My whole being had manifestly undergone a change ;
I seemed to have received another nature—gross, vile,
sensual, originating the most vile and abominable
ideas, such as had never formerly entered into my
mental life. My old self was still there, thank God !
I have never quite lost that. But, although rebellious
and disgusted, it nevertheless seemed powerless against
the stronger, evil influence which was dominating it.
It was as if some unclean spirit had taken possession
of me, had driven out my old self, and was using my
mind and body for its own vile purposes. At first, I
fought and struggled against it, and tried to rouse
myself; but it was all to no purpose. All the day
long my body was tired, weighed down by a heavy,
languid, care-for-nothing feeling. I had no desire but
to lie down and to let my thoughts go wandering. I
lost interest in everything I used to delight in in
former times. I dropped my studies; my hobbies
had no longer any charm for me; everything seemed
an effort and a trouble. I have read of the mental
and physical condition of opium-smokers, and it
certainly seemed to me as if I was overpowered by
a kind of moral opium which simply rendered me
powerless to make any more effort. Only when
evening came I seemed capable of moving. I then
began to grow restless. If I went to bed I could not
sleep, but simply lay a.wake, my brain all activity,
�18
The History of Religions
[36
imagining, picturing the most wretched abominations.
Dreading, therefore, to go to bed, I used to go out.
Invariably I would find myself proceeding to some
low public-house, not to drink, but just to be in the
company of, and to hobnob with, any dirty, low
fellow I would find there. And, strange to say, such
would receive me just as one of themselves, while I
felt perfectly at home with them—I, who had never
been in the habit of frequenting the bar of even the
most respectable public-house. I had no desire what
ever to go among decent people of my own station
of life; on the contrary, I liked the company I met
with in these places; I liked the low, foul conversation;
I revelled in the filthy talk! I would treat my com
panions to drink, and positively enjoyed seeing them
drunk. The smell of the stale beer, of the rank
tobacco, their crude familiarities, were like tonics to
me. The weariness would go; I would sing and
laugh with the loudest of them, thinking it a fine
thing to be called a ‘jolly good chap.’ I could never
get drunk myself; a single pint of beer would make
me sick. When morning came I would get up,
haggard, tired, ashamed, disgusted, afraid to meet
any person of my acquaintance. I can’t describe all
the horrible things I went through, some of them
veritable orgies. Time passed, things gradually got
worse; I dropped my old friends, or they dropped
me. I became unsettled and miserable in my work;
I felt that I could not remain in my place, that I must
get away. With new scenes and new faces I might
get the better of this thing. So I sent in my resig
nation and left the town. ... At present I am
living an idle, aimless life, just existing on the
payment I obtain for a few hours’ private teaching
a week, and a few shillings picked up playing the
piano in public-houses. I am without hopes, pros
pects, or friends. What is there to live for ?
“ And now let me draw attention to one or two
curious points in my history. It is very difficult to
�36]
Spiritualism
19
explain exactly the relationship between the two
natures inhabiting my body. I shall make myself
better understood if I use the word ego to signify my
own mental identity, and alter that of the other. By
I and me I mean my physical self (common to both).
Both of them are I \ but the two are never ‘ in residence ’
at the same time. There is now no struggle for
mastery. The change is imperceptible. I may now
be ego, then I suddenly find myself alter. This latter,
without warning, comes and takes possession, drives
out ego, or paralyses him, does what he likes, and just
as suddenly goes. He just ignores, never remembers
or thinks of ego. Ego, on the contrary, has a vivid
recollection of alter, is disgusted with him, loathes
him, fears him, looks upon him as a vile, sensual thief,
who has robbed him (ego) of all that made life worth
living. When I am alter I am strong, active in mind
and body, full of devilry, daring anything, imagining
and enjoying all evil. When alter goes, poor, pitiful
ego just creeps back into a weak, exhausted body,
weary, tired of life, full of remorse, making good
resolutions, yet having no power to carry them out.
There is one other point. If I can manage to get off
into a good sleep, alter seems to be powerless. My
dreams are always pleasant, mostly of people and
places of the good old times, never of anything bad.
It is only when I am awake, and when my mind is
unemployed, that alter catches me. My worst time
is at night. If I go to bed without being able to
sleep, alter is in full possession, running riot with my
imagination till the morning.
“There may have been no connection between my
dabbling in telepathy and this other thing, but, rightly
or wrongly, I believe that on that night some unclean
spirit attached itself to me, gradually gaining influence
over my nature, and in the end making me his mere
slave. For very shame I have been obliged to keep
the whole matter to myself. People sometimes marvel
(and well they might) at the change which has come
�20
The History of Religions
[36
over me. My sense of fairness will not permit me to
put the whole blame upon telepathy ; there may have
been some unconscious error on my part, or some
circumstance unknown to me may have caused this
alteration in my life. The fact itself remains ; I know
what I was before that evening, and I know what I
have been since.
“ I have only succeeded in writing this by fits and
starts when I am ego; alter nearly threw it all into the
fire last evening, calling it a d----- d lot of rubbish.”
So much, then, for criticisms founded on observation.
We pass on to—
B. Criticisms founded on theology.
It must first be remarked that the following criti
cisms will have no weight with those who approach
the subject of Spiritualism as pure agnostics—beyond
the weight of the fact that historical religion has
always recognized the existence of Spiritualism or
Necromancy, and, up to a certain point at least, the
objectivity of its phenomena.
For it is not only the Catholic Church that has
condemned Spiritualism, the Protestant bodies have
usually done so as well, and the Jewish Church
punished the adherents of Necromancy with death.
Spiritualism, or Necromancy, or the dealing with
“familiar spirits,” has always been regarded by the
other great world-religions as a bastard, rather than
a competitor with a dignity comparable to their own.
This fact is at least significant.
(a) First, then, it is sufficient for the Catholic to
recognize that Spiritualism is, dogmatically, an ad
versary, and not an ally of his own creed. It is
claimed sometimes that Spiritualism and Christianity
are compatible, and, theoretically, it may be so; but,
practically, their dogmatic systems are mutually
exclusive, and Christians who practise Spiritualism
are bound in the long-run to choose between that
faith and their own. So far as Spiritualism has
produced a coherent creed at all, it directly traverses
�36]
Spiritualism
21
even such fundamental doctrines as that of the Incar
nation.
(p) Catholic theology teaches in detail that the
destiny of all men at death takes them elsewhere in the
spiritual world. It is entirely incompatible with
Catholic belief to believe that the souls of the departed
are allowed, except under very peculiar and unusual
circumstances, to revisit this earth with the intention
of communicating with those still living upon it. To
believe that those souls are so far at the mercy of
mediums as to be compelled, practically, in instance
after instance, to manifest themselves here—parti
cularly under such circumstances as usually accompany
spiritualistic seances—is utterly antagonistic both to
the letter and the spirit of Catholic teaching.
For these two main reasons, then, as well as for
others mentioned above, the Catholic Church con
demns Spiritualism without reserve. She acknowledges
the fact that the spiritual world is accessible to this,
and this to that; but she lays down most stringently
the only modes in which such communication may
be sought, and denounces the rest as methods contrary
to the Divine Will.
(r) What, then, is the view of Catholic theologians
as regards the phenomena claimed by Spiritualists?
First it must be noted that Catholics do not pledge
themselves, as a matter of faith, even to the objectivity
of the phenomena. This or that piece of evidence
must be judged, as all other evidence, even in support
of alleged Catholic miracles, simply on its own weight.
At the same time it is undoubtedly true that Catholic
theologians as a whole are disposed to accept much
of the evidence offered by Spiritualists as a sufficient
proof that phenomena do take place at stances and
elsewhere which cannot be accounted for on natural
grounds. The explanation given, then, is as follows :—
(1) Christians are aware from quite other reasons
than those given by Spiritualists that the spiritual
world is a fact, that it is inhabited by innumerable
�22
The History of Religions
[36
personalities, good and bad, and that to many of
these personalities—that is, to spirits that have never
been incarnate—this world is perfectly accessible.
On the one side are the unfallen angels of God, on
the other the fallen; and this earth is to a large
extent the battle-ground between these opposing
forces. The object of the angels of light is to draw
men nearer to God, to protect them from spiritual
and even bodily dangers, and to help them towards
heaven ;■ the object of the angels of darkness is ex
actly the opposite.
Now the precise range of powers permitted to the
evil angels has not been revealed to men; we know
only that they are considerable, though limited; and
we may at least conjecture that as it has been per
mitted in the past to the angels of light to assume
a human appearance, so it is at any rate quite possible
that the same power maybe allowed to their adversaries.
We know also as a positive fact that the evil angels
are permitted under certain circumstances to obtain
such a hold over men who yield to them as actually
to obsess or possess^ their powers and their will.
(2) Turning once more to the phenomena of Spirit
ualism, it is to be noticed that the Christian faith is
continually assailed by those professed “ benefactors ”
of man ; that the mental powers or the morality of
those who practise Spiritualism are extremely liable to
decay; and further, that the process employed is one
calculated to undermine almost imperceptibly the
faith and morals of even those who approach the
investigation with good intentions. In a word, it
would seem that—if the alleged experiences are
facts—they are designed with considerable skill to
the carrying out of that very object which Catholics
believe to be the aim of the spiritual enemies of man.
Inquirers are met on their most tender side, the
1 “ Obsession ” means the persecution of the human will or imagina-.
tion ; ‘ ‘ possession,” its more or less complete control by a discarnate
spirit.
�36]
Spiritualisin
23
appeal is made to their highest human affections;
they are led on by apparent proof after apparent
proof to believe that they are actually in communi
cation with those they once loved on earth. It would
appear almost inevitable, then, that such inquirers
should ultimately accept such teaching as they re
ceive—and we have seen of what character that teach
ing is—as undeniable truth. For every man that is
converted by Spiritualism to believe in the immortality
of his soul, there are probably a hundred who are
led by it to relinquish the beliefs and practices of
Clmstianity.
urther evidence in support of the Catholic theory
is found in the facts related above under the heading
Criticisms founded on observation. The large propor
tion of fraud, both on the part of mediums and of the
personalities that claim to communicate, the trifling
and often mischievous tricks and evasions with which
serious inquiry is so often met, the solemnity of the
claim to shed light from the spiritual world upon the
problems of this world, coupled with the extraordinary
futility of the “ revelations ” so made, as well as the
continual injuries inflicted upon the bodily and
mental health of the mediums and the inquirers—all
those considerations support very strongly the Cath
olic contention that the phenomena, if genuine, must
be the work of the avowed spiritual enemies of the
human race. Theologians emphasize this the more
from the fact that in extreme cases of nervous or
mental breakdown following upon the practices of
Spiritualism, symptoms make their appearance iden
tical with, or at least closely resembling, those which
accompany undoubted cases of “ possession ”; and
“ possession,” it must be remembered, has been familiar
to Catholics for many centuries; its treatment finds a
regular place in the Ritual and Exorcisms of the
Church, and the fact of it is vouched for explicitly in
the New Testament.
As regards the exact mode by which the genuine
�'24
The History of Religions
[36
phenomena—if they exist—are produced, Catholic
theology offers no definite opinion. All that can be
said is that an acceptance of the “ astral ” theory
is not condemned. It is conceivable that there may
be some such force or substance in the human con
stitution, but of this Catholic theology has no
cognizance. It is a matter of psychical, or even
physical science, rather than of theology or philosophy.
This, then, is the attitude of the Catholic Church
towards Spiritualism:—
(1) She does not in any way commit herself to
the acceptance of the phenomena. Yet she does not
deny them, and allows fully for their possibility.
Each claim stands or falls on its own proper evidence.
(2) So far as the alleged phenomena are genuine,
the Catholic Church accounts for them by the action
of evil discarnate spirits—called “ fallen angels.” She
utterly rejects, therefore, their testimony, and warns
her children against accepting it.
(3) She condemns in the gravest manner any
attempt to communicate in this manner with the
spiritual world, as contrary to the Divine Will.
(4) She leaves open—granted the genuineness of
the phenomena—the mode in which such phenomena
are accomplished.
BOOKS RECOMMENDED.
Modern Spiritism. By J. Godfrey Raupert. Kegan Paul, 1907.
The Dangers of Spiritualism. By J. Godfrey Raupert. Kegan
Paul, 1906.
Sermons on Modern Spiritualism.
By Rev. A. V. Miller.
Kegan Paul, 1908.
Hypnotism and spiritism. By Lapponi. Chapman & Hall,
1906.
The Unseen World. By Lepicier. Kegan Paul, 1906.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Spiritualism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Benson, Robert Hugh [1871-1914]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliography (p. 24). Date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat). Annotations in pencil.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1911]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1553
Subject
The topic of the resource
Spiritualism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Spiritualism), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Spiritualism
Supernatural
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cca0684e47985007fe7198709d587c06.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=ILq8fPuJRen59BuX0Wfsge9z%7E5iToevCQdeV0Qhf2SEtTE2CizjKrJBhIH5PBrE9H25jJMUzt8daHwnfDNuesGi3%7Eob8wis5UKnwa4AP1M3wfrrSBsUOaI9DJEgowMGYlM5QnjvVjitD%7Erf3m2eZ1nnR%7EMmtV8iOK%7EbWQ9Z4ozZwvabVs-F9emGQnsJwB4kLYXRcMZhPDMM-AyKIXpr6NX1fjNu7dGEelct7kyaqpmvnXDFMCwv1so4k9g9fXU3TnxpIPGF%7E4lDsULE0v96P1C1p5YmjVxyV%7E0lroBle-1C5-1qJbcfwplr21UwmDOSHa7Y%7EcJXIxeqmaHmlCZU-gg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
51fae364a6b6352a29cc2f74c338fe65
PDF Text
Text
BEBEL’S LIBEL ON WOMAN1
By
the
Rev. W. MacMAHON, S.J., M.A.
It is time a protest was made against the publication,
as No. 15 of the Bellamy Library, of Bebel’s Woman.
What is the history of this issue ? As long ago as 1885
there appeared Woman in the Past, Present, and Future ;
translated from the German, Vol. I of the International
Library of Social Science.2 A reprint was issued in the
Bellamy Library in 1893 ; and now it is again reprinted
without any date and without any alteration—an old
translation foisted upon the public with no indication
that the work makes no attempt to correspond to the
present German edition. English publishers have
failed during an entire month to procure for the present
writer a copy of the 1910 German edition, but there is
evidence enough that the work has been considerably
changed.3 In the Reichstag Bebel protected himself
against quotations from his own writings by saying he
had “ developed,” and that his party was “ continually
1 Reprinted with additions from The Crucible for June, 1911.
2 Not only is this book being industriously circulated among the
half-educated, but its anti-Christian statements find their way,
usually unacknowledged, into writings of various kinds touching on
social and women’s questions which reach a more cultured class.
The Social Democratic Party Almanack for 1911 has a portrait of
Bebel filling the centre of the sheet. He thus becomes the patron
for the year. Yet he can be known in English to the S.D.P.
only through his Woman of at least twenty-six years back.
s See Postscript, pp. 24-30.
�4
Bebel's Libel on Woman
moulting.” Die Frau has gone through an incredible
number of editions, and Bebel, in a letter dated April
28, 1911, says that since the time of the English
translation “ my book has been much changed both
in title and contents. I undertook alterations and
amplifications at various times.” Whether these are
for the better or the worse, the English version remains
as it was more than a quarter of a century ago, and by
it we are for the present constrained to judge him. Is
this scientific ? Yet we read in italics on p. 256,
“ Socialism is science, applied with knowledge and
understanding to all branches of human activity.” And
the Introduction concludes, “ In the following argu
ment I shall not hesitate to draw such conclusions as
are demanded by results based on the examination of
facts.” Again on p. 108, “ It is with facts alone that
we are concerned.” Has there been no advance in our
knowledge of facts during the interval ? Was there no
need to bring up-to-date arguments based on statistics
ranging from 1856 to 1877 ? no need for a footnote to
the figures of the “ last census in London ” (p. 107) ?
Is it still a fact that there is in Germany only
one suffragist authoress (p. 143) ? There would
appear to be considerable contempt for English
intelligence on the part of the Fabian Society 1 which
recommends the book, of Justice which advertises
it exactly under the notices of “ Women’s Socialist
Circles,” of Herbert Burrows who praises it, of Mrs.
Dora B. Montefiore who urges that “ every Socialist
woman who has time to read a book of over two
hundred and fifty pages should make a point of study
ing Bebel’s work.”2 Is it zeal for the truth that urges
1 Wliat to Read, October, 1910.
2 Position of Woman, p. 1. Mrs. Montefiore has some qualms
about her recommendation, and over the page she continues, “ As,
however, biological and sociological studies have advanced rapidly
since Bebel wrote his book on Woman, there are to be found now
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
5
on the Independent Labour Party and the Socialist
Sunday Schools who make the work a class-book for
girls ?1
It is to be feared that it is altogether another quality
in the book which procures for it its vogue. That those
who push its sale have other interests than those of
mere truth is cynically confessed by Bebel in the
preface to the sixth German edition (1886), where he
remarks that he no longer agrees with all the positive
statements made in the book, yet he re-issues it again
“ because it is still of some value for agitating ” ! From
the character of the work, from its open attack on
God and religion, from its slander of humanity, from its
nauseous treatment of the question of sex, the publica
tion seems to be part of what Bebel has stated to be
the policy of orthodox Socialists in Germany—“ to
retain the wounds of the body social in a festering
condition?’
Examination of the book in detail is a troublesome
task, partly because much of it is defiling, partly from
the uselessness of contradicting wild general state
ments, partly owing to the absence of reference to
authorities alleged for particular facts. To find a single
sentence which Bebel quotes, it has been necessary, for
instance, to hunt through six volumes of Eusebius,
nine of Origen, eleven of St. Jerome, sixteen of St.
Augustine.
Where we can bring Bebel of the early eighties
in the writings of modern scientists interpretations of the past, and
forecasts for the future, which are necessarily not contained in
August Bebel’s writings.” But why are they “ necessarily not con
tained ” at least in last year’s German edition ? And can Mrs.
Montefiore honestly hope that every Socialist Woman who has
time to read 250 pages will be able to detect and reject these old
errors ?
1 Cf. Syllabus of the Hyde Socialist Sunday School, p. 26.
“ Course 7. Girls' Class. Age about 15 to 18. Why Women are
■prevented from fulfilling their mission. (1) Historical and Econo
mic Reasons. Reference book, Woman (Bebel).”
�6
Bebel's Libel on Woman
to book, his failure to stand the test makes us marvel
that such stuff should be of use to push the cause of
Socialism either in Germany or England. The most
unlearned reader must be pulled up by the assertion
(p. 187) that technical improvements have succeeded in
stripping the perilous calling of the miner of its dangers,
and that from this success we may gather how Socialism
will reduce the disagreeables of all labour to a minimum
(pp. 186-7). But will the ordinary reader know enough
history to answer when he is asked (pp. 32-3) “ What
shall we say when we hear that Charles the Great . . .
had no fewer than six wives at one time ? ” The
monarch was not a moral man, he repudiated his first
wife against the Pope’s protest ; but his second wife
died before he married his third, and she in turn was
dead before he took a fourth.1 Are we to believe that
Bebel has unearthed secret history ? Let us try him
again. One would have thought that the Carnival was
a simple matter. It might have a history of precedent,
but in itself, as a natural ebullition previous to the
restraints of Lent, it is very human. Not so. It was
a machination of the Papacy, encouraging wild mirth
and profanation the better to keep the populace docile.
It took place, not when we had supposed, but “ for the
three days before Passion Week ” (p. 40) ! The dis
graceful indecency which is alleged on p. 33 to have
attended the entry of the Emperor Charles II into
Bruges must be an error of some kind, as in
Charles Il’s time there was hardly any Bruges to enter.
What authority can attach to a writer who asserts
(pp. 29, 102) the existence of the Jus Primae Noctis ?
Even when Bebel wrote, the absence of evidence for
the Right was proved, and there is no excuse for one
1 For a different ordering of his marriages, which, however,
equally bars out the six wives, see Lavisse, Histoire de France,
II, i, pp. 281, 306.
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
7
writing as though no investigations had been macle and
published since the myth was put forward again by the
Encylopasdists of the eighteenth century. The pious
custom of continence on the wedding night came to be
known as the Droit de Seigneur, God’s Right ; fines
were paid in feudal times on occasion of the marriages
of vassals ; brutal nobles abused their might not only
when a wedding was toward. But these facts are no
help to Bebel’s argument, and he falls back on the
reassertion of an exploded fable.
Equally unsound is the alleged fact with which he
seeks to bolster up the assertion that Christianity
thought slightingly of women. Twice he tells us
(pp. 18, 26) that the'Council of Maqon (sz'c) in the sixth
century discussed the question whether women had
souls, thus proving that the Church was apt to regard
woman as a thing and not as a human being. It is easy
to see behind the misprint that the allegation refers to
the Council of Macon held in 585. Now of this Council
we have the official decrees, and there is no reference
to any such discussion. Whence then springs the
story ? From a misunderstanding of a clear paragraph
in Gregory of Tours’ Historia Francorum (viii. 20).
