2
10
42
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5765ae4a5134f785b1b899ee2424343a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Uu7l1WNFq-ZeR5wTFbJ50U5z-DBs12NtZKKiNE%7E53XusxU0zu0nQrs0d-qWP2uMdPKZXnoBIT1o3UYLbRLGAKph8FxkvtaLwD8QDk%7E%7EDrt7mXAUPg5xVflgSFC1GyOKRJVvBBgppzy8JWiWJHE5zTJ48a-D6SKhRbyd0wZ3buh1t5lMYHkv1nSFKdnLQfAjnDnzwSmYJAyJH-Jrhnd8DCoF8Weec-4PvUO0H2v5HmfD1YQQ%7Enx7EfdcXIKT7xFv4Ou1KUV2sBqvBSMZXFlNxXnfXbuixBAL4UPG2FwLOZx-eyNxuUkrhmV1jHjQbiU6gu3GiN6JANQ33n2SAH9F6BQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3620817dbe95f9c1a0edf8ebf0662787
PDF Text
Text
CT <02
CLERICAL
“POOH, POOH!” RHETORIC.
Ovk aiffxpbv Tjye'i bpra to ipeuBrj Keyeiv ;
Ouk, ei rb cra>£ijvat ye rb if/evbos cpepei.
Philoctetes, 108-9.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAR, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON!
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PVLTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�CLERICAL “POOH POOH!” RHETORIC.
T is much easier to be religious than to be moral.
This is remarkably the case in countries where
the Roman Catholic religion is that of the State.
There every person is religious, but scarcely any one
is moral. There religion is a respectable suit of
clothes to be worn on great occasions and holy days ;
or, it is a passport which those who dislike being
“ spotted ” carry with them to produce in case any one
might question their orthodoxy.
Religion—not
morality—circulates through the blood of these
people, through their families, their households, and
the very atmosphere they breathe. Their religion
may be blind admiration, or submission, or faith, or
adoration, or even it may be persuasion; but it
scarcely ever is a binding rule for their moral con
duct. It has not the least necessary connection with
any one moral virtue. The most hardened murderer,
the most self-indulgent sensualist, the most atrocious
villain may be rigidly devout,—as in the case of the
notorious Francisco Pizarro. He may even avow
publicly that he is rigidly devout and intensely pious
without giving the least shock to public opinion. In
short, the Roman Catholic Religion is witchcraft
undisguised. The Protestant Religion is witchcraft
disguised to a certain extent.
Protestants do not allow themselves the same,
indulgence that Roman Catholics permit themselves.
Protestants have less faith than Roman Catholics in
I
B
�6
Clerical '''‘Pooh, Pooh I ” Rhetoric.
the efficacy of a death-bed repentance. Regarding
the efficacy of the Sacraments there is a difference
of opinion among Protestants. Moreover the oracle
of Protestants is a dumb book called the Bible, whose
want of speech causes almost endless diversities of
opinion among those who consult it. These differ
ences and difficulties necessarily promote the cause of
morality. The accusation, that a man holds strange
opinions in order to find arguments for whatever he
has an inclination to do, is a reproach which must
always sting a Protestant who leads an immoral life.
Hence if a Protestant hold any peculiar opinion it is
cf almost infinite satisfaction to himself and advan
tage to his cause if he be able to point to a private
life of dignified moral repute. Consequently the
peoples among whom the Protestant religion prevails
are much more moral than the peoples among whom
the Roman Catholic religion is established by law.
Nevertheless, the Protestants allow themselves a
certain amount of a certain kind of self-indulgence.
In the first place, they have their little allowance
of witchcraft, namely, the laying on of hands—
infant baptism—-justification by faith—remission of
sins—and the final perseverance of the saints.
Secondly, they have their little hard and fast lines
of exclusiveness, as arranged among their various
divisions of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, &c. &c.
Thirdly, Protestants permit and even applaud a
certain amount of spiritual hatred, spiritual ran
cour, and spiritual denunciation. The odium tlieologicum is particularly gratifying to the Protestant intel
lect. At Exeter Hall, Belfast, or Glasgow, there
could scarcely be any public matter that would be
more likely to draw together a numerous audience
than the announcement that an eloquent firebrand,
on a certain time, and at a certain place, would
denounce Mr. Gladstone and the Pope.
�Clerical “Pooh^ Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
7
Fourthly (and principally), persistent and vocifer
ous assertion, in opposition to facts, that the Bible
has been written by men who were guided by divine
grace, and that Protestantism is the only true reli
gion on earth, are points that are almost universally
acted on and applauded by Protestants. If such a
course were adopted by Infidels it would be called
“ a system of enormous lying.” But when that
course is adopted for the preservation of Christianity
it is considered not only justifiable but a bounden
duty by almost all Protestants.
In Sophocles’ “ Philoctetes,” 108-9, Neoptolemus
says to Ulysses, “ Dost thou, then, not think it base
to tell a lie ? ” To this Ulysses answers : “No ; at
least not if the lie bring preservation.” This doc
trine is avowed by the Jesuits and practised by Pro
testants—especially by the clergy of the Established
Church in England and of the disestablished church
in Ireland.