Gregory, who was not himself present at the assembly,
relates what he had heard of a discussion on a point of
grammar.
In this Council,” he says, “ there was one
of the bishops who declared that a woman could not
be called homo. But when the other bishops had
reasoned with him, he held his peace, for they showed
him that the sacred text of the Old Testament laid
down that in the beginning when God created man it
was said ‘ male and female He created them, and He
called their name Adam,’ which means man of the
earth, thus applying the same term to woman and man
alike, for He designated each of them equally homo.”
There is no question as to the souls of women ; the
�8
Bebels Libel on Woman
story is simply that one of the bishops doubted whether
it would be correct to apply to a woman the generic term
homo, and that he yielded before the appeal to Scripture
use brought forward by the other bishops. Gregory
himself followed the classical use of the word homo as a
generic term applicable to both sexes ; and he puts it
down in his Chronicle as a little point of interest that a
brother bishop questioned the linguistic correctness of
the usage. How can there be found here any sugges
tion of a conciliar discussion as to whether women had
souls ?1
More baseless and more repulsive is a parallelism
asserted (p. 16) when, after recounting the prostitution
that too frequently formed part of pagan worship and
instancing the chambers at the temples of Venus, &c.,
Bebel continues : “When Jesus drove out the dealers
and money-changers for desecrating the Temple of
Jerusalem, these same chambers existed there, in which
sacrifices were offered to the Goddess of Love.” Bebel
has read of the horrible defiling of the Temple by the
conquering Antiochus and of the revellings of the Gen
tiles ; how has he come to forget the solemn purification
by the Jews three years later, and how has it escaped
him that all this took place two centuries before our
Lord drove out the money-changers (2 Machabees, chaps,
vi., x.) ?2 Really his only qualification for speaking on the
subject seems to be his hostility ; let us turn to a matter
where we would expect him to speak from knowledge.
A Socialist leader should be accurate in economics,
yet Bebel thus formulates (p. 245) the law of Diminishing
Returns: “The returns of a field are directly propor1 See an article by Fr. Thurston in The Month, January, 1911.
2 As often as the regular reading of the Law in the synagogue
reached Deuteronomy xxiii. 17, 18, the Israelite heard the express
prohibition of the monstrous association of immorality with worship.
Bebel does not seem to be familiar with the books of the Law, rior
can he know that the Hebrews had no word in their language to
express the idea of goddess.’
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
9
%
tionate to the amount of labour (including science and
technical appliances) expended on it, and to the amount
of suitable manure employed.” If he believes in the
possibilities of great advances under Socialism, there is
no reason for him thus to throw dust in his readers’
eyes and shirk the law as defined, say, in the Encyclo
pedia of Social Science : “ In each stage of progress
there is a limit beyond which the labour expended upon
a given area cannot be increased without causing a
diminution of returns.” In a note (p. 201) he remarks
011 the communistic tone of three former Popes and
Fathers of the Church.
Unfortunately his first
quotation is from a spurious letter which he uncritically
attributes to Pope Clement I. Next he quotes “ Bishop
Ambrosius Milan ” (as who should say, “ Deputy Bebel
Berlin”), and seems to refer to the De Officiis Ministrorum, i. 28, where St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, tells
of the original common possession of Paradise which
has been followed (i. 29) by private property. Bebel
might read the Bishop’s tractate on Naboth’s Vineyard,
a recognition of the plucky farmer’s just defence of his
private property. His third quotation is Pope Gregory
the Great’s condemnation of those who refuse food to
the starving (Regale Pastoralls, iii. 21). Bebel cannot
have gone to the sources at first-hand and has suffered
accordingly.
The more general treatment of sociology is equally,
false and ignorant. From page 7 to page n Bebel
deals with the history of marriage. “ On the threshold
of the past we find the horde as the first human
community.” “ At first, and for a considerable length of
time, no lasting union existed between man and wife ;
unrestricted intercourse (promiscuity) prevailed.” From
male egotism rose the marriage of a single man to a
single woman. Polygamy was later introduced by
ambition, and woman became the most valuable booty
�io
Bebel's Libel on Woman
of war. With a priori dogmatism he asserts primitive
promiscuity, and the rise of the monogamic family along
with the rise of private property ; and passing from
false history to misleading prophecy he tells us that
with property will disappear indissoluble monogamy.
He draws an imaginary line of development back into
the past and forward into the future, and sets monoga
mous marriage as a stage midway between the horde
and the day-to-come of easy divorce. Nor does he
present this history as an hypothesis, but as established
fact. A sorry example of the Socialism that is “ science
applied with knowledge and understanding to all
branches of human activity.” Anthropologists, the
real scientists upon this branch, hold it unscientific
to lay down stages of development ; for them the
problem is open because of the lack of evidence ; they
acknowledge that they cannot get back to the earliest
stage of human life. The main “ proof ” of primitive
promiscuity, viz., succession through females, has been
shown to be no proof, not even a presumption.1
Scientists suspect the supposed state of promiscuity as
suicidal ; it seems the race would never have survived
it. Even as an hypothesis it is rejected by Darwin
as least likely : “ It is exceedingly improbable that
primeval man and woman lived promiscuously
together” (Descent of Man, ii. 346). To those who
derive our origin from the highest apes and yet start
us with promiscuity, we may retort that this is to lift
us below the ape. To the Catholic, primitive man is
Adam and Eve and their children, and here we have
not savages, but human beings worthy of a Creator
who desired creatures capable of paying Him rational
worship. As to the degradation of the entire race, or
the alternative continuation at all times in some regions
of such a civilization as science now disinters at ever
1 See Devas, Studies in Family Life.
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
11
more remote dates in Assyria and Egypt, the Church is
silent. No Catholic is Westermarck, but in his History
of Human Marriage he rejects promiscuity as a proved
world-condition : “ There is not a shred of genuine
evidence for the notion that promiscuity formed a
general stage in the history of mankind ” ; he cannot
even accept the hypothesis of a continual up grade :
“ We may, perhaps, say that irregular connexions
between the sexes have, on the whole, exhibited a
tendency to increase along with the progress of civiliza
tion” (p. 69). Careful students stand arrayed against
Bebel when he emerges from beyond the dawn of
history.
We expect Bebel to be a hostile critic when he treats
of the Bible narrative, but we are surprised when we
find his hostility blinding him to statements made in
the book he is judging. Thus in a note (p. n) he says
of Cain : “He possessed no sister, as, according to
the Bible story, the first pair of human beings were
Malthusians or adherents of the Two-children System.”
But “according to the Bible story” besides the children
Abel, Cain, and Seth, Adam “ begot sons and daughters ”
(Gen. v. 4).
Bebel is scandalized (p. 18) that Abraham “lent his
wife Sarah without scruple to other men, e.g., to'
Pharaoh.” Abraham is blameworthy enough because,
not rising to a higher morality, he said, “They will kill
me,” and for fear of his life did not protest when “ the
woman was taken into the house of Pharaoh ” (Gen. xii.),
and there is no necessity to invent the charge that
he used to “lend his wife without scruple.” The
polygamy of the patriarchs found no disfavour with
Jehovah (p. 19) ; and has Bebel now to learn that this
was so because, for the increase of the chosen people,
God, the author of marriage, gave leave for more than
one wife—a leave that was not subversive of the end
�12
Bebel's Libel on Woman
of marriage (as would be polyandry), and so could
be granted by the supreme Legislator, though it is
ultra vires for any other power ? Surely, it is trifling
to object that “The ten commandments of the Old
Testament are, as a matter of fact, addressed only to
man, for the tenth commandment names women along
with the servants and the domestic animals” (p. 24).
Was there no commandment addressed to servants not
to kill, not to steal ? Were those only understood to‘
be bound who had been brought out of the land of
Egypt ?
Equally hard is it to believe in the sincerity of the
inference put forward on the same page that Christ
despised women, because “ when His mother humbly
sought His assistance at the marriage feast at Cana, He
replied, ‘Woman, what have I to do with, thee?’”
Did no doubt enter Bebel’s mind that in the original
(John ii. 4) there might be no reproof, no rudeness such
as is conveyed by the sound of the salutation in
European versions ? Christ gives His mother her title
of prophecy, and gently lets her know that He needs
no pressure on her part to perform the miracle of kind
ness she asks of Him. What perversity to pass by such
incidents as that of Christ conversing with the Samaritan
woman upon the profoundest truths, His dealing with
the woman who was “ a sinner in the city,” with the
woman taken in adultery, His friendliness with the two
sisters of the family of Bethany, and to wrest a charge
of churlishness from the account of His presence at
the marriage of Cana, so full of human sympathies !
From the words “Some there be that are eunuchs
for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”—where, in answer to
the disciples who urge .that it is better to avoid the
burdens of matrimony, the Master replies that it is not
better for all, but to some is given the gift of living
singly for God—Bebel (p. 24) concludes that Jesus
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
13
looked with contempt upon marriage. And that the
disciples may not be greater than their Master, all are
accused of regarding marriage as evil (p. 25). In
support he gives quotations without references from
Tertullian, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Origen, Eusebius.
Jerome and Augustine are amongst the Fathers who
wrote entire tracts in defence of marriage against
Gnostic and Manichaean heretics. Origen declares
that God is the author of the matrimonial union
(Comment, in Matthaeum, xiv. 16). Tertullian writing to
his own wife exclaims, “ Whence are we to find lan
guage adequate to describe the happiness of that
marriage which the Church cements, and the oblation
confirms, and the benediction signs and seals, which
angels report and the Father holds as ratified” (Ad
Uxorem, ii. 9). Eusebius says, “To those who are not
called to the priesthood, holy Scripture gives liberty,
nay more, openly proclaims to all that 1 marriage is
honourable and the bed undefiled ’ ” (Demonst. Evang.,
i. 9). There is not a Father who while praising virginity
does not explicitly guard himself against the libel of
Bebel that marriage is accounted evil. St. Jerome’s
phrase (Against Jovinianus, i. 3) is typical of all : “Will
silver cease to be silver if gold is more precious than
silver ? ”
St. Paul, says Bebel (p. 25), hating the flesh hated
woman. This of St. Paul who says that those who
forbid marriage “give heed to spirits of error and
doctrines of devils ” (1 Tim. iv. 1, 3)^ who gives com
mand “ Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved
the Church, and delivered Himself up for it” (Eph.
v. 25). And “ So also ought men to love their wives as
their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth him
self. For no man ever hated his own flesh ; but
nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the
Church” (Eph. v..28, 29). On p. 26 we are given
�i4
Bebel's Libel on Woman
i Tim. ii. it, 12 in italics and told that here St. Paul
“ raises his influential voice against the higher education
and culture of women ” ; but St. Paul is here engaged
in giving instructions for the ordering of public worship.
St. Peter and St. Paul are said to justify “ any simpleton
of a man” in considering “himself better than the
cleverest woman” (pp. 25, 26), because they require
the obedience of the wife to the husband “ even as
Christ is the head of the Church.” St. Joseph was head
of the holy family (Matt. ii. 13, 20), does the Church
therefore consider him better than Mary ? The simple
fact is that the husband’s headship, his right within
the society of two to decide on matters morally in
different, confers no personal superiority. The wife is
not inferior to the husband any more than in Bebel’s
imagined Socialism the worker is inferior to the
“business executive” (p. 181) who see that he gets his
due return in goods, and no more, for work done
(pp. 180, 194). Before the Church and before God the
sexes are equal: “ there is neither male nor female ”
(Gal. iii. 28). Listen to Tertullian on the equality
in marriage : “ Both are brethren, both fellow-servants,
no difference of spirit or of flesh” {Ad Uxorem, ii. 9).
Christ himself is for all the type of virtue ; the same
law binds all; “ With us what is not allowed to woman
is equally disallowed to man” (Jerome, Epist., 77).
What injustice this equality of moral burdens would
entail if there were any doctrine of woman’s natural
inferiority! The Church recognizes what nature
teaches, that woman is different from man, not that
she is his inferior. Physically, mentally, and morally
she is other than man ; the sexes are complementary,
each supplying the defects of the other. Her constitu
tion is normally more delicate and is at times taxed
more than man’s. Her outlook is more ideal, her
imagination more lively, her emotion more pervading ;
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
15
he is generally colder of temperament, more abstract in
his views, more critical in discernment. Who shall
range these diverse gifts in a scale of superiority ? The
Church may recognize an actual inferiority due to
education and the conditions that have ruled the life of
women in the past; the Church may realize that the
cares of maternity will for ever bar the majority of
womankind from identity of opportunity with man.
But she refuses to agree that these circumstances can
touch with degeneracy woman’s being. If anything,
the Church sees a more spiritual mind in the woman,
adapting her more naturally for the education of the
soul as of the body of the young.
Bebel is confused and contradictory on this vital
matter of the difference of the sexes. He says (p. 8)
that woman’s sexual peculiarities are the foundation of
the bondage to which he declares she has been sub
jected ; that this bondage of centuries has lessened her
bodily and mental powers ; that her education has been
deliberately directed to increasing this weakness (p. 65) ;
that consequently “she is a fruitful soil for all forms of
religious and other charlatanism” (p. 66). He main
tains that : “ the only dissimilarity which has a right to
permanence is that established by nature for the fulfil
ment of a natural purpose, which is externally unlike
but in substance the same ” (p. 122). What precisely
does he wish to convey by this last belittling clause ?
“ I too,” he concedes (p. 141) “ consider it an advan
tageous division of labour to let the men defend their
country in the field, while the women undertake the
care of house and home.” Yet he decries this division
on pages 112 and 113. He looks forward to the realiza
tion of “the first fundamental law of the Socialistic
community—the equal duty of all to labour without the
distinction of sex” (p.180), to the day when “ she works
under exactly the same conditions as man ” (p. 229), when
�i6
Bebel's Libel on Woman
all “functions may become simply alternating ones to be
undertaken in turn by all those engaged in the branch,
without distinction of sex” (pp. 183-4). we are to under
stand from this that the weakness of the female sex and its
peculiar endowments are due entirely to centuries of
slavery, and that the progress of science (p. 130) will
make the sexes identical, assimilating them in nature,
function, and formation, then Bebel’s woman in the past
has never existed, his woman in the present is a creation
of his own out of this nothing, and his woman of the
future is a chimera. The difference of man and woman
meets us at every stage of history ; long ago woman
would have turned and revolted beneath this victimiza
tion ; the future will not destroy woman by making her
identical with man, nor by identifying these two complementaries destroy progress.
But let us take advantage of his want of clearness to
assume Bebel to mean that woman has ever been, is, and
will always be fundamentally different from man, and
that this difference has been in a variety of ways pressed
to the subjection of women. What are we then to
make of his assertions (p. 26) that “the advancing civi
lization of the West, acting in spite of Christianity,” was
the cause of gradual improvement, and that Christianity
“ has merely denied its true attitude with regard to
woman, and that reluctantly and under pressure ” ?
“Christianity,” says Bebel on the same page, “was a
mixture of Judaism and Greek Philosophy.” , Yet he
must know that, if it were only this mixture, Christianity
would not be in the world to-day the strong bulwark,
against which he finds it necessary to hurl his pages of
attack. Celsus in the second century, accused the early
Church of doing all for women. If the elevation of
woman was not due to Christianity, let Bebel explain
why it was present under the Christian emperors and
not in the unchristian Germanic tribes ? In the early
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
Church, women shared the charismata, later they were
in honour as deaconesses and eminent as martyrs.
Could St. Paul do more to elevate the union of husband
and wife than he does when by a sublime comparison
he gives as the model for married life the union of
Christ and His Church ? How often he salutes women
as his “ fellow-workers” in the Lord, and most touchingly
in Romans xvi. 13, “ Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord,
and his mother and mine.” Hear St. Peter’s exhortation
in his first Epistle (iii. 7), ‘‘Ye husbands, likewise dwelling
with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the
female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the coheirs of
the grace of life.” Christ Himself ordained that the
message of His Gospel should carry with it the story of
the woman who anointed His head with precious oint
ment : “ Amen, I say to you wheresoever this Gospel
shall be preached in the whole world, that also which
she hath done, shall be told for a memory of her”
(Matt. xxvi. 13, Mark xiv. 9). The fact is that to
Christianity the world is indebted for its highest con
ception of the equality that should exist between the
married ; it has effected more than all other forces com
bined against polyandry and polygamy and to preserve
Europe from the polygamous civilization of Mohamme
danism. Lecky, no friendly witness, bears testimony in
the passage, too long to quote in full, on pp. 234-5 of
vol. i of his Rationalism in Europe : “ The world is
governed by its ideals, and seldom or never has there
been one which has exercised a more profound and, on
the whole, a more salutary influence than the medieval
conception of the Virgin. . . . All that was best in
Europe clustered around it, and it is the origin of many
of the purest elements of our civilization.” Where
paganism protected woman by subjecting her to a tute
lage that betrayed an absence of all confidence in her,
Christianity shields her by means more honourable to
�i8
Bebel's Libel on Woman
her, regarding her as privileged because of her physical
weakness and because of her dignity.
What compulsion forced Christianity to adopt this
attitude ? Is it not the natural working of the mission
of the Church to sanctify the individual ? Was it
“ shrewd calculation ” on the part of the Catholic Church
that honoured Mary as the Mother of God (p. 26), or is
the shrewdness Bebel’s, who sees in this a substitution
for heathen goddesses (p. 27) ?
Bebel strangely argues that the presence of known
sexual evil in the world proves that the Church condoned
it. He quotes Augustine (p. 92) as confessing the ne
cessity to the Church of the existence of prostitution,
and cites the provincial Council of Milan in 1665 as
though it “ expressed itself to the same effect.” He
does not say that his quotation (de Ordine, ii. 4) is from a
work written by St. Augustine immediately after his
conversion with which he later expressed his dissatis
faction in his Retractationes. Nor does he tell us that
Augustine’s argument is “ Cease to distinguish between
dishonest women and honest matrons and you have dis
order.” The date for the Council must be a misprint
for 1565, when bishops, princes, and magistrates were
urged to extirpate panderers out of their territories and
not to suffer bad women to dwell outside of some remote
assigned locality (Mansi 34A, Col. 72). In similar fashion,
England, when it enacted a muzzling order, must be
said to have declared rabies “ inevitable and organized
it by state regulations.”
To what effect is it to quote strong expressions from
ascetical sermons, when the congregations are reminded
that Adam’s sin, to which we owe the fall, was preceded
by Eve’s failure to observe the command laid upon them
both ; that in a pagan world woman’s safety, or her re
putation, often depends on withdrawing herself from
public association with lawless men ; that where licence
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
19
is rife woman is the spark, man the tow whence bursts
the flame of passion ; that as woman is glorified in Mary,
called the gate of heaven, because with her began the
recovery of the world, so is she humbled by the memory
of Eve, styled the gate of sin and death and hell, because
with her began the destruction wrought by Adam ?
Above all, such expressions fail to convey the spirit of
the Church when they are not merely misinterpreted,
but tainted in the original with Manichasism.
Bebel’s history of the Sacrament of Matrimony is brief
but full of errors. He says (pp. 28-9) that the early
marriage ceremony “had merely the character of a
private contract between two persons of different
sexes,” that not till the ninth century was its vali
dity made to depend on ecclesiastical sanction, and
that “it was not till the sixteenth century that the
Council of Trent raised marriage to the rank of a sacra
ment.” 1 Marriage as a natural contract was instituted
1 This charge of inventing sacraments was echoed by the Arch
bishop of Armagh (then Bishop of Down and Connor) at a Belfast
meeting. The Church Times of Jan. 13, 1911, thus comments on
his speech : “ It is with feelings of peculiar shame that we read
the outpouring of the right reverend prelate. It is true that he
began with a sort of hyper-orthodoxy by speaking of marriage
as 1 the most sacred institution which God had ordained since
man and woman came to be.’ We have always known marriage
to be a sacrament, but we must protest against its undue
exaltation to be the most sacred of all sacraments. But the
Bishop went on with a complete somersault to say that marriage
was discovered to be a sacrament only at the Council of Trent.
Furthermore, he made the astonishing assertion that the whole
of this doctrine was founded on ‘ a mistranslation in the
Douay version of the one text Ephesians v. 32.’ Thus the ‘ sacra
ment of marriage ’ was never heard of before the Council of Trent
—was never spoken of, for example, by any of the Schoolmen—and
the Council depended on an English translation which did not
appear till twenty years afterwards. This is theology with a
vengeance, not to say history. . . . With a further excursion into
history, the Bishop of Down informed his audience that before the
Council of Trent ‘marriage was a civil ceremony.’ He should
really have given some examples of this hitherto unknown cere
monial. But enough. We are filled with shame, we say, in hear
ing of this rubbish poured from the lips of a Bishop of our Com-
�20
Bebel's Libel on Woman
by the Author of Nature when He created the two
sexes, and its object and duties were determined by
Him. Jesus Christ elevated it to a sacrament and
committed its discipline to His Church and to “ the
ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries
of God” (i Cor. iv. i). When Christ forbade polygamy
and divorce, and St. Paul condemned the incestuous
Corinthian, the Head of the Church and His Apostle, in
their official capacities, controlled the union of the
sexes. It was in view of the denials of Luther and
Calvin that Trent declared anathema upon those who
should say that the sacrament of matrimony was in
vented by man. On a similar occasion of an error of
the day, Innocent IV three and a half centuries earlier
required the Waldenses to retract a like denial of the
sacrament. The Church, beginning from St. Paul in
his Epistle to the Ephesians, has ever taught of matri
mony what belongs to the essence of a sacrament. St.
Augustine makes matrimony equally a sacrament with
Baptism and Holy Orders (de Nupt. et Concup., x. ii :
de Bono Coniug., xxiv. 32), St. Ignatius, the martyr of the
second century, writes, “It is fitting that brides and
bridegrooms should.marry with the judgement of the
bishop, that their nuptials may be according to the
Lord and not according to passion ” (Epist. ad Polyc.} v.
2). St. Ambrose testifies to the Church’s ceremonial:
“ For as marriage itself ought to be sanctified by the
priestly veiling and blessing, how can that be called
marriage where there is no wedding of faith ?” (E/>., 19,
ad Vigil, n. 7). As we should expect from these few
early extracts, the liturgical books show a tradition of
matrimony as a sacrament going back to Apostolic
times ; this is attested even by the rituals of sects that
muuion in the greedy ears of Belfast groundlings. So speaks the
worst kind of demagogue, pandering to the fiercest prejudice,
stirring the most odious passions, and doing all in the name of ‘our
civil and religious liberties.’ Poor Ireland^! ”
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
21
separated themselves in the first centuries. The Church
never regarded ' marriage as a purely private concern
beyond her control ; witness her legislative regulations,
e.g., the second canon of the Council of Neo-caesarea in
the year 314, declaring null a marriage within certain
degrees, which the civil law allowed.
When this control has been thrown off, Bebel pro
mises the woman of the future freedom to enter a union
where “should incompatibility, disappointment, and dis
like ensue, morality demands the dissolution of a tie
that has become unnatural and therefore immoral ”
(p. 230). Such amorous relationships of mere whim or
passing inclination are likely to bring about a real sub
jection of woman to man’s injustice.
In Luther, Bebel finds one whose words, a true
interpretation of healthy nature, should be chiselled
over the doors of churches, declaring the begetting of
children a physical necessity for each man and woman,
that man or woman can no more oppose the sexual
instinct than he or she can cease from eating, drinking,
and sleeping (pp. 36, 43). “ The so-called animal
passions occupy no lower rank than the so-called
mental passions ” (p. 44). Marriage is the law for all ;
celibacy is unnatural and for none. Bebel needs a little
fundamental knowledge of physiology and psychology.
Animals satisfy their innate appetites according to their
instincts, and so fulfil the law of Nature. Man lacks
this sovereign instinct; his body is the seat of animal .
appetites, every one of which is good and implanted of
set purpose ; but they are means, not an end ; they are
means to be used for an end under the control of
reason where the appetite is inordinate. Some inclina
tions point to laws which have for their end the perfec
tion of the individual ; they are of obligation for each
individual ; every one is bound to take food and to
check any impulse to overeating. Other laws have the
�22
Bebel's Libel on Woman
perfection of the race for their end, and do not per se
bind each individual. Thus Nature’s tendency which
urges to the multiplication of the race is strong enough
to ensure the continuance of the race without making
necessary the marriage of a given couple. The bearing
of children is not always a social duty. Bebel on his
reading of Nature must be prepared to say that Nature
requires each individual absolutely to carry out the law
as soon as he or she has reached the age of being
capable.
“ Every one hath his proper gift from God (i Cor.
vii. 7), and different individuals meet different needs of
the community, which has to be maintained not alone
in bodily multiplication, but also in spiritual increase.
Virginity is a gift of God as is marriage ; but heroism
does not lie with marriage, and there is no fear of the
world taking the harder way.
Bebel again and again (pp. 36, 43-4-5-6-7, 84-5-6,
89, 253) lays it down that each must gratify this sexual
impulse undei' pain of bodily and mental disease. Let
us answer shortly by referring him to the resolution
passed unanimously by the Conference of Preventive
Medicine (Congress of Brussels, 1902) and signed by
more than 150 leading medical men, representatives
from all parts of the world : “ Young men should be
taught not only that chastity and continence are not
harmful, but further that these virtues are to be highly
recommended from the point of view purely of medicine
and hygiene.” The Lancet (February r, 1896) condemned
“ the heresy . . . that chastity is physiologically bad
for young men. We have quoted the words of leading
physicians and surgeons, e.g., Sir William Jenner, Sir
James Paget, Dr. Gowers, and Dr. Lionel Beale, to the
effect that chastity never did harm to mind or body,
that such discipline as it involves is excellent, and that
marriage can be safely waited for, even for years,
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
23
without the least clanger to health.” The British Medical
Journal says on December n, 1897 (p. 1742), “ Adult
men are sometimes under the impression that chastity
is a danger to health, and to them it is often useful to
be distinctly assured that such is not the case.”
But, urges Bebel, as an historic fact, an unmarried
clergy has carried licentiousness as a plague (pp. 30,
3T> 83, 97, 104). Scandals there have been, and not
least, there where is the source of much of the so-called
evidence. Take the testimony at the widest, and we
find marriage relations the purest in regions where
there is religious celibacy, and the harm is doubled
where the clergy is not celibate. Such a man as
Dollinger was well aware of the lesson of present and
past, and he held that celibacy was essential to the
efficiency of the clergy. Renan testified, “ The fact is
that what is commonly said about the morality of the
clergy is, so far as my experience goes, absolutely
devoid of foundation.” 1 Clerical celibacy (which
Bebel would seem to think (pp. 26, 252) only came in with
Gregory VII in the eleventh century) both on utilitarian
grounds and for the deeper reason of the spiritual
paternity forming Christ in souls (Gal. iv. 19), was from
the beginning regarded as the more excellent way ;
though it was not possible always to find unmarried
candidates for the priesthood, nor by the imposition of
hands to enjoin departure from wedded union. In the
fourth century the self-denying ordinance was general
in the West, and the Church has known how to provide
the means to enable her clergy to lead the celibate life.
What defections there have been are not due to the
law imposing an impossible burden, but the blame of
them must be laid upon those who, had there been no
law, would have been dishonest still.
It is impossible to be enthusiastic for Bebel’s picture
1 Catholic Encyclopedia, “ Celibacy.”
�24
Bebel's Libel on Woman
of the world to come, where as soon as the child is old
enough to leave the breast he passes to “ common
guardians ” (pp. 216-17), *° be reared in the atmosphere
of presumptive state-love ; where police, crime, and
religion disappear (pp. 212-15) anc^ there succeeds
“ the conviction that heaven is on earth ” (p. 224). His
vision of the future is not likely to be more true than
his view of our present world, where he sees no venera
tion for old age, no reverence towards innocence, no
joy in work done, no power of devotion or attachment
to transfigure the lowliness of service ; where marriage
is ever an affair of the market, pleasure always sought
in unlawful ways, crime and failure and misery the only
outcome of humanity’s struggle. Hypothesis, sophistry,
railing at the “ bourgeois,” will nevei* get rid of human
passions and the ills our flesh is heir to.
Woman has an ennobling work to accomplish for
the spirit of humanity ; the good genius of the race,
she balances the movements of the world of thought
and action. She is not condemned to mediocrity
because she may not aspire to masculine qualities. Her
lot demands amelioration and she rightly strives for
the recognition within organized society of the rights
which that organization entails. Bebel’s out-of-date
book is a stumbling-block in the way of woman’s
redress. Its facts are fictions ; it denaturalizes nature ;
its creed is corrupting ; it makes sex the divinity to be
served in an unrestrainedly animal world.
Postscript on the German Edition of 1910.
The title of the book is altered to Woman and
Socialism, but the method and main doctrine are un
changed. Religion is still charlatanism ; when Socialism
comes there will be no immorality, the sexual impulse
will be obeyed in unions that will last as long as liking
lasts. Statistics are fuller and more up to date ; the
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
25
“only” (Eng., p. 143) German suffragist authoress is
now (Germ., p. 292) the “first,” but the Council of
Milan (see above, p. 18) is still (Germ., p. 176) a
hundred years out. The curiosities about the Carnival
(above, p. 6) have disappeared ; the Malthusianism of
Adam and Eve (above, p. 11), the lending of his wife
by Abraham (above, p. it), and Jehovah’s attitude
towards polygamy (above, pp. 11-12), no longer find
mention. Instead of the horrible charge against the
worship of the Jews (above, p. 8) we now read
(Germ., p. 39) that up to about 150 years before our
era the Temple at Jerusalem was the ordinary
gathering ground of prostitutes—a statement which
1 effects as much on the doctrines of the Jews as a
Trade Union meeting in Trafalgar Square impugns
the management of the National Gallery. The fable
of the Council of Macon (above, pp. 7-8) is repeated
(Germ., p. 61), with the addition of the detail that
the Council by a majority of one decided for the fact
that women had souls !
Bebel still holds (Germ., p. n) as undoubted an
oiiginal horde stage of promiscuity for the human race
(above, pp. 9-10), and with him savages are a picture
of the past through which man has worked his way
upward in an infinitely long and slow course of develop
ment. In this realm of conjecture his faith is unhesi
tating, and in a phrase, saying there is no documentary
evidence, he rules out the possibility of contradiction
from the Bible even as a merely historical witness.
As to the differences of physical capabilities in men
and women, he has not yet spoken his mind definitely ;
but he has toned down an extreme evolutionary theory
and now holds quite safely that present differences are
to some unknown extent due to conditions of life and
education and to social developments. He clearly
admits a difference of physical characteristics which
�26
Bebel's Libel on Woman
ought not to be altered (Germ., p. 252), and agrees
(Germ., p. 261) that the qualities of men and women
are different but of equal value. Here is a portion of
page 122 of the English translation printed with
square brackets round the significant omissions of page
248 of the German (see above, p. 15): “ The only
dissimilarity which has a right to permanence is that
established by Nature for the fulfilment of a natural
purpose [which is externally unlike, but in substance the
same]. Neither sex can overstep natural boundaries,
as it would destroy its proper purpose in doing so ;
[upon this we may confidently rely. Neither sex is
justified in erecting barriers for the other, any more
than one class for another].” So that sex is something
deeper than class-distinction.
Bebel reaffirms (Germ. pp. 66-7) his interpretation
of the Jus Primae Noctis, and he appeals to Jacob
Grimm’s Weistumer, i (1840) and to Sugenheim’s History
of the Abolition of Serfdom-Vassalage (St. Petersburg,
1861). On Grimm Bebel should read his compatriot
Michael’s History of the German People in the Middle
Ages, i, pp. 54-5 (Freiburg, 1897) and see the long
list of authors there quoted. Modern research might
be expected to have discovered protestations and
evidence of resistance to a custom that would so
outrage human dignity ; but there is no new support
found for what historians call a “legend,” “a learned
superstition,” and the old foundation in such old writers
as Grimm and Segenheim consisted of anecdotes,
suspected passages, and misunderstood texts. To take
an instance which though remote in time has something
of local nearness to us, Bebel on Sugenheim’s
authority says that in Scotland the Jus was made
convertible into a tax by Malcolm III at the end of
the eleventh century. The source of this evidence
can be traced back to a History of Scotland by one
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
27
Hector Boethius of Aberdeen in the early sixteenth
century. He attributes the abominable right to the
clays of a legendary king Evenus, “ long centuries ”
before Malcolm, and states that it was only stamped
out by Malcolm’s substitution of the Laws of the
Merchet. Now the Leges Malcolmi, lib. iv, cap. xxxi,
give no hint of the conversion of any custom, have
no penalties for any one who should assert an ancient
Jus ; they simply give the different amounts to be paid
to the feudal lord on occasion of marriage. These
sums are to be paid by free or unfree, noble’s
daughter and thane’s daughter ; a count’s daughter
paid twelve cows to the Queen ! Where is there here
so much as a hint of the conversion of an old corrupt
practice ? The infamous right never existed, and for
historians the question is closed. See the works with
the subject-title by Louis Veuillot, A. de Foras, Karl
Schmidt.
There are in the German edition (pp. 414-15)
quotations from St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom,
and Bossuet additional to those on p. 201 of the
English version, to prove the communism of Early
Popes and Fathers (see above, p. o). No references
are given for these quotations, an omission which is
an affront to the intelligence of readers, and entails
vexatious toil on any one who is anxious to see that
authorities are rightly used. The quotation, which is
said to show the communism of St. Augustine, has
been discovered in his Interpretation of Psalm 131,
where after speaking of the law-suits and discords that
follow private property, he says : “ Let us then,
brethren, abstain from the possession of private
property, or from the love of it if we cannot abstain
from the possession.” This is not communism, but is
preaching the doctrine of the Master who gave the
Counsel (not Command) of Evangelical Poverty : “ If
�28
Bebel's Libel on Woman
thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to
the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven : and
come, follow me” (Matthew xix. 21). In the same
sermon the saint warns his hearers not to presume
on wealth or powerful friends if they have them. He
tells them that the man who has “ a full house, rich
lands, many farms, much gold and silver,” but does
not put his trust in them, knows that he must possess
them and not they possess him—such a one, he says,
is numbered among the poor of the Church to whom
the fifteenth verse of this psalm promises “ I will satisfy
her poor with bread.” Detachment, not communism,
is St. Augustine’s teaching.
Bossuet is cited from the Art of Government, drawn
from the Words of Holy Scripture, a work written for
the instruction of his pupil, the Dauphin. The place
may be found in Bk. I, Art. 3, Prop. 4 : “ Take away
government, the earth and all its goods are as common
among men as air and light. . . . According to the
primitive right of nature no one has a particular right
over anything, and everything is the prey of all (tout
est en proie a tons). . . . Hence springs the right of
property.” Mark how the last portion of the quotation
reads in Bebel, and hear the conclusion he draws from
it: “ ‘ Everything belongs to every one : and it is from
state government that property comes.’ This last phrase
means when more clearly explained that the transition
from common to private property is the cause of state
government which has to protect private property.”
Bossuet’s meaning is nothing of the kind. His argu
ment is that by nature the possession and use of the
earth and its fruits belong to man, but nature does not
assign and mark off particular goods as the property of
particular individuals. Hence in the absence of authority
might is right, none is secure against violence, and
“ everything is the prey of all.” But, says Prop. 4 : “ In
�Bebel's Libel on Woman
29
an ordered government each individual renounces the
right to seize by force whatever suits him ” ; under a
government legitimate claims are backed by the power
of the magistracy, the natural enemy of all violence ;
and the sustenance of each from the fruits of the earth
is assured. Bebel cannot have read his quotation in
Bossuet, or he would not have mistranslated the
French and distorted the argument.
There is a quotation from St. John Chrysostom which
a search through his works has failed to disclose.
Possibly the failure to recognize it may be due to the
translation not faithfully rendering the Greek. Bebel’s
alleged quotation runs, “ Let no man call anything his
own. We have received everything from God to be
used in common and mine and thine are lying words.”
The nearest parallel that can be found in St. Chrysostom
corresponds in nothing to the greater portion of the
quotation, but there is a resemblance to the last six
words in a homily on 1 Cor. xi. 19, “ mine and thine, that
chilling phrase ” (tovto to x^v^pov pfjp.a). In hundreds of
places Chrysostom preaches against the evils of luxury
and the immorality of the rich ; but he is careful to
point out that destitution is not virtue, nor wealth sin.
His doctrine is clear, and Bebel cannot give chapter
and verse to prove him communistic.
In the German, p. 60 (corresponding to p. 26 of the
English translation), where Bebel purports to be giving
the Christian view of woman, two quotations from St.
Thomas Aquinas are introduced. Here again there is
no reference, and an examination of the several prob
able places in St. Thomas has not discovered any such
texts as Bebel attributes to him.
On the whole, then, the 1910 edition in contrast
with the old English translation is disappointing ; the
wisdom that should come with years and with criticism
has borne little fruit. The promise Of “ conclusions
�30
Bebel's Libel on Woman
demanded by results based on the examination of facts ”
remains and seems likely to remain for Bebel an un
attainable ideal. A baseless history, warped Bible texts,
mistranslation of the Fathers, a travesty of Christianity,
spurious decrees of Councils, the Jus Primae Noctis—
these are the alleged facts. That on examination they
turn out to be fables leaves Bebel unconcerned and
makes no difference to his argument. But if that is
his attitude—and from his admission that he prints in
the 1886 edition statements with which he no longer
agrees, as also from the 1910 edition in general, such it
emphatically is-—he removes the whole discussion from
the level of serious historical enquiry down to that of
cynical mischief-making which trades on the ignorance
or gullibility of his readers. We regret that we must
take leave in this spirit of a book widely influential in
the Woman movement, but the position is of Bebel’s
choosing not of ours. We are fully alive to the need of
solid advocacy of the cause of Women, but it is only
fair to point out that this is an instance of a good cause
damaged by invoking the aid of the cynic and the
agitator. In the truth lies Woman’s strength, and
truth will win.
September, 1911.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, LONDON.
U.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Bebel's libel on women
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
MacMahon, William
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. "Reprinted with additions from The Crucible for June, 1911." Bebel's book Die Frau in der Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft was published in English in 1885 as Woman in the Past, Present and Future. Ferdinand August Bebel was a German socialist politician, writer, and orator. He is best remembered as one of the founders of the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany (SDAP).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1911]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1550
Subject
The topic of the resource
Women
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Bebel's libel on women), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
August Bebel
Women
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/464c09afd8158c52ea4ef7b7626b4636.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=E0zfXYykU3nMgDOQr9kmo6AGBWpFHvoPz4dZ1mJCP-kPjyW6DvOeks-CYFMvXfiDT7odpG5zRsxqE4JEgSmu0etG4hO2VBYhspkNfvkpQIfPwfIvxd-eI9FiXCtLJqoXfi2pWiu5xhW2opcZNkd8cT0-SxM3Z0c6zeACvqphhfpXErMqB%7ECYszwxf-7O8U4kN87P5NkLZp2D9OfBIyaQ-bCHKFmDQl5w-XBoO5087V5S9Ub3Wv18UXOpmAyTyINRyX78a3Adu-LDDu0nZqdD-K9t-x%7EawqVT3yaUOBenlVt%7EK2rj8ojLNGLyz3sYYUHPr04TQJrgBl2tVS1cWoB51w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
77238b2ecb8f530384e96db4842e08b2
PDF Text
Text
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
AND THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY
By C. C. Martindale, S.J.
That Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin is part of
the Catholic faith.1 All admit that the Gospels, in
their present form, assert it (M i16,18'25 and L I34-35 3 23).
The Church has again and again formally declared it,
explaining her assertion as implying not only t1
negative doctrine that Jesus Christ had no h’
father, but that His Mother remained virginHis birth as before it, throughout the
life. No further commentary upon, nor
deductions from, her doctrine does sh£ ' ‘
That the doctrine is untrue was, however
' aa&d
both in ancient and modern times ; and of t/U-i attack
we shall first give an outline.
I
i. Cerinthus (c. ioo), herald of the Judaizing
Gnostics, declared that Jesus was not virgin-born
because (Irenaeus says with simplicity2) “ it seemed to
1 The formula Born of the Virgin Mary recurs in the creeds. Pope
Siricius in 392 approves the condemnation of Bonosus’ assertion that
Mary, virgin at Christ’s birth, bore other children ; Leo I. in 449
dwells, against Eutyches, upon the miracle of a virginity inviolate by
child-bearing; in 539 John II. repeats this, using as normal the title
ever-virgin ; the Lateran Council of 649 proclaims Mary ever-virgin
and immaculate, her virginity persisting indissoluble even after her Son’s
birth, and Toledo XI. (675) expands its stately paradoxes. Paul IV. in
1544 reaffirms against the Socinians that Mary “ever persevered in
integrity of virginity, that is, before the Birth, in it, and after it.” This
tradition is undisputed. Bannwart-Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. IO,
1908, 2 etc., 86, 91, 144, 202, 256, 282, 993.
2 Adu. Heer., I. xxvi. 2, P.G., 7689 [we shall thus refer to the volume
and column of the Patrologia Grceca (P.L. = Pair. Latina} of Migne].
�2
History and Dogma
him impossible.” Deity could not be sullied by human
contact: the Christ, therefore, or the Spirit, descended
at the Baptism on the son of Joseph and Mary.
So too Carpocrates (y. 125).1 Justin (y. 150) shows
that the modern arguments were, in all essentials,
anticipated.
In Justin’s Dialogue the Jew Trypho attacks the Virgin Birth :
Isaiah’s famous prophecy,2 he argues, is mistranslated: the
Hebrew ’•almah means “young woman” (so Theod., Aq.), not
“virgin” (LXX.). The promise was fulfilled in Hezekiah(7VW.,67).