In the days of David Hume, who flourished about
A.n. 1750, the clergy of the day deemed it their duty
to refute the arguments against miracles, against a
particular Providence, and against a future life, con
tained in his “ Inquiry concerning Human Under
standing,” published a.d. 1748. Not being able to
refute him they wrote what they called Answers'to
him. He says “ Answers by Reverends and Right
Reverends came out two or three in a year, and I
found, by Dr. Warburton’s railing, that the books
were beginning to be esteemed in good company.”
On the part of the clergy this was decent. It showed
they thought they had something to defend besides
their salaries. But the clergy of the present day
have long ago lost the power of using their pens, or
indeed of using any weapons requiring the aid of
human intellect to wield them.
So, when the late Dr. Strauss published, a.d. 1837,
his “Life of Jesus,” the clergy were quite taken by
�8
Clerical11 Pooh, Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
surprise. The idea that Jesus might not be a strictly
historical character, and that the narratives con
tained in our Gospels might be, for the most part
mythological, was quite new to our clergy. They
had not as much as one argument to bring forward.
They could use only exclamations, such as Oh !—Ah !
—Such a thing to say !—Downright blasphemy !—
Shocking!—Horrible !—&c. &c.
Not long after this, a.d. 1844, “ Vestiges of the
Natural History of Creation ” appeared. It found
the clergy utterly unable to bring forward an argu
ment against its statements and reasonings. The
clergy had been better employed. They had been
looking after rectories., archdeaconries, canonries,
prebends’ stalls, and deaneries, and the Presbyterian
portion of them had been manufacturing bricks and
getting leases of building ground. Nevertheless the
clergy raised against the “ Vestiges ” an outcry that
resounded through her Majesty’s three kingdoms;
but it was vox et prceterea nihil.
Not long after this, A.D. 1860, “ Essays and Reviews ”
made their appearance. Again the clergy were “un
practised, unprepared, and still to seek.” Again the
clergy raised an outcry, but it was as powerless as the
“ unearthly squeak ” uttered by “ the feeble forms of
the deceased dead” fluttering around Ulysses in Hades.
Before the sensation caused by the publication of
“ Essays and Reviews ” had died away, Dr. Colenso,
a.d. 1862, published the first volume of “ The Penta
teuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined.”
This was too much. All the interjections in the
English language could not successfully resist this
rush of learned and clever publications on behalf of
the good old cause, “ Truth v. Christianity.” It
was deemed necessary to do something. The stupid
good people began to expect that the clergy would
do something. The ignorant little curates began to
expect that some powerful church dignitary would
�Clerical “Pooh, Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
9
come forth and refute Dr. Colenso. If there was
any such churchman in existence he did not make
his appearance. Mr. Speaker Denison suggested that
all the eminent blockheads in the church of England
should put their heads together and refute Dr.
Colenso. This was received with applause by the
stupid good people. And accordingly the Fathers
of the Church were gathered together in West
minster Abbey amidst “ the pride, pomp and circum
stance of glorious ” witchcraft to refute Dr. Colenso.
They commenced by receiving the holy communion! And
if they ever shall arrive at a conclusion, it will be “ a
conclusion in which nothing is concluded.”
In the meantime the expectation of the. stupid
good people was stretched to the utmost. They first
uttered a cry for help, next a scream of anguish,
then a howl of despair, and finally a wail of lamen
tation. This was too much. The clergy were at
their wit s end—and they had not to go very far to
reach it! Resort was had to the maxim of Ulysses,
that “ It is not base to tell a lie if the lie bring
preservation.”
So the clergy went among their flocks exclaiming
“Pooh, Pooh!” and preserving an ostentatious
silence on all matters of controversy.
Like all great and important doctrines, the pro- .
found reason and important theory contained in the
exclamation “ Pooh, Pooh ! ” have been gradually
“ developed.”
When Dr. Colenso was in England during the
year 1863 he wrote to a bishop asking for an expla
nation of certain statements he had made against
Dr. Colenso. To this the bishop replied that he
would not enter into a controversy “with one who
has been so ably answered ”—the bishop did not say
by whom. This is the suppressio veri in the form of
“ Pooh ! Pooh ! ”
At that time, 1863, a bishop was performing cer-
�io
Clerical “Pooh, Pooh!” Rhetoric.
tain ceremonies of witchcraft, commonly called
“ confirmation,” “ ordination,” “ consecration,’ &c.
&c., and when Dr. Colenso called on him to explain
certain ungrounded assertions he had made relative
to the futility of Dr. Colenso’s arguments against
the pretensions claimed for some parts of Holy
Scripture to be regarded as written by aid of Divine
inspiration, the bishop’s reply was to the effect that
he was too much occupied by his witchcraft to be
able to waste time in defending Holy Scripture.