A pre-existent Christ, born in time, is “ disconcerting prap^o^ :
contrary to (general) expectation ?] and indeed nonsense ” (48).
In short, “do not dare,” he says, “to tell fairy tales, lest
you be proved as frivolous as the Greeks’’—referring to the
hero-births to which Justin, as an argumentum adhominem, had
compared (in 1 Apol., 54: 6409) Christ’s.3
Origen puts into the mouth of Celsus (r. 180)
language which many a modern rationalist would not
disavow.
The Isaian prophecy is denied (r. Cels., i. 34); hero
births (e.g. Plato’s) alleged (c. 37); and especially the
blasphemy, already current, that Jesus was born of
Mary and Panthera—a legend which in some shape
or other survived for centuries.4 To refer to this, says
Origen, is mere ribaldry (c. 32, 37 : 1 1719,733).
But Jerome’s controversy with Helvidius (who
denied Mary’s perpetual virginity, c. 383) is even
more striking. Helvidius argues as follows :—
Mary is Joseph’s “espoused wife”; destined, therefore, to
full wedlock. Mi18 implies that in time the marriage was con1 For the Ebionites, infr., p. 5, n. 2.
2 714: Ecce uirgo concipiet Vulgate ; lSoi> yirapOevos LXX. ;. . . veavis
Theodotion, Aquila.
3 P.G., 6629- 58°. Cf. Irenaeus’ opponents, 7943, etc. A few Gentile
converts believed Christ of human parentage. Ir., 6381; cf. Orig. in
Mt. xvi. 12 : I3141S. They were formally disapproved.
4 Panthera (or Pandera): the name is genuine and not an anagram
(Deissmann, Noldeke): usually represented as a centurion. The story is
highly involved, and may be connected with pre-Christian legend. It
is taken up in the Talmud, reappears in the thirteenth-century pamphlet
Toledoth fesu, and in modern literature of a scurrilous description.
See Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 35, 348;
Lagrange, Messianisme chez les fuifs, p. 288, 1909,
�The Virgin Birth
3
summated (c. 3). Joseph knew her not until she brought forth
her first-born ; he did so, therefore, afterwards (c. 5), and she
had later sons (c. 9). Indeed, the Gospels speak of Jesus’
brethren (c. 11). Finally, virginity is no holier than wedlock
(c. 18): P.L., 23185- 189, 1921 202. The arguments adduced in the
controversy with Jovinianus, c. 385, and by Ambrose against
Bonosus, c. 390 (De institutions uirginum, c. 5 : 16314) add
nothing new.
2. The modern attack 1 begins with Voltaire, and
takes definite form first in the system which deals
with the Gospels as with historical or poetical “ myths,”
according as it conceives the objective, historical facts
to have been distorted by the author’s tendency to
account supernaturally for natural events, or at least
to idealize them.2 Genuine “ myth ”—the dressingup of a doctrine in historical guise, though no, or
barely any, objective fact corresponding to the
tale exist at all—is the system of D. F. Strauss’ Life
(1838).3 Popular feeling, individual writers, moulded
the myth round the memory of a man who may not
even have existed. Gradually the legend grew—and
here the system profited by Chr. Baur’s new theory,
that the Gospels were but second-century productions.
Not only had an O.T. “ Messiah-myth ” long been in
existence, and needed but to be applied to a popular
name; but a century and more was to elapse, during
which it might grow into the full, familiar Gospel.
Thus, it was foretold Messiah should be born at
Bethlehem, and work miracles. Jesus, therefore, must
have been born there, and shall be credited with miracles.
The Shepherds, the Magi, are complementary stories
picturing the universality of His influence.
He
dies, but this influence survives, indestructible ; His
1 Cf Durand, D Enfance de Jesus-Christ, Paris, 1908 (Engl, tr.,
Philadelphia, 1910), c. 3, p. 35. We warmly recommend this little
book, to which we are throughout deeply indebted.
2 Cf, e.g., Gottlob Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1828. The application of his
method is often clumsy—angelic apparitions he explains as dreams;
Gabriel, as a flesh-and-blood adventurer.
3 Thus, “Jesus denounces the spiritually barren synagogue. This may
be fact. He describes it as a barren, withered fig-tree. This is parable.
Soon the myth grows up that He cursed and shrivelled a real fig-tree.”
�4
History and Dogma
name is exalted—that is, He is risen and ascended.
Historically, a virgin birth, a resurrection, are false;
“ religiously,” they are eternally true.—Now that Baur’s
theory is universally abandoned, literary criticism
dissects the Gospel texts, assigning to “ editors,”
or interpolation, the passages teaching the Virgin
Birth. Thus, the “ original ” genealogy in Matthew
made Joseph the father of Jesus;1 in the “ earliest ”
form of Luke I, verses 34-35 were missing;2 and the
theories are many and complicated—too much so for
M. Loisy, who allows the Gospels to be no patchwork :
the Evangelists wrote what we read and meant what
we believe, but only because the “ faith ” of even that
early date dictated this.3
To this “faith” Prof. O. Pfleiderer assigned 4 three stages : first,
men felt that Jesus was the Saviour-Messiah—was made God’s
“ Son ” by adoption, at the Resurrection or else at the Baptism.
So Mark ; so the earlier parts of Acts and of Paul. But afterwards
Paul remembered the Rabbinic notion of the ideal Man, the pre
existent Image and “ Son ” of God—he it was who revealed
himself in flesh ; while John, under the spell of Alexandrian
theosophy, acknowledges a genuine “incarnation” of the Word.
But though Jesus was thus morally and metaphysically “ Son of
God,” neither Synoptists, nor Paul, nor John felt this to conflict
with His purely human descent. A virgin birth is not yet above
the horizon. Quite late, in the second century, it was asked,
If He be Son of God, why give Him a human father? Heroes,
born of gods and women, abounded in mythology. A synthesis
was made : physically, too, Jesus should be God’s Son, and His
mother, a virgin. The Gospels were then “emended” at the
bidding of this now completed “ faith.”5
We propose succinctly to consider the authenticity
of the Gospel “ Infancy ” record, especially in view of
1 Schmiedel, Biblical Encycl., iii, 2962 ; infr., p. 13.
2 Cf. Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, vol. i. p. 100, n. 1, Engl, tr., 1897 ;
infr., p. 6.
3 A. Loisy, L' fa-vangile et Ffaglise, ed. 2, 1903, p. 31.
4 Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens, 1903.
5 See Cheyne’s Biblical Encyl., art. Mary, Nativity, etc.; and
F. C. Conybeare, the Standard, nth May 1905, for examples of popular
sentiment. The Declaration on Biblical Criticism by 1725 Anglican
Clergymen, ed. H. Handley, 1906, asks that the historicity of the
narrative of Christ’s conception be kept an open question.
�The Virgin Birth
5
early Christian belief, and in relation to the rest of
the New Testament, with, which it is considered to
conflict: we shall examine a few particular points on
which Matthew and Luke are said to contradict them
selves, or one another, or to be intrinsically at fault;
finally, we shall discuss the sources given as those of
the Infancy narrative by those who do not believe it
reposes upon fact.
II
It is said, first, that the Gospels, as they stand, give
us no true presentment of the facts. The text has
been tampered with.1 We hear :—
(i.) (a) The Ebionites’2 copy of Matthew began
only at c. 3, the Mission of the Baptist.—But we
know this only from Epiphanius ;3 if then we accept
it, we must also accept his statement (ibi) that they
had struck off cc. 1 and 2 in the interests of their
heresy. He also says (zb.) that the Nazarene Ebionites
used the full text, as did the early heretics Cerinthus
and Carpocrates.4 So there is no extrinsic evidence
that Matthew began, originally, with the Mission of
John.
(b) The unity of M’s “ Childhood Gospel ” is only
1 We must here disregard the argument that the Gospels must be
untruthful because they relate miracles, and miracles cannot happen.
Eliminate the miracles, it is suggested, and you will find the historical
substratum of fact. Be that as it may, all we assert, here, is that there
is no evidence of an “original ” Gospel of which ours is a later edition
modified in the interests of the Virgin Birth.
2 A vague name attached to very early heretics of Judaizing tendencies
or (Duchesne, Hist, anc.de VEglise, i. 124) a survival of Judseo-Christians,
in a state of “arrested” development, or retrogression, as to dogma.
Some admitted, some rejected, the Virgin Birth. Origen, c. Cels., v. 6l :
n1277 ; Eus., H.E., iii. 27: 20273. Those rejected it who believed
Jesus to have become Messiah at His baptism. Epiph., Adu. Heer.
I. xxx. 16: 41432.
3 TA, 14.
4 Tatian’s Harmony of the Gospels omits M’s genealogy (as it does
L’s), not because it did not exist, but because Tatian aimed at giving,
not a complete but a continuous account of the contents of the Gospels
(though infr,, p. 13); anyhow, he keeps i18-25, which contain the
Virgin Birth. Though in some MSS. M I18 begins in capital letters,
that may be merely because the genealogy was omitted in public readings.
�6
History and Dogma
artificial. The genealogy originally made Jesus the
son of Joseph, and was clumsily altered by an editor
to fit the Infancy stories, which in their turn were
affixed to the pristine record. This centres wholly
round i16, on which cf. infr., p. 15, n. 3.
(ii.) The internal unity of Luke’s “ Infancy ” seemed,
till recently, obvious to all, and its homogeneity with
the rest of his Gospel to most; though the heretic
Marcion, unable to believe, not, like the Ebionites,
that Jesus had God for His Father, but that He had
a woman for mother, struck out of his text the
whole Infancy record ;1 while Schmiedel2 would, on
the a priori assumption that the earliest Gospel must
have been Ebionite, assign 221'52, where Christ seems
but an ordinary Jewish child, to an ancient document,
while the “supernatural” 1-220 is a later addition.—
But 221 clearly supposes i31—the flow of the chapters
is quite continuous. To put this down to “ editorial
touching up” which conceals original divergences,
and then to tell us what those divergences were, is
perverse.
Prof. Harnack is, however, contented if L i34*35 be suppressed
as interpolated. («) L is consistent in his use of particles. But
here appear 8tJ> (wherefore}, else only in f (which H. considers
doubtful), and «rel (seeing that}, found perhaps nowhere else in
the Third Gospel. But all critical editions keep 8d> in 77; and H.
(who argued thus in 1901) has since (1906) proved Acts to be by
the same author as that Gospel, namely, Luke. But in Acts, Sto
occurs frequently 1—(b} Verses 34-35 are said to break the flow of
the chapter, adding a new and discrepant explanation of the
Child’s origin to that in 31-32. They add to it, granted : they do
not contradict it. Mary’s question, “ How shall this be ?” etc., is
natural enough, when all the circumstances, so far, had been so
strange ; doubly natural if she had resolved to remain a virgin,
as Catholics piously believe.3
1 Iren., Adti. Heer., I. xxvi. 2 : 7s88, III. xii. 12 : zA906 ; Tert., Adv.
Marc., i. 1: 2247, ix. 2 : zA363 ; cf. Plummer, who (Gosp. acc. to St. Luke,
1900, p. lxix.) shows Marcion’s text was mutilated, not ours added to.
2 Encycl. Bibl., iii. 2960.
3 We are told, too, that if Jesus is to be virginally conceived,
Gabriel accredits that greater miracle by quoting a lesser one (the con
ception of John by the aged Elizabeth). —There is here no difficulty.
�The Virgin Bzrth
1
But the Childhood narratives have positive claims
to belief. Luke’s preface (iw) is a revelation of the
writer’s industry, common sense, and real feeling of
a historian’s duty and responsibility.
He seeks
“ eye-witnesses from the beginning ”; he claims to
surpass, in order and accuracy, contemporary ac
counts ; his object is the historical grounding of the
doctrine preached. What were his authorities? Many
have thought, Mary herself.* The whole of this part
1
of Luke is written from her point of view (Matthew,
from Joseph’s). Delicacy of touch, intimacy of detail,
are felt everywhere. Women (to whom Luke, the
physician, will have had easier access) figure much in
his pages, especially those holy persons who were much
in Mary’s company.2 Then the events he records,
though lost sight of in the “ hidden ” thirty years, must
have had some publicity, at any rate. From these and
other sources he may have gained his oral tradition.
Moreover, it is acknowledged that, so markedly Hebraic in
their structure (as contrasted with the rest of his Gospel and the
Acts) are the first three chapters of Luke, both linguistically and in
local colour, so minutely accurate and prolific in details of place,
person, cult,3 that it is practically clear he is here using an
older Hebrew (or Aramaic) document.4 This brings us very close
to the beginnings! Anyhow, that “faith working on history”
In the O.T., Yahweh constantly gives a marvellous sign to guarantee
His future performance of a yet greater thing. And to this the Angel’s
concluding words look forward.—But, Zachary is punished for his
“ How shall I know?” Mary praised for her “How shall this be?”
Surely contradictory ?—No : Mary believes, accepts, asks the “how ” of
what is to be. Zachary hesitates : is he to believe ? How feel sure ?—One thing is clear : Mary never supposes that the promised child will be
Joseph’s {cf. Plummer, adloc.').—Harnack’s contention that this “con
versation” (I34, 35) takes Mary out of her role of “silence” may be
neglected. Of course, it forces him to assign the Magnificat to Elizabeth.
On this, see C.T. S. The Magnificat: Its Author and Meaning, by M. N.
1 So W. Ramsay (ITas Christ born at Bethlehem? 1898, p. 74: we
cordially recommend this excellent book) and others.
2 Sanday, Hastings’ Diet. Bibl., ii. 644.
3 Especially those connected with Zachary (L alone in the N.T. uses
the technical word “course,” I8 : he knows the angel stood “at the
right ” of the incense-altar), Anna, etc.
4 Plummer, op. c., p. 45 ; Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 1898, p. 31.
�8
History and Dogma
should have created this sober, profoundly “ Palestinian ” narra
tive 1 and the canticles in particular,2 is a gratuitous hypothesis.
What pious imagination did create, was a library of “ apocryphal
gospels.” A single page of their insipid anecdotes, gross realisms,
and vulgar wonder-lust convinces us that between them and our
Gospels is the gulf between human and Divine.
As for the story in Matthew, its homogeneity is
generally admitted — each part presupposes what
precedes—and above all, its Palestinian colouring,
its insistence on the fulfilment and applicability of
prophecy, proclaim a Palestinian origin and audience.
Certain details we shall examine below.3*
We have therefore the right to conclude that
Matthew and Luke are homogeneous, authentic docu
ments, intrinsically intact. There is no evidence from
tradition or even legend that they were added to or
interpolated. On the contrary, we know that those
who tampered with them did so to excise, not to
expand, in favour of their own theories. And we
urge that those who, by internal, literary criticism,
1 Lepin, Jdsus Messie, etc., 1906, p. 62; Rose, 5. Luc, 1904, P2 On their “ essentially Hebraic and pre-Christian character,” to
gether with their exclusive appropriateness to the occasion to which L
assigns their utterance, see Durand, pp. 158-165, and the references
in note 1 there. L may have cast the traditional sentiments into shape :
scarcely, have adapted older Jewish, or even Christian, liturgical
hymns. For the special question of the Enrolment, and of the reputed
pagan origins of this story, cf. infr., p. 17.
3 P. 19. It is said, we saw, that the phrase, “he knew her not until
shehad brought forth her [first-born: omitted by excellent MSS.; probably
a gloss from L 27] son,” implies that Mary lived afterwards with Joseph.
—It need not do so (in Hebrew idiom, what is denied until an event is
not thereby asserted as happening after it; cf. M 2820, 1 Co 1528, Ps 1223,
already quoted by Jerome, 23189); and must not be so interpreted, if it
clash thus with other evidence. — “ Her first-born son,” L 27, is taken
as implying that Mary had other children.—Again, it need not, and in
these circumstances must not, be so taken. “ First-born,” to a Jew,
connoted, not later births, but the privileges legally due to one who
“ opened the womb.” L looks only to the typical value of the word as
applied to the Eldest-born, the heir of Yahweh’s promises. So Israel
is constantly called, in O.T., Yahweh’s first-born, without implying in
the least that the other nations were His later born. That M and
L freely speak of the “brethren” of Jesus, and L of Joseph as His
father, e.g. 2®, is psychologically true and no contradiction. So do the
apocryphal Gospels, which insist violently on Mary’s virginity.
�The Virgin Birth
9
affirm that they detect joints and rivets in the text,
have no right to do so: only a conviction that the
doctrine of the Virgin Birth must be a late develop
ment, while it is agreed that the Gospels are fairly
early, can account for the discovery of reasons for
the excision of those passages in which that doctrine
is mentioned.
Ill
But Mark (whose Gospel is now considered by
nearly all to be the earliest of the Synoptists, and
indeed was probably treated by Matthew as the
nucleus of his own work), Mark, we are told, knows
nothing of the Virgin Birth, though he must have
known it had it been believed in his day, and must
have mentioned it had he known it. Paul ignores
this dogma, and indeed virtually denies it, holding
Jesus to be God’s “ Son ” because adopted by the
Father. John ignores it no less, explaining Christ’s
relation to the Father in terms of Alexandrian Logosdoctrine. Do not Matthew, then, and Luke clash
with Mark, Paul, and John ? Do we not see the
legend, with our own eyes, springing up, late, and on
Palestinian soil ?
(i.) The Gospels reflect what was currently preached,
not necessarily everything that was actually believed;
for all will grant that the articles of the faith were
not at first preached with equal emphasis or publicity.
Mark reflects this earlier preaching with accuracy.
The claim of Jesus to be Messiah, Teacher and Saviour
of men ; His ransoming death and victorious resurrec
tion ; His foundation of a Church, and the minimum
of discipline conditioning membership—this is preached
in the Acts, and Mark’s Gospel supplies a more than
sufficient historical background thereto. But none of
this presupposes, or flows from, the Virgin Birth.1
1 It cannot too emphatically be recalled that Jesus is not Son of God
because He is virgin-born ; nor does pre-existence necessitate virgin
birth. This misconception pervades and stultifies most of the theological
argument of Lobstein’s Virgin Birth of Christ (Eng. tr.), 1903, e.g.
I
2
�IO
History and Dogma
Jesus Himself but gradually unfolded His doctrine,
starting from Jewish beliefs which He was to tran
scend and transform. There was much His hearers
“ could not bear ” at first. And sheer consideration for
Mary’s feelings will have precluded too public a preach
ing of this exquisitely delicate event in her lifetime.1
(ii.) As for the “silence of John,” and indeed his
“substitution” of the Incarnation of the Logos for
the Virgin Birth as explanation of the Divine Sonship
of Jesus, we briefly say: (a) His doctrine does not
exclude that of the Virgin Birth ; indeed, (£) it in a
sense involves it, for apparently the Churches of Asia,
at anyrate, linked the Divinity and Virgin Birth more
closely together than modern theology would.2 And
{c) John, who certainly knew Matthew and Luke,
and wrote his Gospel almost entirely to assert the true
doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, would surely have
contradicted them had he thought them wrong.3
p. 88. A necessary connection between the Divinity and the Virgin
Birth, he says (p. 89), “is the official theology in all Christian confes
sions.” That is not so.
1 Mk’s phrase “son of Mary,” 63, when M, L, and J freely speak
of Joseph as “father” of Jesus, and his insistence on the title “Son
of God,” may hint that he (not having related the Birth) took special
care to use unambiguous language (V. M'Nabb, O.P., “ Mk’s Witness
to the V. Birth, ” Journal Theol. Studies, April 1907, p. 448). Anyhow,
the incident in 321-31 does not prove that his Mary is ignorant of the
nature and destiny of her Son. It is argued that 321’31 go closely
together: Mary joins with the relatives (? friends? neighbours?) who
kept saying (or was it the crowd!} that Jesus was mad (? “ beside him
self,” i.e. an enthusiast?). This interpretation is violent and against
tradition. Mary’s anxiety, and wonder, and gradual realization of the
future {cf. L 250, “and they understood not”) are no stumbling-block to
us. “ Christ’s Mother, supernaturally informed in detail of all that was
to happen in her Son’s life, and assisting unmoved at its accomplishment,
would be a character worthy only of the apocryphal gospels ” (Durand,
op. c., 105). Cf. Vasssall Phillips, Mr Conybeare on Mk. 321, Lk. 11 ,
Oxford, 1910.
2 Gore, Dissertations on the Incarnation, 1896, p. 8.
3 A. Carr, Expositor, April 1907, p. 311 ; Expos. Times, 1907, xviii.
521. If. B, the very probable reading, I13, “who not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God was born”
(eyewf)9-n : natus est), which excludes a human parentage for Christ.
Authorities in Durand, op. c., p. 107, n. I ; Tertull., De Came Chr.,
19, 24 : 2784-791, is explicit.
�The Virgin Birth
II
(iii.) But does not Paul ignore, if not exclude, our
dogma ? He has been held to leave the human life of
Christ so much in the shade, that it has been argued
he knew nothing of it—even that no human life existed,
and Christ was a “mythical person”! Yet his allu
sions to it are frequent, and he always presupposes it.
And he too is absorbed in his message—faith, forgive
ness, glorification in and through Christ, for Gentile
as for Jew. This is “his” gospel, and it neither rests
upon, nor leads to, the Virgin Birth.1 Doubtless he
maintains strongly2 that Christ is Son of David
“according to the flesh.” But he is son of David
whom Jewish law recognises as such; and Jesus, born
of the legal wife of Joseph, and not by adultery, is
Joseph's legal son, and heir of Joseph’s ancestor. Legal
sonship satisfies the prophecies without excluding
superior, Divine filiation. To this Jesus looks when
He deprecates insistence on the Davidic descent
(M 2241, Mk 1235, L 2041; cf Ro i4): that is not His
only, nor chief, prerogative.3 Nor can the two texts,
Ac 1333, Ro i2-4, prove for a moment that Paul thought
Jesus became God only at the Resurrection. The
Son pre-exists the human life from eternity. The
Divine filiation is of nature, not the result of baptism,
miracles, transfiguration, resurrection, virginal con1 We do not rely upon the expression “made of a woman,” Ga 44,
vividly though it recall I Co it13 and Gen 2s3. It does perhaps imply
birth from a mother (not merely human birth), while paternal generation
would have suited P’s argument perhaps better could he have adduced
it.—Nor will we argue that he conceives transmitted guilt as a taint in
the flesh, to be got rid of only by a break in the paternal line. The
wrong idea that Catholic doctrine (at any rate) so regards original
sin, vitiates the rest of Lobstein’s argument (<?/>. c., p. 79) that miracul
ous birth was “anecessary condition of the Saviour’s sinlessness.”
The substantial union of the Word with the humanity at once made the
Person, Jesus, true God and Son of God, and made sin (and its con
sequent subtraction of supernatural grace, which is original sin)
impossible in Him, quite independently of virgin birth.
2 Ro i3, 413, Ga 316, 2 Ti 28, etc. ; cf. Ac 230 (these are especially
strongLobstein, op. c., pp. 52, 53, thinks they necessitate human
generation. But they are conventional formulas).
3 On His so-called “rejection” of Davidic filiation, cf. Durand, pp.
118-122 ; Dalman, op. c., p. 234.
�12
History and Dogma
ception.1 Because of the filiation, these glories are
His. Because at certain crises (baptism, etc.) the
Sonship asserts itself and is recognized by God, “ this
day have I begotten thee ” is quoted ; and “ it was
impossible',' St Peter had long ago preached (Ac 224),
“ that hell should hold Him who was Captain of Life "
(315 ; cf. He 210).
All these writers were men who had known each
other intimately—Luke, at any rate, the “ beloved
physician,” the most “scientific” of the Evangelist
historians, was the close companion, and in part
biographer, of Paul. Each and all of them regarded
it as his life’s work to preach the true doctrine about
Jesus Christ. The bonds of personal devotion which
bound them to Him, bound them also to one another.
Deep divergences of doctrine in such men are un
believable. But so profoundly “individual” were their
characters and outlooks—above all, so inexhaustibly
rich, so many-sided, so infinitely communicative was
their subject—that it must not be wondered at if their
accounts are highly personal, and enlarge, illuminate,
complete, though never contradict, each other.
That any of these documents should have ignored or denied
the Virgin Birth is unthinkable, given the tradition of the
Christian Church. They did not create this : they arose within
it, according to and because of it. It is a vicious circle to say :
Christian faith created the Childhood Gospels ; and then : The
first- and second-century tradition rests merely on “ a few texts ”
in Matthew and Luke. The very earliest sub-Apostolic docu
ments2 are amazingly explicit. Ignatius, when he cried that
Our Lord is “made truly of a virgin,” is “born of Mary and
God,” knew surely that his doctrine was not at variance with his
beloved master, John’s ! Once more, the Gospels assume the
Christian faith in their readers.3
1 Phil 25-12, Col i15-21, 1 Co io4, 1545, Ga 4?, 2 Co 521, etc. And
C.T.S. Relig. of Gk. Test., C. C. Martindale, pp. 19, 20.
2 Ignatius (c. Iio), Ephes. 19, and 5; Smyrn. 1: ^ 652. 660,708. Aristides
(c. 125); Justin, 1 Ap., 31: 6377, Dial., c. 84, 100, ib. 673-709 (a magnifi
cent parallel between the virgin Eve and the incorrupt, obedient virgin
Mary, Eve’s advocate); Irenaeus, Adu. Har., i. 10. 1 ; iii. 19. 1:
7s49. 937, especially c. 21, /A 945.
3 Ramsay, op. c., p. 98, etc.
�The Virgin Birth
13
IV
We shall now consider a few points connected with
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which, it is urged,
make against the virginity of Mary (the Genealogies,
the Brethren of the Lord), or at least throw doubt
upon the value of Matthew (the Magi, the Flight) or
of Luke (the “ Census ”) as historians at all.
(<2) The Genealogies showing Christ’s descent from
David (M i2-17, L 323"28) agree in three names only :
Joseph, Zorobabel, Salathiel.1 Else, the discrepancy
is complete. This perhaps is why Tatian omitted both
lists in his Diatessaron (supr., p. 5, n. 4). Origen
(c. Cels., ii. 32: 11852) recognises it as a frequent
stumbling-block. How explain it?
Julianus Africanus (ap. Eus., H.E., i. 7 : 2097) suggested (he
owned he had no evidence) that Joseph was born of levirate
marriage,2 Jacob and Heli being brothers, one his legal, one his
real father. But even so, we must assume that they had different
fathers ; and would not this uterine-levirate marriage (in itself of
doubtful possibility) have to be conjectured anew to explain
Salathiel, son of Jechonias (M) and of Neri (L), and yet again, if
indeed Matthan (s. of Eleazer, M) is Matthat (s. of Levi, L) ?
Though Matthew’s deliberate omission of steps in the descent
might account for these differences.—Annius of Viterbo (c. 1490)
suggested that L’s genealogy was that of Mary.3 But this is
against universal ancient belief: Jewish law disregarded maternal
ancestry: when it was felt Mary should be of David’s house,
her pedigree was linked artificially with that of Joseph (Eus., ib. ;
cf. 4881); while the Proteuangelium Iacobi makes her daughter
of Joachim. Moreover, we should have to construe L323, “ being
the son (as was supposed, of Joseph, [but really]) of Heli” [using
1 M’s Matthan »z«y = L’s Matthat.—If Rhesa, L 3s7 ( = “prince,”
and absent from the lists in M and 1 Paralip. 3), were really a title of
Zorobabel, but treated by some earlier copyist whom L reproduces as a
separate proper name, L would here fit with M and also with 1 Par. ;
for L’s Ionas is the Hananiah of 1 Par 319 (omitted by M), and his
Iuda is M’s Ab-iud — 1 Par 3s34 Hodaviah {cf. Ezra 39, 240 ; Neh. 119;
I Par 97. u, where the names interchange).
’
2 One in which a childless widow marries her deceased husband’s
brother, his and her children being legally accounted to the first
husband (Dt 25s).
3 Victorinus {c. 300) says M gives Mary’s genealogy : 5s24.
�14
History and Dogma
whs =son in regard of Joseph,=grandson in regard of Heli] ; or
else, “ son of Joseph the son-in-law of Heli.”
not tolerate this violence.
But the text will
What matters to the Evangelists, is the claim of
Jesus to Davidic rights. That He was “descended
from David ” was tacitly assumed by contemporaries
(M 2241"46) and explicitly recognized by early
preaching;1 while the “Desposyni” (kindred of
Christ—Symeon, son of Clopas His uncle, and two
grandsons of Judas His brother) were in danger
under Domitian as claiming royal, because Davidic,
descent.2 Our genealogies commend, but do not
prove, this claim. It was currently discussed (Eus.,
Ad Steph., iii. 2: P.G., 22896) whether Messiah was to
descend from David through Solomon (dead in
idolatry; his house, in the person of Jechonias,
rejected by God, Jer 2230) or Nathan. Matthew and
Luke satisfy, respectively, the two opinions ; for while
it is through Solomon that the Davidic rights descend
to Joseph and his (legal) Son Jesus; through Nathan
Christ’s true Davidic ancestry may be traced.
Matthew shows Jesus as legal heir of David; Luke,
that He is his Son by physical descent.3 Matthew’s
genealogy is indeed highly conventional. It claims to
consist of three groups of fourteen names.4 To obtain
this, many names had to be omitted ; thus Matthew’s
“ begat ” need never mean “ was father of.” Contrary
to Jewish custom, he inserts women—Rahab, Tamar,
Ruth, Bathsheba—perhaps to suggest that God
1 Ro I3, 2 Ti 28, Ac 2s8, 1323, etc. —M 1522, 2030, <p; 219 show that
in popular opinion (1) Messiah descends from David, (2) Jesus is
Messiah.
2 See this charming story in Africanus, ap. Eus., z'A, and Hegesippus,
ib., iii, 19-32.
3 Durand, p. 201: Comely, Introd. N.T., p. 201, n. 6; F. C.
Burkitt, Evangelion da Mepharrashe, Cambridge, I9°4> & PP- 258-266.
This theory is increasingly accepted. Clearly we have no space to
discuss minor difficulties.
4 In the third, thirteen only occur, making it additionally likely
that M used an existing, already slightly disfigured document. His
symbolism may well allude to the numerical value {fourteen) of the {three')
letters (th) of the name David.
�The Virgin Birth
i5
excludes neither sinner nor stranger from His plan
of mercy. Doctrine, then, dictates his scheme: Luke
keeps closer to “history” in our sense. For while
we may never become sure on what precise system
these lists were drawn up, it is certain that, if the
Evangelists composed them, they did so according
to contemporary ideals as to the construction of
genealogies;1 and if they are quoting official docu
ments, we may assume they do so “ without attribut
ing to them other authority than that of tradition
or of the public registers which provided them.”2
Eusebius actually applies the “ as was supposed ” of
L 323 to the whole list; Luke offers it simply as the
popular opinion as to Jesus’ ancestry !3
1 On various O.T. systems for editing genealogies, cf. Prat, Etudes,
1901, lxxxvi. pp. 488-494; 1902, xciii. pp. 617-620.
2 Cf. Durand, p. 207 ; Brucker, Eludes, 1903, xciv. p. 229 ; 1906, cix.
p. 801.
3 m x 16 reads. “Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus,” etc. [tV.B. in Latin and Greek the same word stands for
to bear and to beget (gignere, yevvav}]. One group of MSS. accentuates
the virgin-motherhood. “. . . Joseph, to whom being betrothed, the
Virgin Mary bare,” etc. “. . . Joseph, to whom was betrothed the
Virgin Mary ; but the Virgin Mary bare,” etc. The Sinai-Syriac MS.
(admirably edited 1894 by Lewis) astonishingly reads: “Jacob begat
Joseph ; Joseph, to whom was betrothed the Virgin Mary, begat Jesus, ”
etc.—a heterodox text, yet containing, interpolated, the “virgin”
additions. Finally, the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (F. C.
Conybeare, Oxford, 1898), a work of c. 430 discovered in 1898, is said
to quote the heterodox phrase; thus: “. . . Joseph, the husband of
Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. And Joseph
begat fesus who is called Christ.”—But it is clear that the Jew Aquila’s
quotation stops at the first Christ. He resumes, sophistically : “ And
so (koI often bears this meaning; and indeed in this very dialogue)
Joseph,” etc. The Christian Timothy immediately rebukes him:
“ Quote,” he says, “ correctly and in the right order”; he then him
self quotes M i16, substituting “to whom was betrothed the Virgin
Mary” for “the husband of Mary,” and finally, the ordinary text,
save that ‘ ‘ who was betrothed to Mary, ” and ‘‘ the Christ the Son of
God,” replace “the husband of M.,” and “who is called Christ.” The
dialogue, then, does not support the Sinai-Syriac, whose erratic reading
may be due to (i.) an Ebionite ‘ ‘ correction ” ; (ii.) a copyist’s error, due
to a mechanical continuation of the formula, And X begat Y ; (iii.) the
form in which the original document genuinely stood. No doubt an
official record would put Joseph as father of Jesus. Notice that Sin. Syr. leaves, e.g., verse 18 (which clearly asserts the Virgin Birth) intact,
�16
History and Dogma
(If) The relationship of the “ brethren ” of the Lord1
cannot be defined with certainty. We summarize
possible interpretations as briefly as possible, premising
that the answer to this question can, of course, only
affect the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
(i.) The “ brethren ” are children of Mary.2
(ii.) They were children of Joseph by a former
marriage. So the Gospel ofJames, and that of Peter
(end of second century); cf. Jerome, Comm, in Mt.,
xii. 4984, and perhaps Clement of Alexandria (9731);
Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa,
and, hesitatingly, Origen and Hilary, and others per
haps, follow these. Jerome (zA) says that they who
so conjecture are following the dreams of the Apo
cry phas : he proclaims, too, the “virginity” of Joseph
(Adu. Helu., 19: 23203). It is unnecessary to follow
the history of his opinion, which is dear to Catholic
conviction.
(iii.) The “ brethren” were cousins of Jesus.
There is no doubt that
rater, and (what is
of most importance), HS' (ah) in Hebrew and Aramaic
can quite easily mean “ relative,” not strictly brother
and that no one would dream of using this MS. to correct the rest of
the Gospel text; why then insist that its unique reading must alone be
right here ? Read Durand, 74-82; Burkitt, op. c., ii. 265 ; Academy,
17th Nov. 1894-24^ June 1895.
1 James, Jude, Joseph, Simeon. M 1246, 1365, Mk 331, 6s, L 820,
J 212, 75, Ac I14, 2C095: M and Mk speak too of His “sisters.” Cf.
Lightfoot, Ep. to Gal., Dissert. II. ; C. Harris, Diet, of Christ and the
Gospels, 1906, i. 232 ; Corluy, Etudes religieuses, 1878, i. 22; Durand,
221-276 (excellent account). Fl. Josephus, Ant. Iud., xx. 9. 1,
Hegesippus and Julianus in Euseb., H.E., ii. 23, i 7, also refer to the
kinsfolk of the .Lord {supr., p. 14). Their testimony relates to the
years c. 62, 160, 210.
2 Tertullian, already half-heretic, may have taught this {De Carn.
Christi, 7, 23 : 7766.79°.
Jerome believed he did {cf. Contr. Helu.,
17: 23201; d’Ales, TI1A0I. de Tert., 1905, p. 196). Lightfoot (p. 278)
is against it. Origen (ap. Jer., Hom. 7 in Luc., P.L., 7233) seems to refer
to Tertullian, and possibly Hilary {Comm, in Mt., i. 3-4: 9921). But
about 350, in Syria and Arabia, the denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity
became explicit : in 380 Helvidius, and a little later Jovinianus. both at
Rome, provoked Jerome’s vigorous attacks. Condemned at Milan, they
were excommunicated by Siricius in 390. Bonosus of Myria was
condemned a little later {supr., pp. 2, 3).
�The Virgin Birth
17
(Gen 3716, 1 Par 2321, Lev io4: Cicero, Tacitus:
Euripides: it is quite common). Hegesippus, who
calls James “the Lord’s brother,” calls Simeon
“ another cousin ” of the Lord. The words are then
convertible. Of Jude he says that “ he was called the
brother of the Lord according to the flesh.” Probably
(Durand, p. 229), at this very early period, that phrase
was not so much honorific, as meant to distinguish
between the several prominent disciples of the same
name. Jerome (c. Helu., 12-17) insists on this solution,
alleging that (#) Mary had vowfed virginity;1 (fi) that
Mary was confided from the Cross to none of the
“ brethren,” but to John. The brethren were not,
then, her sons.2 (c) Jesus is often called “ Son of
Mary ”: the brethren never; nor she their mother.
Moreover, had Mary been mother, afterwards, of six or
seven children (of whom several will have held high
rank in the Church), and lived long as widow, the
most perverse tradition could scarcely have succeeded
in fixing on her, as uniquely distinctive title, that of
Virgin. (So even Renan.) Finally, the “brethren”
seem definitely older than Jesus.
(c) The “ Census.”—Luke says, 21-3, that an enrolment,
imposed by the Emperor on the whole Empire,3 was
carried out in Palestine by tribal and household enumer
ation. Thus Joseph and Mary came to Bethlehem, and
Jesus was born there. “This happened [I translate
literally] as a first enrolment when Quirinius was in
office in Syria.” But we are told :—
The Roman census was based on property, not persons ; and
when Christ was born (B.C. 6-4: for His birth preceded
1 So too Aug., Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose ; cf. Harris, l.c. i. 235.,
2 So Jerome, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Hilary, Ambrose, Siricius.
To Lightfoot this argument seems conclusive : l.c., p. 272.
3 “ In the whole world ” means this. The plan was quite in keeping
with Augustus’ ideals. He wished to assess the poll-tax fairly and
accurately. That contemporary records do not mention it is unim
portant : they are silent, too, about local enrolments known to us
from inscriptions and papyri. Roman historians scorned the recurrent
details of provincial administration.
�18
History and Dogma
Herod's death, 4 B.C.), there was no census.in Palestine, nor was
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius then in office. Sentius Saturninus
governed Syria 9-6 B.C. ; Quinctilius Varus, 6-4 ; 1 B.C.-4 A.D.,
Gaius, the Emperor’s grandson, was legate, the intervening
years being unaccounted for. But Quirinius was legate 6 A.D.,
and did indeed effect what Ac 537 calls “ the enrolment.” If
Christ, then, was born 6-4 B.C., and Quirinius held office, and
had the enrolment in 6 A.D., Luke is clearly wrong.
Even were he wrong in this detail of chronology,
that scarcely should impair his general value as a
historian. Still, mistake on this point were odd in
one who so accurately had sought out the “ origins ”
(i2; sup?.., p. 7). But (i.) it is acknowledged (from
inscriptions) that Quirinius twice held office in Syria.
But when ?
May not Augustus, who associated
Volumnius with Saturninus, have similarly added the
notoriously energetic (so Tacitus) Quirinius to the
indolent Varus in some semi-official (probably military)
office?1 Thus he may well have been “in office”
in Syria 6-4 B.C., and (possibly) even have succeeded
Varus in 4. (ii.) Recent discoveries2 make it certain
that family enrolments besides the land-assessments
were held in Egypt every fourteen years. Enrolment
papyri for A.D. 90, 104, etc. till 230 were unearthed ;
then for 76 ; then, 62 ; then, 20! Now Luke says the
enrolment was general; and we know that Syria was
enrolled in 34 A.D., also in 6 : Clement of Alexandria,
too (Strom., i. 21, 147: 8885), implies that it had
its periodical enrolments like those he knew in
Egypt. Tertullian actually says (Adv. Marc., iv. 19,
P.L., 2405) one happened under Saturninus (9-6),3 and
that Christ was born during it. This is quite possible
1 L says ^ye^ovevovros, “holding office,” an untechnical word
applied to various positions, and by Josephus, Ant., XVI. ix. I, to
Volumnius. Justin, 1 Apol., 34, calls Q. neither legate nor proconsul,
but eirirpoiros, procurator.
2 Read the romantic account of this triple simultaneous independent
discovery by Kenyon {Class. Rev., 1893, P- IIO)> Wilcken {Hermes,
1893, p. 203), Viereck {Philologus, 1893, p. 563), in Ramsay, op. c.,
preface.
3 In fact, 8 B.C. is fourteen years before 6 a.d., as 34 a.d. is twenty
eight years after it.
�The Virgin Birth
19
if a clumsy household numbering in 8 B.C. was dragged
out till 7-6 B.C.—as was practically inevitable owing to
the chaotic political situation.1 11 is thus, independently
of Luke, almost certain that there was such an en
rolment in 6 B.C. in Palestine, the first of its sort,2
Quirinius being in office.
The displacement of so many families is no difficulty. Only
Palestinian Jews would be bound : the whole land could be
crossed in three or four days : all devout Jews went thrice a
year to Jerusalem.—Why does Mary accompany Joseph ? We
are not sure. Perhaps Joseph feared to leave her at such a
crisis. Anyhow, in Syria, women, too, paid the poll-tax.
How idle, then, is the theory that this story is forged to get the
Holy Family from Nazareth (where L knew they lived) to
Bethlehem (where the prophets said Messiah must be born):
and alas for Mr Robertson, who says 3 of household enumeration,
“ There was no such practice in the Roman world” 1
(d) Of the story of the Magi we are told that its
details are vague; its incidents improbable; that
it clashes with Luke.
It was invented to satisfy
Messianic prophecies, or is the echo of pagan myth.
Indeed, the date of its insertion into the Gospel is
given. We deal with this first.