This is the trick of shirking under the form of “ Pooh,
Pooh ! ”
A layman sent a copy of a tract published in
Mr. Scott’s series to a dignitary of the church of
England, requesting him to refute it, “ at which
his nose was in great indignation.” The dignitary
returned the tract with a message, to the effect that
he considered the act of sending him such a tract
was “a personal insult.” This is the stately profes
sional dodge under the form of “ Pooh, Pooh ! ”
Another layman sent a copy of another tract which
appeared in Mr. Scott’s series to a poor curate,
requesting him to refute the arguments contained in
it. The curate wrote back in reply that all the state
ments and arguments contained in that tract had
been written and refuted many years ago. The lay
man wrote back to the curate requesting him to give
.the names of the books which the curate alleged had
anticipated, and refuted the statements and argu
ments contained in the tract. To this the curate did
not give any answer. This is deliberate lying for the
Gospel’s sake under the form of “ Pooh, Pooh !”
A lay inquirer asked a dignitary to explain why
there are so many contradictory statements in our
New Testament regarding “justification by works,”
and “justification by faith?” The dignitary asked
the layman had he read certain books. The layman
answered in the negative. Thereupon the dignitary
�Clerical "Pooh, Pooh 1 ” Rhetoric.
11
named a number of books so numerous that it would
require the time of five or six average human lives
to peruse them, and the dignitary told the layman
that the answer to the question would be found among
those books. This is running away and taking refuge
behind the petticoats of mother Church under the
form of “ Pooh, Pooh ! ”
Dr. Farrar lately published a ‘ Life of Christ ’
grounded on the old maxim of obstinate stupidity:—
Over and over again I repeat it,
Time after time and day after day,
Nothing while I live shall ever defeat it
For over and over the same I will say.
A favourable notice of this performance is given
in the Quarterly Review for January, 1875. The
notice concludes thus :—“To fill the minds of those
who read his pages with solemn and not ignoble
thoughts, ‘ to add sunlight to daylight by making
the happy happier, to encourage the toiler, to con
sole the sorrowful, to point the weak to the one true
source of moral strength ’—these are the high ends
to which he [Dr. Farrar] desires that his work may
be blest, and we may safely promise him that he will
not be disappointed.” This is Peter driving a nail
through the Moon, and Paddy clinching the nail on
the other side, under the form of “ Pooh, Pooh I”
Many other instances of clerical “ Pooh, Pooh ! ”
rhetoric could be given. But it is needless. What,
has been said is amply sufficient to enable the intelli
gent reader to detect clerical “ Pooh, Pooh ! ” rhetoric
under whatever guise it may lurk.
In his essay on Miracles David Hume says, “ ’Tis
strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the
perusal of these wonderful histories, that such prodi
gious events never happen in our days. But ’tis
nothing strange, I hope, that men should lie in all
ages. You must surely have seen instances enow of
that frailty.*’
�12
Clerical “Pooh, Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
Recommending the clerics to study the works of
David Hume, and learn honesty, we shall take leave
of those holy men, expressing for them in English a
wish which Demosthenes expressed in Greek for
certain persons who “ flourished ” by dishonest means
in his day:—
“If it be possible, inspire even in these men a better sense
and feeling! But if they be indeed incurable, destroy them by
themselves : exterminate them on land and sea.”
Kilferest,
Feast of the Annunciation, 1875.
Printed
by c. w. reynell, little pulteney-street, haymarket, w.
�
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
Clerical "Pooh, pooh!" rhetoric
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT128
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy
Christianity
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Clerical "Pooh, pooh!" rhetoric), 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
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Clergy
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4ba7246d6f025519d2adfdcf91fe2173.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=pmSV1kcjCCO1WAD1MB1VqN89vqayTci3qkbZcDO94m5UYj-IjepLccBBFV7qshe6em5JE0Amx8FpDs1DKibK3MT%7EGA23lWYiF8ewdrekj%7EdXaXzThCYkTDY-csYx7YiMD4As5O3LAyPQGriIlv6KLgCyw%7E20ybvjF9jmp0gdrF1jJO1rbzBXJE8gTGLO6RIut7EIi%7ESqYVBmo7Q7nqxCUM4Y%7EkrrjhmaI3xmL1GoeKzwEPgud3ED32bRuUVKZ1b3jkXzLipiPDBeWmY5sTfUO2qRdjDYDvhC7tuL0iWFaLXzIfUW2-9%7Eh0Y05xihHs9DtlawtitI0MWimseMa2og7g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
455f795d83aec8c0d385336e8be47616
PDF Text
Text
CONVENT EXPERIENCES.
Miss A. F. B.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Ninepence,.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. IV. REYNELL, LITTLE PDLTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET.
�INTRODUCTION.
ANY have written upon the Convent Question.
Fanatical No-Popery champions, who have
never seen the interior of a Convent, have had the
effrontery to expatiate with all the assurance of eye
witnesses upon manners and customs most of which
would have been unintelligible to them even had they
been permitted to scrutinise them. Blinded by Pro <
testant prejudice, their faith concerning Convents is
literally “the evidence of things not seen.” Such
witnesses have written to little purpose.
Others, supposed to be runaway Nuns, who at once
went over to the enemy and became bright stars in
the Evangelical firmament, have also handled the
Convent Question. They have made “awful dis
closures,” quite worthy of a place in the annals of
secular crime; but their statements want filling in,
for neither in the world nor in the Convent are
“ awful crimes ” the order of the day, and those sup
posed runaway Nuns should tell us what went on
between whiles, that we might the better understand
the causes which led to such “ awful” results.
B
�6
Introduction.
To supply what is wanting, to tell the whole truth,
is the object of the following pamphlet. It is written
by one who, though she left the Convent and the
Roman Church, can nevertheless look back with
pleasure upon Convent days and Convent friends,
and who, strange to say, has not hitherto seen any
Anglican minister reproducing so faithfully the Jesus
of the Gospels as do many of the much-despised
Roman Catholic priests she formerly knew and whom,
she still holds in affectionate remembrance.
�CONVENT EXPERIENCES.
OME years ago I had a strong desire to enter a
Convent. I expressed my wish to my confessor
—an uncommonly clever old man—but he at once
opposed it. The secular clergy are by no means
favourable to Convents, and would far rather their
penitents remained in “the world,” where their good
works might shine before men and have a far wider
influence.
My Confessor’s opposition was of no avail, and
some time after we discussed the subject once more.
He made a sensible suggestion, upon which I acted.
He advised me to pass a few days in a suburban Con
vent, just to see what sort of an impression the mode
of life would make upon me, and he promised to write
to the Superior urging her to withhold nothing from
me, but to tell me with all frankness what was
required by the Rules of the Order.
I followed this advice, and went for a short time
into a Convent of some note. The result was most
unsatisfactory. Everything was far too comfortable,
too elegant, and too well-appointed for one passing
through such an ascetic phase as myself; moreover,
I was at a loss to understand by what mental process
the feather beds, merino habit, and inviting food
could be made to square with Holy Poverty. In
vain was I told by the Novice-mistress that not a Nun
in the community dare call a pin her own, that the
pronoun “my” was abolished and “our” substituted,
and that Holy Poverty was rigidly observed.
1 was too obtuse to understand her view of the
matter. I was full of fervour, I wanted to feel the
S
�8
Convent Experiences.
poverty I professed, and it seemed to me that, as
long as I had undisturbed enjoyment of other people’s
property, I should experience nothing of the sort,
whichever pronoun I might use, so that with my
views a vow of poverty taken in such an attractive
residence would have been a mockery. I took my
leave, but have since heard from one who for some
years was in a Convent of that Order that the “ in
teriormortification” to which the Nuns were subjected
was excessive; their affections were systematically
crushed, starved, and finally extinguished, until the
joyous, warm-hearted Novice subsided into a mere
automaton, afraid and ashamed of enjoying anything !
I communicated all my impressions about that
convent to my old Confessor, fully anticipating a
reprimand for venturing thus to censure my betters.
To my surprise, he seemed rather glad I had been dis
appointed ; said he had formed similar opinions him
self, and once more suggested that I should abandon
all idea of entering a Convent. But I had made up
my mind to be a Nun, and into a Convent I was
determined to go, in spite of my first failure. Some
months later, I joined an Order in which my expec
tations seemed likely to be realised, and where Holy
Poverty, with a few startling and amusing exceptions,
was keenly felt and daily practised by a fervent
community of about a hundred souls, all aiming at
serving their God perfectly by imitating as closely as
possible the Jesus of the Gospels and the Saints of
the Church, and by endeavouring with all their might
and main to execute everything, no matter how
trifling, “ after the pattern which was shewed them
on the Mount.”
They were aiming at serving their God—mark the
words—their God, that is, the Convent-God, whose
requirements we must of necessity consider ere we
coarsely censure those who fulfil them. This neces
sity has not been felt by those who have handled the
�Convent Experiences.
g
Convent Question; instead of laying the axe to the
root of the tree, they have contented themselves
with attacking the fruit, which they have failed to
destroy, for the Monk and the Nun “ have triumphed
gloriously,” and most of the monastic Orders are
flourishing in the British Isles, where they will con
tinue to prosper until the cause—the dread cause of
effects so direful—shall cease to exist. The wolf
must be slain—not the poor sheep he has molested ;
the dog must be shot—not the poor baby he has
bitten ■ the poisoner must be locked up, not the poor
victims he has infected. Those so anxious for the
destruction of Convents and Monasteries of course
imagine that the monastic spirit would be annihilated
by their fall; but they are unaware that the ConventGod is extensively worshipped outside the Convent
walls, and with similar results. Vows are taken and
religiously observed in “ the world,” while, to my
certain knowledge, bodily penances in the shape of
disciplines, hair-shirts, prickly armlets, &c., which in
many severe Orders, including even La Trappe, are
absolutely forbidden, are practised by many educated
Catholics in the quiet home circle—and mark—not at
the instigation of an ascetic director, but often in
opposition to his wishes, and of their own free will.