A Syriac document entitled “ Concerning the Star : showing
how and through what the Magi recognised the star,” etc., says
that Balaam’s prophecy (Nu 2417) was written by Balak to
Assyria, and there kept till the star appeared, and King Pir
Shabur sent the Magi to do homage to the Messiah. “ And in
the year 430 (118-119 A.D.) . . . this concern arose in [the minds
of] men acquainted with the Holy Books, and through the pains
of great men in various places this history was sought for and
found, and written in the tongue of those who took this care ”
(W. Wright, Journ. of Sacr. Lit., ix., x., 1866). Hence M 21-12,
1 Ramsay, p. 174.
2 The fourteen-years cycle being reckoned, Romanwise, from 23 B. c.,
the year of Augustus’ reception of the Tribunician Power. In that year
no enrolment will have occurred. 8 B.c. will therefore be the first.
A. d. 6 is called “ the enrolment,” because Judea having just become
a province, an enrolment consequently on purely Roman lines (local—
not familial and tribal) made the Jews realize their subjection, and
accordingly revolt. In 20 a.d. (end of the next cycle) Tiberius forbids
interference with local customs.
3 Christianity and Mythology, 19CO, p. 194.
�20
History and Dogma
based on this legend, was added to the Gospel in 119 a.d.—But:
certainly before that time Ignatius of Antioch assumes the story
to be universally popular (he rhetorically expands it ad Eph.
xix., P.G., 5652). So it is clear that the “ Holy Books ” are not the
O.T. with its story of Balaam, but the Gospels with that of the
Magi; while what was first written in 118 a.d. is not the latter
story, but the legend of Balaam’s message to Assyria.1
Of the Magi (probably priests ; perhaps astrologers;
certainly heathen), as to number, nationality, rank,
and later history, nothing is known. The star which
they saw “ at its rising ”2 has been identified (first by
Kepler, 1605) with astronomical phenomena, eg. the
conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, B.C. 7. To pursue
such investigations leads nowhere.3
No merely
natural phenomenon could have seemed “ to travel,”
to “ stand over ” a house, etc., though the Magi may
(conceivably) have heard from Jews of the Dispersion
of the expected birth of a Deliverer, and have (inde
pendently) interpreted what they saw as a sign that
this had happened. But their information will not
have been based on Nu 2417: still less was the
whole story invented to satisfy that prediction ! The
star in Numbers, as in Isaiah 60,4 uniformly
means the Messiah himself: it was not his herald.
The pseudo-Messiah Simeon actually called himself
Bar-Kokeba, Son of the Star. And that Matthew,
eager to quote O.T. prophecy whenever he can, should
not here have cited Nu, Is, and Ps 7210, 6829, had he
seen their fulfilment in his story, is unthinkable.
V
We must now notice those writers who try to
find the origin of the Gospel history in mythology,
and shall, owing to the great popularity of this
system, give it far more space than its intrinsic value
merits. I am anxious to emphasize this. It is popular
1 Cf. Allen, Commentary on St. Matthew, p. 22, 1907 ; Plummer,
idem., 1909, ad loc.
2 “In the east" would probably need the plural ava-roKdis.
3 Though see Ramsay, op. c., pp. 215-218.
4 Cf., later, Test. XII. Pair., Judah 24 (Gk.), etc.
�The Virgin Birth
21
polemic, not serious scholarship, that attaches real
weight to these pagan “parallels.” With the Magi,
however, mythologists have no easy task. Cheyne 1
and others quote the stars which constantly herald
the birth of great men.
Thus the Magi, on seeing Alexander’s, declared that the
destroyer of Asia was born; the star of the Julian family was
famous (Verg., Aen.). The Pushya, on the horizon when the
Buddha was born, was, however, a regular annual phenomenon
(an asterism consisting of 7, 8, 0 of the constellation Cancer) and
served to mark a date, not to glorify the infant.2 The Magi
may indeed have deduced a new birth from what they considered
adequate evidence {N.B. “ his star”) ; but Matthew draws no con
clusion as to Christ’s preternatural character from it; it merely
guided the Magi to Bethlehem.3
But we hear: In 66 a.d. Tiridates, king of Parthia (Pliny,
H.N., xxx. 6, calls him a magus') came with magi (Dio. Cass., lxiii.
1-7) to do homage to Nero, and went home “another way”
(Suet., Nero, 13). Nero is anti-Christ: even as incidents of
Christ’s life attached themselves to Nero’s {e.g. His expected
return), so incidents of Nero’s life accrued to Christ’s.4
We prefer to admit a score of miracles rather than
so grotesque an explanation. How, and why, were
the stories so utterly transformed in detail ? so
Judaized in tone? so raised in religious value? why
inserted in this peculiarly un-Hellenic part of the
Gospel?5 And how dissociate the Magi from the
1 Bible Problems, 1904.
2 C. F. Aiken, Dhamma of Gotama the Buddha, Boston, 1900, p. 240.
3 Prof. R. Seydel {Evangel v. Jesu, 1882, p. 139) quotes a (postChrfstian) tale that the god Brahman gave the unborn Buddha a
dewdrop containing all power; the babe Buddha received perfumes
from nymphs and palaces from princes; Mr Lillie adds {Buddhism in
Christendom, 1887, p. 30; cf. Aiken, p. 243) that the young hero was
escorted to a garden, eclipsing with his bodily brilliance the jewels
that smothered him. Hence the tale of Magi with gifts !
J. M. Robertson, in Christianity and Mythology, p. 199, however,
has to misinterpret the famous representation of the Magi (Northcote
and Brownlow, Roma Sotteranea, 1879, ii. 258), universally recognized
as Christian, as “surely Mithraic,” “since there is really no other way
of explaining the entrance of the Magi into the Christian legend.”
4 Cf. Soltau, Geburtsgesch. J.C., 1902, p. 73 ; Usener, Encyl. Bibl.,
iii. 3351.
5 These considerations are in place whenever pagan myth is offered
as origin for the Gospels.
�I
22
History and Dogma
organically connected Massacre and Flight, for which
these pagan “sources” cannot be used? But other
sources ain? suggested! Persecution of infant-heroes by
jealous kings is a mere ‘ myth-TzztfZz/’; Josephus should
have mentioned the Massacre, had it occurred ; hence
no doubt the murdered Innocents but picture ‘the
disappearance of the stars at morning before the sun.’1
Finally, Jesus is said to fly to Egypt because thither
the giant Typhon drove the Olympian gods (Usener,
Encycl. Brit., l.ci).
But in the same place Usener agrees that Egypt, with its
large Jewish colonies, its numerous synagogues, its vicinity, etc.,
was exactly the natural place for a Palestinian Jew to fly to :
Josephus, who has to relate Herod’s murder of wife, mother-inlaw, three sons, brother-in-law, uncle, and numbers of Pharisees,
may be forgiven for omitting the obscure murder of a score
(at most) of babies in a tiny town : the quaint solar parallel would
be more perfect did the stars flee before an eclipse (for such,
rather than sunrise, is the Child’s flight)! Finally, because
Herod’s action is so natural, and naturally has its parallels in
legend and popular tales, it need not therefore be mythical, or
else we should have to accept for true only the unnatural events
narrated in history.2 As for the Loss and Finding in the Temple,
one set of critics 3*
8
assigns the tale of the Buddha and the ploughing
match as “pattern” (the baby hero, left under a tree by his
nurses absorbed by the spectacle of a ploughing match, lapsed
into meditation, and was found there, hours after, still sheltered
by the stationary shadow of the Jamba ; other versions put the
incident quite late in the Buddha’s life) ; while another (J. M.
Robertson, Chr. and Myth., p. 334, quoting Strabo, xvi. 2. 38,
and Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, 14), says that the story of parents
{who had exposed their children} going to Delphi to inquire of
the oracle if the child yet lived, and there being met by
the child himself (who had gone to inquire about the parent)
1 J. M. Robertson (momentarily all for solar myth), op. c., p. 333.
2 Observe the Buddhist “prototype” (dating, moreover, from the
sixth century A.D.), adduced by Seydel, op. c., p. 142 ; Lillie, Infhience
of Buddhism on Christianity, 1893, p. 28 ; cf. Aiken, p. 244. King
Bimbiskara is advised to send an army to crush the increasing power
of his neighbour the Buddha, now a young man. He refuses, and is
converted to Buddhism !
8 E. v. Bunsen, The Angel Messiah of Buddhists, Essenes, and
Christians, 1880, p. 30; Seydel, p. 48; Lillie, B. in Chr., p. 25 ; cf.
Aiken, p. 245.
�The Virgin Birth
23
“ supplies the source of the first part ” of our story ; while
Plutarch mentions that in Egypt the cries of children at play in
temple-courts were held for prophetic ; and this accounts for
the second part 1—We prefer Luke’s history to modern myth.
Yet Matthew contradicts Luke ?—Not at all. Grant
that the Magi’s visit followed the Purification (not
necessarily soon), and we need only assume that
Luke did not mix his sources. For if the Magi-tale
was current as in Matthew, Luke did not insert it
into what he had learnt (probably) from Mary
(supr., p. 7), nor repeat it in a new form when the
old was satisfactory. The Magi are no “ doublet ” of
the Shepherds. The spirit of Matthew’s tale which
shows the universality of Christ’s saving power is
quite different from that which relates the homely
incident so suited to the “ Gospel of the Poor.”
We are constantly told, quite generally, that Jesus
is but one among many virgin-born gods, and that
His myth is discredited by theirs. Especially to the
BUDDHA Sakyamuni are we pointed as origin of the
Christian dogma.1 Doubtless the tangled question
of the dates of the Buddhist “ scriptures ” makes it
difficult to criticize this briefly, but our references will
supply details of evidence. We may say : The tradi
tions of the Buddha’s birth are contradictory, and, es
pecially the earlier, assign no “virginity” to his mother
1 Bunsen, op. c. : “Zoroastrian magi invented an angel-messiah ; the
Buddha imported this into India, the Essenes into Palestine ; Christ
was an Essene ; thus Buddhist legends reached and fastened on Him.”
Sharply criticized by Kuenen, Natural Religion, etc., 1882.—R. Seydel,
op. c., maintains : A pre-Synoptic Jewish apocalyptic gospel existed
(highly “Buddhized” by traditions journeying westwards by traderoutes opened up by Alexander), utilized by the Synoptists. —All
imagination work, supposing an impossibly late date for the Gospels.
Criticized by Oldenberg, Hardy, and even J. E. Carpenter (who
patronizes the theory that Christianity borrowed from Buddhism),
XIXth Century, viii. 971. A. Lillie, opp. citt. These three books
well discussed by C. F. Aiken, op. c. A. J. Edmunds, Buddhist and
Christian Gospels, etc., London, 1904, is admirably considered by
L. de la V. Poussin, Revue Biblique, 1906, iii. pp. 355-381. See, too,
the latter’s Bouddhisme, Paris, 1909, p. 239 sqq., and C.T.S. Buddhism,
by the same.
�24
History ana, Dogma
Maya. Later speculation held her to be virgin.1 But
note: for Buddhists, all birth is rebirth.
A pre
existing being, a ghandarva, escaped from a previous
life, is reincarnated.
Ordinary mortals are born
where necessity dictates : superior beings—e.g. future
Buddhas—can choose their moment, and their parents.
This is why Maya dreams that the future Buddha
enters her side, of his own accord, as a six-tusked white
elephant. She had lived some thirty-three years with
her husband, and only after the conception of the
Buddha resolves to abandon earthly love. The Buddha
chose Maya, because she was doomed to die ten months
seven days afterwards: now’, all mothers of Buddhas
must die seven days after their child’s birth, lest another
child should occupy what had been a Buddha’s shrine.
There is in all this no hint of virgin birth. Indeed,
feminine virginity was of little interest to Hindus or
earlier Buddhists.2* When the Mahavastu does at
last insist on Maya’s virginity, it is at the cost of
the birth, for the Buddha is now represented as
remaining in heaven, sending only a phantom self
to be seemingly born of Maya. Thus the birth is, at
the first, marvellous, but not virgin.
Once Maya is
virgin, the birth has ceased to be real.
The sage Asita, on the Buddha’s birthday, sees “ the gods of
shining vesture forming the band of the thirty-two (gods),” [not
“angels white-stoled” : Edmunds] rejoicing. Ascending into the
sky, he asks the reason. They answer : “ The Buddha-to-be, the
excellent jewel, the incomparable, is born in the world of men
[leaving, that is, that of gods] to save [creatures] and to make them
happy, in the village of the Sakyas,” etc. Asita magically flies
thither, and “ because he knew the [32] signs ” [set. the webbed
fingers, etc., which marked the child a superior being] exclaimed
“ with faith,” “ This is the unsurpassed, the excellent among men.”
He weeps, indignant that he will be dead before the child begins
1 Jerome, Adu. Iou., i. 42 : 23s73, on doubtful evidence calls the
Buddha virgin-born. The extremely late writings of the Mongol
Buddhists, and one other very late document, are our only sources here. 4
2 Even the Lalitavistara {-possibly as early as the Christian era) only
asks how the Buddha could live without being defiled by (physical) «
contact with Maya’s womb. The answer is, that tents of jewels and
perfumes enveloped him therein.
�The Virgin Birth
25
its work of salvation.—Graceful as are many incidents of this tale,
not even in the words of the devas is a source found for Luke’s
narrative, though “ peace on earth to men [objects] of [God’s]
goodwill ” is not unlike the “ utility and pleasantness ” for which
the Buddha is born.—The pre-existence of the Son is not like
that of the Buddha in the Tusita heaven, which many odd in
carnations (as king, pigeon, god, jackal, etc.) had preceded.
Nor is Maya’s visit to a royal garden, surrounded with un
imagined luxuries, like Mary’s to Bethlehem, that we should
say “both children were born when their mothers were on a
journey.” Such suggestions destroy the real charm of the
Buddhist legends.1
The god Krishna2 is declared3 to have been born of
a virgin Devakl. Now, not only is there a well-defined
modern Indian movement to assimilate the legend
of Krishna “ the Black ” to the life of Christ, while of
the books which contain it “the earliest are at the
very least several hundreds of years later than the
composition of the Gospels,” 4 but even in the Hindi
version of that part of the documents which relates
it we read that Devaki had already, before Krishna's
conception, borne seven children to her husband
Vasudeva. Considering too that Krishna had “ eight
specially beautiful wives of his own, besides over
16,000 others, and by them he had a family of
180,000 sons, all of whom finally killed one another,
or were murdered by their father,”5 virginity would
seem low enough in the esteem of the Black God’s
evangelists; and that Mr Vivian should include him
among those “ suffering Saviours ” whose stories had
been “ for ages past similar in all essentials to the
Gospel narratives” (p. 161) is amazing.
Of Adonis, Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, Mithra,
CHRIST, Mr Robertson says 6 “ all six deities were born
of a virgin.” “ In Persia, Zoroaster was miraculously
1 Seydel, pp. 295, 136 ; Bunsen, p. 34; Lillie, Influence, etc., p. 26 ;
W. St. C. Tisdall, Mythic Christs and the True, 1909, p. 36.
2 C.T.S. Hinduism, E. Hull, pp. 12, 14, 27.
3 P. Vivian, The Churches and Modern Thought, Watts, 1910,
p. 121, etc.
4 Tisdall, Mythic Christs, p. 27.
6 Tisdall, p. 28.
6 Short History of Christianity, 1902, p. 63.
�26
History and Dogma
conceived.”1 “ In Parsi mythology, Saoshyant is
virgin-born.”2 We need but glance at these assertions.
Dionysus3 was the son of Zeus and a woman, Semele. While
pregnant, she was shrivelled to death by the sight of her lover’s
glory. The unborn infant was snatched from her womb, stitched
into Zeus’s thigh, and ultimately “born” in circumstances which
the poets easily made absurd.—Zoroaster4 is said in the Avesta
(much of which is extremely late) to be the son of Pourushaspa,
a man whose genealogy was traced back for ten generations.
His mother’s name is not even mentioned. Even in the latest
mythologizing documents {cf. Zaratusht-Namah, c. A.D. 1278),
the most we hear is that Pourushaspa had drunk some haoma
uice in which Zoroaster’s fravashi (genius) had been placed. The
conception was normal; the child was the third of five brothers.—
Saoshyant and his two brothers, prophets to appear before the
end of the world, are (literally) to be conceived of Zoroaster’s
seed—Saoshyant by a woman bathing in a lake.5 Here I cannot
transcribe the details ; still less, in the case of Attis and Adonis.
Adonis was the son of Cinyras in one myth, of Phoenix in
another, but (in the commonest version) of King Theias by his
own daughter, Myrrha. The whole of this story, like Adonis’
career and worship, is one of sexual abnormalities. Even more
so is that of Attis, son of Nana and the androgynous monster
Agdestis, itself offspring of Zeus and Earth.6 The cults of
Adonis and Attis became bywords even among pagans for
unbridled licence and hysterical perversities. In them, as in
Krishna’s, vice became of the essence of worship.
That Mithra7 was virgin-born is argued by Mr
J. M. Robertson as follows:8 Mithra is often coupled
with the goddess Anahita. But an inscription men
tions “the tree of Zeus-Sabazios and Artemis-Anahita.”
Therefore Mithra = Sabazios.
But Strabo says
Sabazios “is in a sense the son of the Mother” (set.
the Eastern goddess, Cybele, etc.). Therefore Mithra
was son of a mother. But this mother must be
1 P. Vivian, op. c., p. 128.
2 Robertson, Pagan Christs, p. 339.
3 C.T.S. Relig. of Anc. Greece, J. Huby, pp. 4, 21, etc.
4 C.T.S. Relig. of Avesta, A. Carnoy,passim.
5 Tisdall, p. 86.
6 Pausan., vii. 17. 5 > Arnob., Adu. Gent., v. 9. 4, P.L., 51100; Minuc.
Felix, 21 ; on Adonis and Attis, C.T S. Relig. of Syria, G. S. Hitch
cock, pp. 10, 23 ; of Imper. Rome, C. C. Martindale, pp. 12, 14.
7 C.T.S. Mithra, C. C. Martindale.
8 Pagan Christs, 1903, p. 337 sqq. Every step of the argument
might be disputed.
�The Virgin Birth
27
Anahita, for not only is she goddess of fertilizing
waters, and hence " must necessarily figure in her cultus
as a mother,” but Mithra, “ who never appears ... as
a father,” “ would [therefore] perforce rank as her son?
Astounding logic! But all this apparatus to get
Mithra born of a mother at all, has not yet shown
she was virgin.—Simplicity itself! "It was further
practically a matter of course that his divine mother
should be styled Virgin, the precedents being uni
form” (p. 337). Precedents? He quotes Agdestis,
Attis, and Saoshyant (supr., p. 26), and unexpectedly
concludes: "Asa result ... we find Mithra figuring in
the Christian Empire of the fourth and fifth centuries
as supernaturally born of a Virgin Mother and of the
Most High God ” (p. 340). We find nothing of the
sort. Mithra was invariably regarded as “ rock-born,”
that is, sprung from the Petra Genetrix, “mother
rock,” imaged by a conical stone (representing the
sky-vault in which, or the mountains over which, the
light-god first appears). Mithra had no human mother
at all, virgin or otherwise.1
It is idle to urge : Mithra was worshipped in crypts; but
Mithra=Adonis, who was “born and worshipped in a cave”
[surely not, and anyhow these identifications are ludicrously
inexact]; Adonis = Tammuz, who was adored (Jerome says) in
the unreclaimed Cave of Bethlehem; therefore Mithra was
born in a cave.—He was not virgin-bctrn, nor yet cave-born. If
anywhere, the rock-birth occurred (as bas-reliefs suggest) under
a tree by a river.2
1 Mr Robertson oddly appeals to two savage myths, known to us
third or fourth hand, in which Mithra is found born of a god and a woman,
or (incestuously) of that god’s own mother. Of these, M. Cumont (the
leading authority on Mithraism) says: “Their character is radically
different from the dogmas accepted by the Western believers in the
Persian god.” Reff. in The Month, Dec. 1908, p. 582 sq.
2 Much has been made of a group of “adoring shepherds” some
times sculptured near the rock-birth. . They appear but rarely, and in no
obvious connection with the birth. They are not clearly shepherds,
and certainly do not adore. C.T. S. Mithra, p. 12. It is (with probabil
ity) conjectured that Mithra’s birthday was kept on Dec. 25. Pie was
indeed closely identified with the Sun, whose birthday was then kept.
For Dec. 25, cf. C.T.S. Ret. Imper. Rome, p. 29; Cath. Encycl.,
Christmas, Martindale, iii. 726.
�28
History and Dogma
OSIRIS1 comes to us, like his pictures, enswathed in
mummy-clothes of myth—in this case of contra
dictory, irreconcilable myths. A turn, first of gods, but
also Primeval Man, engenders from the substance of his
own heart the Heliopolis Ennead of gods, one of whom
was Osiris. Elsewhere, Osiris is son of Seb (Earth)
and Nuit (Sky), and rules as frankly human Pharaoh,
married to his sister Isis. He certainly is not virginborn. Isis herself, though in some very late syncre
tistic myths of great beauty she is virgin, is not so
in relation with Osiris; indeed, one legend shows
her losing that quality in her mother’s womb by
union with her twin-brother.