Confessors and Superiors of Convents are, taken
collectively, grossly calumniated.
Inmates of Convents, and frequenters of confes
sionals are prompted from within, not goaded from
without, to offer up their bodies “ a living sacrifice”
on the altar of their God, whose requirements we
shall easily ascertain by inquiring what it is which
urges so many intelligent, high-minded, enthusiastic
persons of both sexes to embrace the religious life—
for those who imagine that none but abject, half
witted, ill-favoured plebeians, people the cloister, are
vastly mistaken.
Most of those who enter Convents voluntarily—
�io
Convent Experiences.
neither driven thither by adverse circumstances nor
unduly influenced by some exciting revival which
Catholics call a “ Mission,” are animated by motives
which will bear the closest scrutiny.
They have a firm conviction that they are doing
exactly what God requires of them, and not one whit
more. If, indeed, they are mistaken, then it is truly
lamentable that so much generous self-sacrifice and
genuine purity of intention should be misapplied ; and
that youth, beauty, physical strength, mental ability
and innocent enjoyment should be daily sacrificed to
appease a well-nigh implacable Deity who has rarely
been intentionally offended by one of His victims,'
and who, by some unaccountable inconsistency, is
called the God of Love, seems not only horrible but
incredible. The Aztecs would have called Him
Tezcatlepoca, in whose honour a fine young man was
yearly sacrificed, by having his palpitating heart torn
from his heaving breast—but the Convent-God is
more exacting, for Tezcatlepoca’s victims did no
prior penance—on the contrary, they passed the pre
vious year in the enjoyment of everything this world
affords, and their end, though cruel, was instanta
neous, soothed moreover by the certainty of eternal
bliss in Paradise—but Convent victims pass the
whole “ time of their sojourning here in fear,” striv
ing to make their “ calling and election sure,” by
working out their salvation “ in fear and trembling,”
knowing that, “ unless their righteousness exceed the
righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees they shall
in nowise enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” They
die as St. Paul died—“daily.” They believe as he
believed, that “ God is a consuming fire.”
They bring their bodies “into subjection” as he
did.
They “ count all things but dung,” just as he did.
They doubt whether, after all, they shall not be
“ castaways,” just as he did.
�Convent Experiences.
11
They are “ counted fools and the off-scouring of
all things ’’just as he was, and they realise with all
the intensity of an over-wrought nervous system
how fearful a thing it is “ to fall into the hands of
the living God.” They may be great fools for their
pains, but what about St. Paul ? He preached
poverty, chastity, and obedience. He beat his body,
fasted, gloried in suffering, despised the wrorld, had
visions, took a vow, and is universally looked up to
as the fairest flower of the new faith; but let any
body “ go and do likewise,” especially in an edifice
called a Monastery, and he will be universally looked
upon as an absurd fanatic or a hypocritical fool.
Call the Convent-God a ghastly myth, the morbid
creation of a disordered imagination if you will, but
what about the Pauline-God ? Did St. Paul worship
the reformed God of modern Christianity ? did he
know aught of the easy-going, virginity-despising,
match-making God of the period ? or had he formed
an erroneous conception of the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ? The great apostle himself
thought he had “ the Spirit of God,” and therefore
he spoke out boldly, and besought the Corinthians to
be “imitators of him as he was of Christ;” taught
the Galatians that those that were of Christ had
“ crucified the world with its affections and covetous
ness
cautioned the Philippians against “ minding
earthly things ; ” and told Timothy to be satisfied
with the mere necessaries of life, “food and raiment.”
Now suppose that valiant soldier of the cross were
to visit Christendom in order to claim his own, his
imitators, where in “the world” would he find them?
He might, indeed, hear his words in many a mouth
and see his epistles on many a book-shelf, but he
never said “read my epistles;” the burden of his
song was, “ mortify your members which are on the
earth.” Where are his followers, those who, like
himself, bear in their bodies “ the marks of the Lord
�12
Convent Experiences.
Jesus,” and in their daily acts of mortification and
self-denial fill up, as he tried to do, “that which is
behind of the afflictions of Christ.” I could intro
duce him to many (fanatical fools ?) whose motives
are as pure as his own, whose faith, hope, and
charity would bear a favourable comparison with his'
own, and whose every action would stand the test of
his closest cross-examination; people who, like him
self, are not “conformed to this world,” but have
died to it long ago just as he did. St. Paul’s
followers are by no means so numerous as St.
Paul s readers—he is read by the wise men but
imitated by the fools. Fools are generally in the
majority, but the fools of the New Testament are
few and far between, and they are generally to be
found living in buildings where, like the early Chris
tians, they can have all things “in common.” To
some such edifice I should conduct St. Paul, and I
should explain to him that a new God-—-a reformed
God is worshipped nowadays—a God who cares far
more about Bible reading than Bible practice, and
being better adapted to the requirements of the age,
naturally carries all before him; that his old God is
quite out of date, only worshipped by fanatical men
and hysterical women, who are very little interested
in Bible reading, but very much interested in Bible
practices, and who have retired into private life in or
out of a Monastery, as the case may be; not at all
because they are sullen, cross-grained creatures with
out natural affection, but simply because their God is
so fearfully “jealous ” and exacting, that nothing
short of absolute self-sacrifice will satisfy him; more
over, that they have an odd, unpopular notion that
“the friendship of the world is enmity with God,”
and as it would never do to quarrel with him, they
find it expedient to avoid it altogether.