As for her son
Horus, he was conceived by the murdered Osiris
(triumphantly “surviving himself”), but normally.2
Nor were the Pharaohs “virgin-born.” True, they
first have gods for ancestors; then, God for father;
then, are gods. But notice: the god is explicitly
said to be incarnate in the Pharaoh’s human father.
Each reigning Pharaoh is the god’s physical instru
ment in the conception of the next.3 In conscious
imitation of this, Alexander the Great and others—
often deliberately, to gain influence in an Egypt
accustomed to have gods’ sons for governors—claimed
as ancestor or sire Zeus or Apollo. Popular romance
and court flattery elaborated the legend, which few if
any took seriously. Nor did anyone believe the
3 C.T.S. Relig. Anc. Egypt, A. Mallon, pp. 15, 30.
2 La relig. de Fane. Egypte, Virey, Beauchesne, 1910, p. 96;
Budge, Book of the Dead, Introd., pp. cxxxiv. and lxxx. All the
Osiris myths focus in the idea of life victorious over death : new wheat
springs from the rotting grain ; dawn from the dead day. But Isis, as
Earth fertilized by the flooding Nile, affords no hint of virginity.
Except (perhaps) in art, her worship has not affected ours, though
Prof. Petrie—talia talis?—asserts “that it became the popular
devotion of Italy ; and after a change of name due to the growth of
Christianity, she has continued to receive the adoration of a large part
of Europe down to the present day as the Madonna” {Relig. Anc.
Egypt, 1906, p. 44, cf. 91).
3 Inscriptions at Deir-el-Bahari and Luqsor make this certain.
Virey, pp. 95-98 ; Moret, Caractere relig. de la royauti pharaoniqtie,
pp. 50-52, there quoted.
�The Virgin Birth
29
stories about Apollo, father of Plato, or Proteus, of
Apollonius. They were literary imitations of the
old myths which made Zeus visit Alcmene in the
shape of her husband, or Europa, Leda, Danae as
bull, swan, or golden shower, thereby glorifying
(and explaining) their heroic offspring, Herakles,
Perseus, etc. There is no question here of virginity.1
From this point of view it is a pity that some
Fathers (Origen, Jerome, Justin) use these tales
as an argumentum ad hominem against pagan critics
of the miraculous conception of Christ. “You,”
they argue, “ account for heroes by saying: A God
was their sire. Why then cavil if we teach that a
greater far than heroes was Son of God ? ” But that
Justin, e.g., had no faith in the pagan virgin births is
clear from the words he puts in the mouth of Trypho
{supr., p. 2). Even he saw that the difference between
the stories was profound. We may add that the
title Diui Filius, Yto? 0eov, “ Son of God,” taken by
emperors, in no sense denies human parentage, still
less claims virgin birth (C.T.S. Imper. Rome, p. 4;
King-Worship, C. C. Lattey, p. 31).
Indeed, the stories which approach nearest to a suggestion of
the Virgin Birth—where maid becomes mother by treading in a
giant’s footsteps, eating a fruit, by the action of sunbeams, or (as
did Chimalma, mother of Quetzalcoatl) by the god’s breath—
nearly all belong to levels of civilization where no one will look
for the origin (at any rate) of the Gospel story. They are folk
lore so inferior even to myth, that interaction, causal influence,
is unthinkable. They have been used2 as basis of a theory that
primitive savages were ignorant of the “ true cause of offspring,”
an ignorance which resulted in tales of virgin birth, some still
surviving in a purified form. But (i.) it is quite unlikely that the
Australian savages (who alone can be quoted) are really so
ignorant of the cause of birth as the authors suppose—the exist1 Farnell, Cults of Gk. States, ii. 447, and others make it clear that
the name Parthenos itself need not imply virginity. It often means
just “ unmarried,” and is compatible with great licence.
2 Cases accumulated in E. S. Hartland, Legend of Perseus, 1894
(a chaos simplified by “ P. Saintyves,” Vierges mires et naissances
miraculeuses, 1908), and argued from by Dr. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, and
Osiris, 1907, ii. 169.
�History and Dogma
ence among savages of complicated marriage tabus and legisla
tion, and of widespread sex-worships, is quite against such
(antecedently unlikely) ignorance—but (ii.) there is no sort of
reason for supposing such ignorance to have been universal,
especially as “ primitive ” savages are often probably “ degener
ates,” not just embarking on a career of improvement.1
To sum up. In nearly all these cases (and there are
scores of others) the birth may be preternatural, but
is not virgin. In important examples, it remains
obscure when the traditions embodying the analogies
are to be dated (Buddha) ; or borrowing from Chris
tianity is actually certain (Krishna). As a rule the
legend is attached to a mythical, not historic, person
(Herakles, Perseus), or was never taken seriously
(Plato, Alexander, Augustus). The whole setting is
usually frivolous, often obscene. The Gospels are
profoundly Judaic, and uncoloured by pagan, especi
ally Hellenic, tradition.
Conscious adaptation of
myth by their writers is a grotesque supposition,
neglected by reputable scholarship; there was no
time for an unconscious deformation of historical
events in view of the early date now generally
admitted for the composition of the Gospels.2
Dr. Abbott (Encycl. Bibl., ii. 1778) seeks the origin of our
tradition in Philo’s allegorical treatment of certain O.T. stories
—thus : Yahweh is the true father, e.g. of Isaac, because Isaac
= “laughter,” and “God sows and begets happiness in souls.”
(The reff. to Philo are i. 131, 147, 215, 273, 598, ed. Mangey.)
But even if Philo sometimes “allegorized” the Patriarchs, he
never implies their historical virgin birth, still less could he
foster an opinion that the Messiah (whose role he almost
1 A. H. Sayce, Relig. oj Anc. Egypt and Babylon, 1902, p. 17.
Instances of “degeneration,” C.T.S. Lectures on Hist. Relig., vols. i.
and ii., Relig. of Hindus, Early Rome, Buddha, etc., etc.
2 Harnack vigorously says: “ The conjecture of Usener, that the idea
of the birth from a virgin is a heathen myth which was received by the
Christians, contradicts the entire earliest development of Christian
tradition, which is free from heathen myths so far [he adds] as these
had not already been received by wide circles of Jews, . . . which in the
case of that idea is not demonstrable.'” [Usener himself says (Encycl.
Bibl., ii. 3350): “The idea is quite foreign to Judaism.”] Hist, of
Dogma, Engl, tr., i., 1897, p. 100, I; cf. Chase, Cambridge Theol.
Essays, ed. H. B. Swete, 1905, p. 412: “ The solution of Prof. Usener
is directly at variance with the primary conditions of the problem.”
�The Virgin Birth
3i
obliterates) was to be virgin-bom;1 and anyhow Alexandrian
(Philonic) Judaism was very different from the purely Palestinian
religion of the Gospels.2
Finally, Harnack himself (cf. note 2,p. 30) argues that
the source of our belief was but a misinterpretation of
Is. 714 (Ecce uirgo concipiet, etc., Vulgate). It is impos
sible here to discuss the true interpretation of the
text. The Fathers with practical unanimity saw in
it from the first a prophecy of the actual event, but it
could only support, not generate, a belief or story.
For, once more, virgin birth was not an idea to which
the Jewish mind was accustomed. Whatever floating
myths or confused- traditions or indistinct expecta
tions may have at times occupied it, we cannot
suppose that a sudden, mysterious misinterpretation
of a single and not well-known text should have been
so general and potent as to impose, as true, a belief
such as the virgin birth of Jesus upon His almost
immediate disciples.
The Gospels, then, as we have them teach that Jesus
was born of a Virgin. So too the early Church believed.
Either, then, the belief was founded upon the Gospels,
or the Gospels were the literary expression of the
belief. The dogma must be assailed, if the former be
the case, by an attack upon the value of the Gospel
narrative; if the latter, by discrediting the value of
the belief. We saw (i.) that there is no external or
1 Whether a virgin-mother ever, or still, appeared on a purely
Jewish, horizon remains doubtful. Trypho, we saw (p. 2), practically
denies it. That Enoch, 62®, 6929,fcalls the Messiah son of the woman
does not help. Could we be sure that the LXX. meant their itapQl-vos
(virgin) (later modified by Theodotion and Aquila to veavis, “young
woman ”) in Is. 714 to be taken in its complete sense, and that the
virgin as virgin was to bear, the argument for a Jewish virgin-mother
tradition would be stronger ; but cf. Condamin, Isaie, p. 67 ; Lagrange,
Messianisme, p. 222 sqq.
f Lobstein, op. c., p. 68, maintains the gradual adornment of Christ’s
child-life, like that of Moses, Samuel, etc. This is far more plausible ;
but is yet (i.) unprovable, (ii.) improbable: even had the Childhood
been “embroidered,” virgin birth would not have been chosen as a
motif. Except among the Esaenes, the unmarried state was not esteemed
by the Jews,
�32
History and Dogma
internal evidence that the Gospels are late, or patch
work, or interpolated as regards the Childhood-story.
Their mutilation can only be attempted in obedience
to a priori conviction that miracle is impossible.
Incriminated episodes, like that of the Magi, have no
evidence against them ; or even, like that of the enrol
ment, are amazingly accredited by modern research,
and reflect honourably upon the Evangelist as
historian. Finally, neither is Matthew in conflict with
Luke, nor yet with the “ silence ” of Mark, nor the
doctrine of Paul or John: (ii.) while one group of
critics, rejecting as absurd the hypothesis that the
Gospels are indebted to pagan sources for their
narratives, seeks their origins in Jewish prophecy
or myth or allegory, another group, insisting that a
virgin birth was wholly alien to Jewish expecta
tion or ambition, assigns Indian, Persian, Greek, nay
“ savage ” cult and fancy as the fountain-head of the
Christian dogma.
We, while acknowledging that the serene and
universal faith of the early Church makes the back
ground of the Gospels, and that they must be inter
preted according to it, and could not have denied it
without being detected and flung aside, yet realise
that those Gospels were written, or at least reproduce
a doctrine existing long before alien influences of what
ever sort could enter to violate the primitive traditions,
and even memories, of the early disciples. Not the
conflicting, apocryphal forecasts of the Messiah, not
perverse misreadings of the sacred books, not the
unclean or grotesque or (at best) romantic and graceful
legends of pagandom could create the simple, pure,
and fragrant Gospel of the Childhood, so purely
Jewish and of its own time, yet so potent to reach the
love of the children of our distant day ; nor need the
older and more learned readers of that record hesitate
still to refresh their eyes with the gentle mysteries of
Bethlehem, or fear for the honour of the Virgin whom
all generations shall name blessed.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The virgin birth and the gospel of the infancy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Martindale, C. C. (Cyril Charlie)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publication details from KVK (OCLC WorldCat). Some of the text on the first page has been torn away and rewritten by hand.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1911]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1549
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The virgin birth and the gospel of the infancy), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible. N.T. Gospels
Jesus Christ
Virgin Birth
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9fe24ac320d9970fd560a5e9ddddf6f8.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=WOWSYqi50USk-yEJ7Re5mKZvnwak4QyI1SRXg5XU0ytIM-uo2u9Izgvsj6Yt9lU55uyFQoKpI926iWYjjZouYSvz3agPH7--ie-OpdQCaR%7EYTMGin0RSMEviQg1jZ4UnmSkyr1VFh3oQSpnzQEbeMzN3JnlSvXSQBggJBvyL9vu-7Xos-gSaUKhcHDC2Tsb%7Ei%7E9oj2Q4YOyFWbQafxm1XdFCCmO-FNerMLjc8LmimueQ9JfV2mU%7Ebt3Yq-xRqxd-vH6yoSHpfI8YTwd3vlqdteN6akvA2D2kuAwvsRZ1WvojQVUQ%7EyszmBISNPg-Gff9buZPUQTaRn76e-rMlAXeog__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c3d87167e989e5d9bd1fb7661a0db192
PDF Text
Text
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR
By
the
Rev. JOSEPH KEATING, S.J.
Note.—In this papei' the term Christianity stands for the full
expression of the message of Christ, viz., the code of belief and
conduct which He guaranteed should be preserved infallibly by
the Catholic Church and taught indefectibly to the end of time.
The above title recalls two facts. First, that there
exists a religious system on earth which claims to
have been founded by God Incarnate and divinely
endowed with the means of enabling man to reach
his final supernatural destiny. Secondly, that from
the beginning of history there has been prevalent
amongst the nations a practice of furthering their
rival claims', whether just or unjust, by actual physical
force or the threat of it.
The question therefore arises, How does the
system regard the custom ? What is the attitude
of the Church of Christ, instituted to unite the races
of men by the bond of a common belief, towards
this age-long practice, the chief effect of which is to
perpetuate and intensify racial antagonism ? What
is the Catholic doctrine on the subject of war ? An
answer to this question will be attempted in the
following pages.
Nowadays there is need of a plain, definite expo
�2
Christianity and War
sition of the Catholic position in regard to war and
peace, because that position is so often misunder
stood and misrepresented, sometimes by Catholics
themselves. The external aspect of war cannot but
excite the feelings, consequently there is a certain
risk lest judgement should be obscured and a good
cause injured by an influx of emotionalism, which
has not the support of reason and principle. In the
voice of the Church, Catholics*are privileged to have
infallible guidance in moral matters, and are, there
fore, the less excusable if, at the bidding of mere
sentiment, they shut their ears to that sure guidance.
Dwelling as they do here in the midst of a vast
non-Catholic population, which has no -fixed and
uniform standard of ethical judgements, Catholics
in England are exposed to these two temptations :
either to hold themselves aloof altogether from the
vaiious more or less misguided efforts made by their
fellow-citizens to combat abuses and to better social
conditions, thus laying themselves open to the
reproach of not being thoroughly practical Chris
tians ; or to co-operate so unreservedly in the pro
motion of good works that they abandon Catholic
principle altogether or acquiesce in what is ethically
wrong either in aim or method. Under the first
impulse they may abstain from joining non-Catholics
in measures for the furtherance of temperance, or
education, or purity, or social reform, because those
excellent objects are apt to be promoted by out
siders on principles or in ways not sanctioned by
Catholic doctrine. They feel that they cannot, for
�Christianity and War
3
instance, support associations which advocate tem
perance on the ground that the use of alcohol is
essentially evil, or which condemn gambling as in
itself unlawful, or which would abolish vivisection
because brutes are one in kind with men, or which,
again, in their methods as distinct from their prin
ciples, unduly interfere with human liberty and
responsibility. And thus, not being numerous or
influential enough to form similar associations of
their own, they seem to be indifferent to abuses
which their religion would urge them to be foremost
in condemning. Or, if their praiseworthy desire to
share the burdens of citizenship leads them to asso
ciate in such measures with those outside the Church,
they may, through ignorance or timidity, countenance
the application of remedies to social disorders which
ignore essential rights, whether human or divine.
Hence the importance of thoroughly understanding
that sound middle course, which, in this matter of
the ethics of war, as in all others, the Church is
inspired to pursue. It is the privilege of her
members to make the leaven of her doctrine pene
trate the whole mass surrounding them. We can
no longer remain in the detached attitude of aliens,
almost outlaws, in our own country. We are an
integral part of the State, with civil duties corre
sponding to our rights. And, as believers in that
true Christianity whose message is for the healing of
the nations, it is especially incumbent upon us to
bring right principles to bear on all social and
political questions.
�4 .
Christianity and War
Unfortunately in the consideration of this par
ticular question of war, right principles have often
been lost sight of. A very slight acquaintance with
non-Catholic “ Peace ” literature, or with the utter
ances of pacificist orators, will convince the educated
Catholic that this most Christian object is not unseldom recommended on grounds that are not
morally or logically sound. For the better under
standing of the true doctrine it may be well to
enumerate here some of the causes of that unsound
ness, which, speaking generally, is the result of
allowing mere sentiment to usurp the functions of
leason. We find, then, non-Catholic advocacy
of peace often disfigured—
1. By want of a clear definition of war itself—a
little word which stands for a vast variety of
things.
2. By the assumption that all the forms and causes
of warfare are radically unjust ;1 no discrimi
nation, for instance, being made between
wars of pure aggression and wars of defence.
The greatest evil of the world is war,” says one “Peace ”
pamphlet, to which the Christian may aptly reply, “ The only
evil in the world is sin.” The pamphleteer fails to prove (i)
that all forms of war are sinful, and (2) that the deprivation of
natural life, which is the worst feature of war, is worse, for
instance, than the killing of the soul or grievous sacrilege or
the crimes of the heresiarchs. Again, “ The crime of war is
inherent, said Mr. Carnegie at the Guildhall on May 24, 1010 •
it awards victory, not to the nation that is right, but to that
which is strong.” To argue the inherent criminality of war
from an accidental effect, is characteristic of the sentimentalist.
He does not apparently consider the possibility of a nation
being both right and strong.
�Christianity and War
5
3. By a confusion between moral and physical
evil, the former affecting man’s soul and
eternal destiny, the latter only man’s body or
goods, things wholly temporal.
4. By a confusion between what binds the con
science under pain of sin and what is merely
recommended as the better course, z.e.,
between precept and counsel.
5. By a confusion between what is forbidden to
the individual who has a superior on earth,
and the sovereign State which has none.
6. By a confusion between the abuse of a thing
and its right use.
7. By a confusion between cause and occasion.1
8. By undue insistence on man’s temporal welfare,
.to the practical neglect of his eternal destiny.
9. By misreading of the history of the past, due to
the want of discrimination indicated above.
The Catholic view wilfbest appear by a discussion
of these several points. It is of the utmost import
ance that everything unsound should be cut away
from the arguments adduced to support the cause
of peace. That cause is overwhelmingly strong
without them ; on the other hand, arguments
logically weak, or at variance with experience, or
palpably exaggerated, only serve to discredit it.
Let us start then by analyzing the idea of war.
1 This confusion is so embedded in English speech through
loose usage that a word of illustration may be helpful. The
cause of the daylight in a room is the sun, the occasion (or con
dition) is the window. Occasion may be necessary, as in this
example, or accidental, as when the agent is free.
�6
Christianity and War
To avoid unending qualifications, we shall consider
war only in its fully-developed condition, viz., as an
armed conflict between two sovereign States. The
aims of such war is to enforce the will of one State
upon the other, the method consists of inflicting
such damage, each upon other, that one of them
may consider submission a preferable alternative to
further resistance. When appeals to reason, or to
duty, or to interest fail to bring two discordant wills
into harmony, the appeal t8^physical constraint is
the only resource left, for only on the physical plane
is the ultimate trial of strength possible, at any
rate in the case of corporate natures such as ours.
Accordingly, when two independent States fall out
on a point of importance and are unable (or un
willing) to compose their differences by peaceable
means, they instinctively have recourse to physical
violence, the object of each being to make the other
feel that giving-in is, on the whole, preferable to
holding-out.
Now, the first point of difference between Catholic
and non-Catholic teaching lies in the moral aspect
of this appeal to physical force. War, the violent
destruction on a large scale of life and property,
is essentially a physical calamity of the worst sort,
like earthquake and fire, pestilence and famine.
But as, unlike these latter, it is a calamity brought
on by human volition, it has a moral aspect as well,
and its character, good or bad, is determined by the
motives and methods of those that will it. The
taking of individual human life is similarly a physical
�Christianity and War
7
calamity, which may be either a crime or an act of
justice according to its moral circumstances. The
Catholic doctrine is emphatic on this point, that
there are in this fallen world circumstances which
may necessitate, and therefore justify,1 war, as an
instrument to attain certain desirable ends. To
declare it, then, sans phrase, a thing essentially
unlawful, is to fly in the face both of reason and
revelation. Reason justifies the expedient of war
on the part of a State on the same grounds as it
justifies defence and prosecution of personal rights
on the part of the individual, and to a less qualified
extent. The possession of rights implies the law
fulness of defending them, by force if neceesary,
against unjust aggression. Otherwise, there would
be no stability in society and much less security
for the world’s peace than at present.
The
individual’s powei' to assert his rights is limited by
the fact that he is living under the protection of
authority, to which he can appeal in order to obtain
justice. He can use violence only when the need is
imminent and the appeal to law is in the circum
stance unavailing. But the sovereign State, ex
hypothesi, has no higher earthly authority to which
to appeal, and must, therefore, vindicate its position
by its own efforts. Thus reason justifies the use of
physical might to enforce moral right : it is just
1 Herein the Church but echoes and confirms the dictate of
reason, excellently expressed by the pagan historian, Livy, in
the words of the Samnite general—“Justum est bellum quibus
necessarium, et pia arma, quibus nulla nisi in armis relinquitur
spes ” ^Hist. ix 1).
�Christianity and War
because it is necessary, and necessary because other
wise, as things are here below, the moral law itself
would lack its most palpable support. That law
not only forbids injustice but also enjoins that
just claims should be protected and outraged justice
vindicated—processes that ordinarily call for the use
or display of force.
But why in that case is the Gospel of Christ full
of exhortations, both against the employment of
violence and resistance to it ? Surely revelation,
at any rate, supports the view that war is unlawful.