However, perhaps St. Paul’s views may have under
gone a change, perhaps he has a new God now, in
�Convent Experiences.
'
iq
which case he might be quite at home in modern
society, and be warmly welcomed in Rotten Row ; but
should he still adore the God for whom he so lovingly
laid down his life in days gone by, in what corner of
Christendom would he find a genial resting-place ?
It has now been made sufficiently clear what the
requirements of the Convent-God are, and what a
very striking resemblance they bear to those of the
Pauline deity. Surely those ought not to be ridiculed
whose works are in accordance with their faith. The
poor benighted Papist, and the coarse, vulgar Metho
dist missionary, really believe that the hero of the
Gospels was God, that he really meant us to follow
his example, and that if we refuse to renounce all
we have we cannot be his disciples.
Adult skeletons and babies’ bones, of which no
satisfactory account can be given, have been, and,
perhaps, will be, found both in and out of Convents;
licentious passions may run riot in the cloister as they
do in the camp, and the religious habit may conceal a
faithless Nun as a ball-dress may a faithless wife. It
is not of Convent vices, but of Convent virtues I wish
to speak—the virtues, not the vices, drove me away !
Besides, Sister Lucy has already laid so many “awful
disclosures ” before the public that it is, fortunately,
unnecessary to add to the number.
Monks and Nuns do not even lay claim to impecca
bility, and the members of the Reformed Church should
set the poor Papists a better example before they dare
to meddle with the mote in their brother’s eye.
A bag of bones certainly proves that a sin has been
committed, but nothing more. When a -member of
the Reformed Church, in the full blaze of Gospel
light, fulfils his vow by beating his wife to a jelly, are
we thence to conclude that matrimony is a snare, and
Protestantism a sham ?
The Reformed Church should set a reformed
example, and show the Bible-^oers how much better
the Bible readers are.
�14
Convent Experiences.
It is quite true that Catholics care very little about
reading the Bible, but it is not at all true that (as far
as this country is concerned) they are forbidden to
read it. A Catholic Bible only costs half-a-crown,
and a Testament tenpence.
One of my confessors insisted upon my reading a
chapter daily, another seemed to know the entire book
by heart—he had a text at hand for every emergency
—always assumed that I was acquainted with it., and
was quite a living Concordance; another (a Monk)
was an ardent admirer of St. Paul’s Epistles, from
which he was constantly quoting. St. Paul would
have loved that good old Monk because, like himself,
he was a doer of the Word. However, it is quite true
that very few Catholics like the Bible much, and still
fewer consider it any part of their duty to read it. I
was quite an exception. I was always fond of the
New Testament. I took it with me into the Convent,
and continue to appreciate much of it, but reading it
would never make me a Protestant.
From my infancy I have associated almost exclu
sively with Protestants, and have had the pleasantest
experience of them. I am still intimate with many,
and excellent companions they are. I find them
straight-forward, kind-hearted, and agreeable people,
far superior intellectually to Catholics, and therefore
much more interesting, but I am bound to say, after
due deliberation, that they are not one whit like
Christ—that, according to all appearances, they do
not even wish to be like him, and that so far from
looking up to, they generally look down upon those
who are like him. I know they do read the Gospels
very often, but should never suppose they had ever
heard of the Sermon on the Mount or of its “meek
■and lowly ” author. Protestants are assuredly the
readers of the Word and the hearers of the Word,
but most certainly not the doers of the Word.
Whether that is matter for regret is another thing—
�Convent Experiences.
15
it is, however, a curious view of Christianity of
which Protestants have got hold—one likely to prove
untenable before long, and one by no means calcu
lated to impress the Catholics favourably. “We go
by the Bible,” said a Protestant to me one day; he
would have been nearer the mark had he said' “We
give the Bible the go-by 1 ”
Protestants cannot bear to be reminded that Christ
extolled the celibate and even the eunuch, whom they
consider so unutterably despicable—they wish he had
said : “ Let every one seek the conjugal state betimes,
for in heaven they both marry and are given in
marriage.” They cannot endure any allusion to the
abject poverty Christ both practised and commended
•—they wish he had said : “ Seek ye first worldly
wealth and its advantages, for what shall it profit a
man to save his soul and lose his money.” Over and
over again have I asked my Protestant friends what
they suppose Christ did mean by those passages in
the Gospels the poor Papists so lamentably misappre
hend, and all 1 can get from them is, “ O you know,
he could not have meant that ”—but what they think
he did mean, I have never ascertained. My own
impression is that they are thoroughly ashamed of
Christ. If I am mistaken, if they really admire him,
then they ought to be thoroughly ashamed of them
selves, for their affected reverence for Christ’s words
is only to be equalled by their supreme contempt for
his meaning.
The fact is, that when the Protestants reformed
their Church and their God they ought to have
reformed the Bible too, instead of which they are
actually making a new translation of the old God’s
book ! Surely it would be far better for the new
God to have a new book, and then much of the
wrangling about “letter and spirit ” would of neces
sity cease ; it is too bad to take the old God’s book,
and by pretending He did not mean what He said,
�16
Convent Experiences.
make it do for the new one ! The God of the
Gospels and the God of to-day are two totally
different deities, and ought most certainly to have
two totally different books.
And now let us see how the Bible-doers get on far
away from all mundane influence in the quiet shade
of the cloister.
To no part of my life do I look back with more
pleasure and with less regret than to the time I
passed in the Convent,—it was a curious and interest
ing experience. The motives which induced me to
take such a step may be briefly summed up in these
few words—I believed that Christ said what he meant
and meant what he said. I was one of St. Paul’s
“fools for Christ’s sake.”
My second Convent was not a pretty place; it was
a big, ugly, plain, brick building, standing in a
large, unattractive piece of ground which was divided
into three gardens and a cemetery.
The interior arrangements were as inconvenient as
they were uncomfortable, but whether by accident or
design I never heard. I was told that a Nun had
planned the Convent; she may have been (and
very likely was) aiming at discomfort and incon
venience, in which case the result was most satis
factory. I may add just here, that Nuns have a great
objection to help from without; they stain, varnish,
whitewash, &c., make candles, bind books, frame
pictures, &c., themselves—often very nicely.
There was no “dim religious light ” in that Convent.
On the contrary, there was a great glare everywhere
always. The boards were scrubbed fabulously white
and strewn with fine, white, silvery sand; all the
walls were painfully white; the chapel was of very
light-coloured stone, the statues and bas-reliefs were
quite white, and there was hardly any shade in the
garden ; nevertheless the “ shade of the cloister ”
existed, but as we were never allowed to walk in the
�Convent Experiences.
17
cloisters (exercise being generally taken in the snn
just after dinner) the shade there was of no practical
utility. During my whole stay there I felt the
absence of colour very much; my eyes suffered from
the incessant glare, but I have no reason to believe
it affected anybody else. Being far from well on my
arrival, it was considered unadvisable to introduce
me to my future companions immediately, so for some
days I occupied a large private room where I made
the acquaintance of the most important person in
the Convent—the Ko vice-mi stress.
She might have been forty-five. She had a good,
wide brow, handsome eye-brows, and large, expres
sive, dreamy-looking eyes. Her manner was simple
and energetic, and she was without any exception
the most warm-hearted and tenderly-affectioned
creature I have ever known. Her physical strength
was something quite extraordinary; from half-past
four in the morning until half-past nine at night she
rarely sat down. I never heard her say she felt tired,
neither did she ever show the least symptom of
fatigue. She had a hearty appetite and an excellent
digestion, which, of course were in her favour, but
still her bodily strength was remarkable.
My intimacy with the Novice-mistress was, I am
sure, of a very exceptional character ; it contributed
materially to my happiness in the Convent, and was
one of the many causes of my leaving it.
After a while I got better, and was told I was to
make my first appearance in the Novitiate—the
name given to the general sitting-room of the
Novices and Postulants. Postulants are the new
comers, the askers for the religious habit, the
unclothed Novices. They wear the clothes they
brought with them out of “ the world,” which, if at
all smart, contrast strangely and unfavourably with
the clean, natty attire of the rest. Novices are
dressed just like Nuns, barring the veil, which in
�18
Convent Experiences.
their case is white instead of black. I said just like
Nuns, but there are other trifling differences in the
dress which would never strike the ordinary observer.
The great object of the Postulants is to receive the
religious habit, a ceremony which takes place at “a
clothing,” and is rarely delayed more than three
months. Postulants excluded from any cause from
an approaching “clothing” are generally much
disappointed; they cannot feel that they have begun
their religious life in good earnest until they see
themselves in the religious habit; moreover their
own attire has often become faded and even dirty.
Postulants are allowed plenty of liberty. They
generally arrive very much out of health. Previous
anxiety of mind ; troubles of all sorts ; the disappro
bation of their parents; the hindrances of every kind
which are designedly thrown in their path ; the terri
ble laceration of mind many of them have undergone
and continue to undergo for weeks and months, are
reasons for treating them with all the indulgence and
consideration possible. Postulants are not obliged
to observe silence ; a Novice is generally allowed to
devote herself to all the new-comers, and they may
do pretty much as they like, go out when they like,
come in when they like, and chat during the hours of
silence ; but few Postulants require all these conces
sions, they generally do their best from the first.
There is, however, one. permission of which the
majority avail themselves pretty extensively, and that
is the permission to loolc about them.