Did not Christ proclaim, “ Resist not evil,” “ Love
your enemies,” “Turn the other cheek,” “Give to
every asker,” “ They that use the sword shall perish
by the sword,” and a host of other similar injunc
tions ? Is not His whole spirit one of meekness,
patience, and love ? Certainly, our Lord said those
things, and, as certainly, He inculcated a spirit of
forbearance and mutual charity, which, if universally
adopted, would render war impossible and unthink
able. We cannot doubt that He set up an ideal
to which the notion of war is utterly abhorrent. If
His divine purpose in establishing His Kingdom on
earth—a purpose all Christians should have at heart
—were perfectly fulfilled, all the causes of war
would be done away with. Our Divine Lord set
in the clearest light and taught with an emphasis
impossible to ignore, the great doctrine of the
universal Fatherhood of God and its necessary
consequence, the common brotherhood of men.
From the first, the religion He instituted aimed at
�Christianity and War
9
transcending all natural barriers, whether of race or
nationality, age or sex or condition, and at uniting
all rational creatures in the harmony of one great
family, by the bonds of a common origin, of com
mon duties and interests and a common destiny—
a family wherein “ there is neither Gentile nor Jew,
circumcision nor incircumcision, Barbarian nor
Scythian, bond nor free, but where Christ is all
and in all.” 1
But this glorious ideal was to be realized only by
means of the free co-operation of man, and man,
as a matter of fact, has very generally refused his
co-operation. As a consequence, the vast bulk of
the race is still outside Christian influences, and
even among Christian peoples the principles of the
Gospel, rarely practised perfectly by the individual,
still less completely affect international relations.
Indeed, the struggle that every one experiences in
his own breast when he tries to live up to the
Christian ideal, is a sufficient indication of the small
likelihood of that ideal being fulfilled in the race
at large. Of course, God Incarnate foreknew how
free-will would operate to frustrate His designs,
and, therefore, under what conditions His followers
would have to exercise the Christian virtues, and
He framed His injunctions in the light of that fore
knowledge. He could not have meant any com
mand of His to make human progress impossible.
And in any case His directions are not all imposed
under the same sanction. To attain Christian per1 I Cor. iii 2.
�IO
Christianity and War
fection in this fallen world necessitates the exercise
of moral heroism, but Christ does not exact heroism
or perfection under pain of sin. Beyond what is
of obligation in His service, He leaves a wide
margin for generosity. In the practice of every
virtue a certain degree is enjoined under penalty,
but beyond this we are free to advance or not as
we choose. If we do not choose, we shall of course
lose merit and reward proportionately, but we shall
not be positively punished.1 On the other hand,
to confuse counsel with precept and to make per
fection obligatory under sin is an error into which
many non-Catholic sects, in bondage to the lettei- of
the Scriptures and cut off from the Christian tradition,
have frequently fallen. By promulgating His ideal
of perfection, in the Sermon on the Mount and else
where, our Lord does not bind us to follow it per
fectly ; what He does bind us to is to acknowledge
it to be the ideal and to give it at least our praise
and admiration. We must hold that, ceteris paribus,
the better part, is, after Christ’s example, not to
assert our rights against those that infringe them,
not enter into the obligations of marriage, not to
labour for the acquisition of wealth, and so forth.
This eminently reasonable doctrine, we may notice, is
expressly denied by the fourteenth of the Thirty-Nine Anglican
Articles, which says that works of supererogation “ cannot be
taught without arrogance and impiety,” and cites our Lord’s
words in proof of its assertion— “ When you shall have done
all these things that are commanded you, say, ‘ We are unprofit
able servants ’ ’’—thus plainly begging the question by assum
ing that we are commanded to do all that we can do.
�Christianity and War
11
These self-negations are all means to perfection.
Still, they are not essential means, for His Church
sanctions the natural right of private ownership and
blesses the state of matrimony and supports the
vindication of all just claims, whether individual or
national.
These are good things, even though there are
things better. So far, then, from condemning war
fare as a thing always and essentially evil, Christian
teaching supposes cases which justify and even
necessitate it. War is doubtless the direct cause
of very great physical evils, such as loss of life and
health and property, but physical evil must often be
tolerated in order to prevent moral evil, such as the
spread of injustice resulting from the wrong-doer
going unpunished. And, if it be pointed out that
many moral evils accompany war, howevei* just, we
reply by recalling the important distinction that war
is not the cause but merely the accidental occasion
of such evils. The conditions of fighting and cam
paigning certainly give greater scope for the weak
to fall and the depraved to exercise their depravity,
but the good man owns the obligation of the moral
code on the battlefield as elsewhere. The common
epithets “ brutal and licentious ” have no necessary
connection with the soldier, but there is a neces
sary connection between lawlessness and neglect to
enforce the law.
Another consideration, which further vindicates
the apparent setting aside of the counsels of our
Lord by communities of men engaged in mutual
�12
Christianity and War
warfare, is the following : The Gospel Counsels are
addressed to individuals, and have primarily in view
their spiritual perfection, the acquisition by their
souls of greater grace here and higher glory here
after. Now although those organized societies,
which we call States, are as much bound by the
Commandments of God as are individuals, because
the Commandments are the expression of the
eternal law, and their observance is necessary for
civil well-being, they stand in a different relation
to the Counsels. States exist for temporal ends
alone : they have no grace to acquire nor glory to
hope for ; they have no hereafter, and must reach
their perfection in this world or not at all. And
thus, though an individual may lawfully and reason
ably forgo his rights or neglect his physical and
temporal interests in view of the reward to come,
the State as such must insist on the recognition of
its just claims, whether by its own members or by
external communities. If in any matter of import
ance it condoned disobedience to its laws, it would fail
in one chief object of its existence—the maintenance
of order. And, again, it would fail in a primary
function, if it passed over without effective remon
strance any serious violation of its rights by another
State. Thus the same action—“ turning the other
cheek
is a point of perfection in the individual,
and a dereliction of duty in the community, because
of the difference of their raisons d'etre.
And so the Catholic position—that war may be
justified accords with reason and is not at variance
�Christianity and War
13
with revelation. Nowhere does our Lord condemn
war in itself, and the counsels He addresses to the
individuals are not always applicable, even as
counsels, to the State. To the assertion Chris
tianity is opposed to war, the Catholic reply is,
Christianity is certainly opposed to all that is evil
in war, to the injustice in which it often originates,
to the methods in which it is sometimes pursued,
to the excesses of passion of which it is always the
sad occasion, but Christianity does not oppose war
as the sole means of vindicating moral right, for it
is preferable that these incidental evils should occur
than that wickedness should triumph unchecked in
the world. And hence the divinely guided Church
does not hesitate to countenance war on due occa
sion ; she blesses weapons and consecrates banners
to be used in a just cause. Her rulers in the past
have invoked war as a means to some good end—
whether, for instance, to protect Christendom from
infidel foes or to secure the integrity of the Holy
See. She has even canonized soldiers like the
warrior-maid, Blessed Joan of Arc, showing that
she considers heroic sanctity not incompatible with
the profession of arms. And her recognition of the
fact that the moral law may require war for its
enforcement or vindication on earth, makes it easy
for her to understand how God Himself could have
not merely permitted, but commanded wars, even
wars of aggression and extermination, all through
out the history of His chosen people.
Neither
time nor other circumstances can alter the intrinsic
�i4
Christianity and War
nature of a thing ; if war is essentially evil, then
those who profess that doctrine have to face the
fact that the God of Righteousness constantly com
pelled the Jews to commit abominable wickedness.
It is sometimes urged that the early Christians at
any rate did not so learn Christ. We have seen a
catena of passages from early Christian writers,
selected from a tract published by Thomas Clarkson,
the Emancipationist, in 1817, which is supposed to
embody the teaching and practice of those who lived
in sub-Apostolic times, and were therefore most
likely to have caught the true spirit of Christianity.
A more uncritical, untrustworthy, and misleading
document it would be hard to find. Apart from the
initial objection that Christianity, early or late, could
not have taught the essential evil of war, because
Christianity teaches truth and war is not essentially
evil, nothing is said of the circumstances, within and
without the Church, in which these early Christians
were placed, and which readily explain the views
they took of war as they found it. We know, but
not from the pamphlet, that the counsels were much
more extensively practised then than in later times,
that a geneial expectation of the second coming of
our Lord made His followers less inclined to follow
worldly pui suits, and that the dividing line between
the Church and the world was much more clearly
diawn. And on the othei' hand, military service
meant mingling with pagan comrades, serving under
pagan officers, being in constant danger of being
involved in pagan observances or employed in duties
�Christianity and War
i5
unbecoming a Christian, It is strange that under
these conditions any Christians were found in the
army at all, yet Tertullian, who is one of the chief
witnesses cited against the lawfulness of military
service, also bears testimony that there were many
believers in the imperial armies.1
The process of establishing the possible justice of
the act of war has incidentally cleared away many of
the other misunderstandings introduced into the
question by those who, having broken with the
Christian tradition, have endeavoured to reproduce
the Christian spirit, as it were from the outside.
Physical evil, not being commensurate with moral,
must often be caused or permitted to prevent the
latter. The individual is allowed by God’s law to
assert and enforce his rights with the moderation
defined by his position and destiny, even though in
cases it might be more Christian to forgo them.
The State existing wholly for temporal ends and
supreme in its own sphere, has a much wider range
of rights and much greater scope to vindicate them.
We may insist on these points, without denying that
many wars are unjust, that horrible excesses are
committed on the battlefield, that war at best is
a desperate expedient and often ineffective of its
purpose, for none of these circumstances alters our
contention. If even good things may be abused,
much more may things which have no moral colour
1 See the well-known passage, Adv. Gentiles, c. 37, beginning
“ Hesterni sumus, et vestra omnia implevimus.”
�i6
Christianity and War
of themselves. And we cannot denounce things
merely because they are the occasions of evil, other
wise our human natures, our senses, our passions
and instincts, our very free-will should come under the
ban. In the interests of truth and the moral law itself,
we must insist on the fact, based as it is on the con
sentient witness of reason and experience, history
and tradition, and finally the records of God’s deal
ings with man, that the organized communities we
call States have a right and a duty under certain
conditions to assert or protect their rights by force
of arms.
However, despite this recognition of war as some
times inevitable in this fallen world and consequently
lawful, the spirit of Christianity has always been
opposed to it. If it is sometimes a necessity, it is
always a hateful one, to be used with reluctance and
promptly abandoned as soon as its reason ceases. It
should only be undertaken to avoid worse evils, and
there are not many evils which are worse. It is,
moreover, not unfrequently a useless remedy, for the
big battalions may not be on the side of justice. The
lesistance of weak States to the encroachments of
their stronger neighbours, though valuable as a moral
protest against the pernicious doctrine that Might is
Right, has from time to time resulted in their more
thorough subjugation. So the Christian has no love
foi wai, but regards it as one of the curses of
humanity, one of the worst fruits of original sin,
always implying on the one side or the other, injustice
committed or contemplated, opposed altogether to
�Christianity and War
17
God’s original design and to the perfect Christian
ideal which is the restoration of that design, justifi
able, because in itself a physical evil only, for certain
high ends and under certain clear conditions, and
destined to grow more rare as the international
conscience, the public opinion of civilization, grows
more Christian. Only as an act of justice has war
the support of Christianity. In the ideal our religion
connotes the absence of all injustice, the recognition
of all rights, the harmony of all interests, but in fact
it has to take account of a world where injustice of
every sort is prevalent, and where moral considera
tions are frequently too weak to restrain the wrong
doer. Thus is explained the apparent contradictions
of a Church, founded by the Prince of Peace and
standing everywhere for the rule of justice, still on
occasion giving her sanction to the bloody expedient
of war with all its attendant horrors. It is not that
she thinks that there should be one moral code for
the individual and another for the nation. The un
changing law of God holds everywhere, and what is
unjust as between man and man is equally unjust
in the relations of sovereign States. Murder and
robbery, jealousy and envy, slander and pride and
hatred, do not surely cease to be crimes, because
practised by a community and on a colossal scale.1
But—and this is a distinction ignored by many non1 This was not Othello’s thought: cf.—
“ the big wars
That make ambition virtue.”
Othello, iii 3.
�18
Christianity and War
Catholic peace advocates—there is an essential
difference between the condition of a sovereign
State and that of a private person. The latter, as
we have seen, is not allowed to avenge himself or to
do more, in self-defence even, than the exigencies of
the moment demand. He cannot, as the phrase is,
“ take the law into his own hands.” Recourse tc
violence in pursuit of right becomes unjust, precisely
when it becomes unnecessary. But from the nature
of the case there is no supreme earthly authority to
which States can have recourse. Whether, if God’s
designs has been fully realized and the whole earth
become practically Christian, the Papacy might not
have been such an authority, whether in the grow
ing tendency towards methods of arbitration such
an authority may not even yet arise, we can only
conjecture. The point is that no such authority
does exist to enforce the moral law in disputes
between independent communities, and if one party
is resolved to push its claims in defiance of that
law, nothing remains for the other, but to resist
aggression by force. Nor is injustice necessarily
all on one side. Although, theoretically, one party in
a contest must be in the wrong, or at least more
in the wrong than the other (since rights of the
same character cannot really conflict, except in
regard to priority, and rights lower in nature ought,
generally speaking, to yield to those superior), still it
is often possible for a state of affairs to arise in
which it is extremely doubtful on which side is
the preponderance of right, and both parties may
�Christianity and War
19
proceed to the arbitrament of the sword, reasonably
confiding in the justice of their cause and the
uprightness of their motives. In default of any
higher authority established by Providence, in
dependent States have generally preferred to be
judges in their own case, and all the Church can
do is to insist upon the necessity of at least a sub
jective conviction of justice in each belligerent.
Accordingly, until some international tribunal is
set up, invested by mutual agreement with the
power of finally settling international disputes, no
State can be compelled in justice to submit what
it holds to be its rightful claims to the decision of its
equals. If it really thinks that it can secure those
rights more effectually by war than by arbitration,
then it may lawfully choose the former desperate
means. Christianity cannot forbid it, but it can and
does lay down very definitely the only conditions
which make it lawful. They have been mentioned
incidentally, but we may summarize them here.
The first is, War should be undertaken in the
interests of justice. The injury received or the
danger to be averted must be genuine, and more
over must bear some proportion to the evils that
war necessarily involves. Thus, the end in view
should not only be good, sc., the assertion or
defence of some real right, but it must be an
occasion of great consequence to the nation, such
as a grievous violation of the country’s honour or
material interests, serious breach of treaty obliga
tions, assistance given to the nation’s enemies, or
�20
Christianity and War
again, a duty imposed by considerations of humanity,
as the giving help to another nation unjustly op
pressed.1 This condition excludes a .host of evil
motives, which, as human history shows, have
prompted innumerable wars, such as the mere lust
of conquest-and extension of territory, or ambition
of military glory, or rivalry of commerce, or false
zeal for religion, or fear of the growing power of
a neighbour2—in general, all the purposes which
are rightly reckoned unjust and immoral in the
relations of man with man.
Secondly, to escape the Christian’s condemnation,
war must really be, as it has often been called—
ultima ratio regum : the final argument when all
1 This latter point is worth careful attention, for it is directly
opposed to that un-Christian development of nationality which
declares in effect that the different members of the family of the
nations have no concern with each other’s doings, except when
the rights of each are severally involved. This error, under the
name of “Non-Intervention,” was condemned by Pius IX
in the Allocution, Novos et ante (1861).
- One may justly endeavour to preserve whatever excellence
or supremacy one’s particular nation possesses, but this must
be done within the limits of the moral law. The providential
preponderance of any special State in the world has not yet
been divinely revealed, although it is commonly assumed by
the “ Jingo ” press of many nations. Yet we find a presumably
Christian writer, in the April Nineteenth Century, 1910, claiming
that Great Britain has a right to pick a quarrel with Germany
and destroy her growing fleet simply because Britain’s naval
supremacy is menaced thereby ! On what grounds, we wonder,
does he deny Germany a right claimed by him for Britain ? By
strict parity of reasoning a tradesman, threatened with ruin
by the competition of a rival, would be justified in destroying
that rival's goods.
�Christianity and War
21
others have been tried and have failed. If the same
ends, therefore, can be obtained by arbitration
or diplomacy of one sort or another, or if even there
is a reasonable prospect of success by those means,
then, Christian principles forbid the use of the
terrible instrument of war. Nothing but its practical
necessity, as the only means to secure lawful ends of
vast importance, can excuse it. Happily the growth
of arbitration, as a recognized means of settling
disputes between nations, tends to make this con
dition more and more difficult to fulfil.
Thirdly, a just war must be the act of the whole
community represented by the supreme authority in
the State, precisely because it is a matter affecting
the interest of the community as a whole, not those
of any particular person or group.1 In every sove
reign State the right of the sword, whether to
repress internal disorder or to resist and punish
external aggression, belongs by natural law to the
chief power in the State. Subordinate communities,
or classes in the same community, must refer
their disputes to superior authority, and therefore,
so long as there exists a competent superior to
have recourse to, war ceases to be necessary. To
embroil the whole State in conflict, in the interests
of any particular person, or family, or class, or trade,
is against Christian teaching, unless the interests are of
such moment as to be practically national in import.
1 This primarily refers to offensive warfare : just as the in
dividual, so any section of the community may defend itself
against unjust attack without further authorization.
�22
Christianity and War
A fourth and last condition regards the method of
prosecuting a war, which circumstances have made
necessary and therefore justified. This method is
determined partly by natural and partly by positive
law. Natural law requires that the party at fault
should first be afforded the chance of giving satis
faction: otherwise, the necessity of the war is
doubtful and also its lawfulness. If adequate satis
faction is offered, the injured party is bound in
justice to accept it. By positive law, a certain
amount has been done to limit in extent and mitigate
in effect the horrors of war. In u civilized ” warfare
nowadays the lives and persons and property of non
belligerents are supposed to be respected, captives
aie not killed or made slaves of, certain weapons of
destruction, such as chain-shot and explosive bullets,
are excluded, and ambulance-parties are regarded as
neutral improvements which must be ascribed to
the influence of Christian principles.
The application, by the Church’s teaching, of these
piinciples to the circumstances of war is much more
detailed than we have space here to indicate ; but,
judged even by these four requirements for legality,
it must be owned that flagrant injustice has char
acterized the vast majority of the wars recorded in
history. Many have originated in personal pride,
or ambition, or lust of gain. Many have been prose
cuted by heartless methods of barbarism. Before the
rise of democracy, the consent of the nation was not
even asked; since the rise of democracy,the passions
of the nation have ever been played upon by un-
�Christianity and War
23
scrupulous politicians through press, platform, and,
alas ! pulpit—in a word, if ever a method of securing
justice has been discredited by constant misuse, it is
the method of war. The true Christian, then, and
the true patriot as well, must hold war in abhor
rence, and labour with all his strength to abolish
it. But not by wrong methods. He must seek to
promote peace by rooting out the causes of war,
racial enmity, lust of territory, commercial greed—
all springing from that bastard nationalism which is
the mere externation of personal pride, with all the
ugly concomitants of that vice—hatred and contempt
and jealousy of other nations, unwillingness to oblige
01- to own obligations, insularity of outlook, and
inflated self-esteem : a spirit which unfortunately
exists in all nations and flourishes in proportion as
the spirit of Christianity is absent. That spirit alone
can effectually make head against the causes of
war. Unless the peace movement is Christian, it
is doomed to failure. Let Catholics, then, take their
due place in it.1 In addition to the traditions of the
Church, they have the warmest exhortations from
their chief Pastors. Both the late and present Popes
have raised their voices eloquently to plead for peace
amongst the nations, and, nearer home, we cannot
forget the stirring appeal, uttered on Easter Sunday,
1896, by Cardinals Gibbons, Logue, and Vaughan, in
favour of a permanent Tribunal of Arbitration, “ as
A “ Catholic Peace Association ” has lately been established,
particulars as to which may be obtained from the Hon. Sec.,
(/>ro tern.} 194 Battersea Park Road, S.W.
�24
Christianity and War
a rational substitute among the English-speaking
races for a resort to the bloody arbitrament of war.”
“ Others [they say] may base their appeal upon motives which
touch your worldly interests, your prosperity, your world-wide
influence and authority in the affairs of men. The Catholic
Church recognizes the legitimate force of such motives in the
natural order, and blesses whatever tends to the real progress
and elevation of the race. But our main ground of appeal rests
upon the known character and will of the Prince of Peace, the
living Founder, the Divine Head of Christendom. It was He
who declared that love of the brotherhood is a second com
mandment like unto the first. It was He who announced to the
people the praise and reward of those who seek after peace
and pursue it.”
According to those principles we must think and
iy work, for the Peace of the World, ^if it is to be,
k will be finally secured, not by Socialism, which is
y universal tyranny, nor by Herveism, which is universal
* anarchy, but only by practical Christianity, which
* is universal brotherhood, the establishment on earth
xof the Kingdom of Christ.
I
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, LONDON.
U.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christianity and war
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Keating, Joseph Ignatius Patrick
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Final paragraph marked in red pencil.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1911]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1528
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Christianity and war), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Christianity
War