Everything and everybody seem so very queer in
the Convent, that were the “mortification of the
eyes ” insisted on from the first., I am afraid very few
would persevere. I was terribly given to staring
about; the novelty of the scene in my case never
seemed to wear off, and though quite up to the others
in many respects, I failed signally in the “ mortifica
tion of the eyes.” Eyes were to be “mortified”
�Convent Experiences.
i
because Christ had his eyes habilually fixed on the
ground; we know this to be a fact; had it been
otherwise the Evangelists would not tell us so fre
quently that “ He lifted up His eyes ”; they must
previously have been cast down in true cloistral
fashion ; it was a clear case. With my eyes for
awhile under my own control, I entered the Novitiate
with the Novice-mistress, at whose appearance the
hubbub of voices ceased and the fifty Novices rose ;
when she was seated they sat down and the noise
recommenced. They were at tea; they were having
brown bread and butter on brown wooden platters,
and were drinking either beer or tea out of brown
mugs. They were all between the ages of sixteen
and five-and-twenty. The greater number were Laysisters, and looked in rude health, as I believe they
were ; the rest were Choir-novices. It is upon these,
the young gentlewomen of the community, that the
oppressive weight of Convent life falls so heavily.
Many of them come straight from the ease, indolence,
and warmth of a luxurious home to the draughty,
carpetless, comfortless Convent, where their powers of
endurance, both mental and physical, are sadly over
taxed, and where the diet, though well adapted to
repair the muscular system, is but ill calculated to
restore the nervous tissue upon which such terrible
demands are made by the mode of life. Moreover,
too many hours are suffered to pass between the
meals, and the result is that the Choir-novices soon
begin to droop ; but I am anticipating. They all
looked very well and very happy, and were making
a great noise when I first saw them. The noise
amazed and scandalised me. I thought, as I believe
most people do, that Nuns rarely open their lips, and
that a Convent is as silent as the grave ; but I soon
found out that even in a Convent there was “ a time
to speak,” and the introduction of a Postulant into
the Novitiate is always the signal for “ speaking.’>
�20
Convent Experiences.
Convents are unavoidably noisy places, for, as tliere
are neither carpets nor curtains to deaden the sound,
nobody can move about silently, especially in Convent
shoes, which are clumsy and unyielding. Absolute
silence is rarely realised in active Orders, for even
when conversation is prohibited vocal prayer is con
stantly going on, and the wearisome repetition of
countless “ Hail Marys ” during the recital of several
Rosaries running, is knagging beyond belief. The
“ silence ” bell was a mockery. Tea—I should rather
say supper, for it was the last meal—being over, the
Novice-mistress rapped on the table; all stood up,
and the 51st Psalm, some prayers, and a hymn to
Mary were said in Latin—the latter with startling
rapidity. We then went into the garden, where
the younger Novices ran about, played at Puss-intbe-Corner, &c., or collected the innumerable snails
and caterpillars which swarmed over the cabbages.
The other Novices, including recently-professed Nuns
who were still in the Novitiate, walked up and
down with the Novice-mistress, whose duty it is
always to be present during recreation. The even
ing recreation was a sensible and a shady one. It
lasted about three-quarters of an hour, and then
the bell rang for night prayers, which lasted halfan-hour; and at half-past nine we were generally
in our cells. Cells—who in “ the world ” knows
what a Nun’s cell really is ? I thought they were on
or under the ground-floor, cold, damp, and dismal,
and furnished with a crucifix, a skull, and a prie-dieu.
Such a cell as that would have delighted me, for
those who enter a Convent from conscientious motives
are prepared for any amount of discomfort; they go
there on purpose to find it. Christ had no toilet
table, no toilet-vinegar, and no toilet-soap ; and his
followers know they must “ take no thought for the
body,” if they would be worthy members of a head
crowned with thorns.
�21
Convent Experiences.
I am so soyry I cannot tell the reader where my
cell was; it was either in. Nazareth or in Bethlehem,
but I do not know which. I was always a very bad
hand at finding my way about, and that Convent was,
as I said before, of intricate construction and I never
learnt my way about it. Each room and each staircase
had a curious name ; there was the Sacred Heart, the
Eive Wounds, Nazareth, Bethlehem, the Holy Angels,
the Holy Innocents, Mount Zion, Saint Agnes, Saint
Ursula, &c. Other Novices could take messages to
the Sacred Heart and be back directly; but I was
soon found to be an unprofitable servant and was
rarely required to run errands. On the first floor
was a large room without a fire-place, divided by un
painted wooden partitions into perhaps thirty tiny
compartments all open at the top, called “ cells ” and
one of them was mine, or rather ow as they always
say in Convents!
I confess I was much disappointed with it—it was
neither damp nor dismal—it was excessively dry and
painfully light. Disposed as I was to see the
religious element everywhere and to take a devotional
view of everything, I could not help thinking how
very much like a bathing-machine my cell was—had
it been quite straight the resemblance would have
been still more striking. The bed was fixed into the
side like a berth on board ship, a small cupboard was
opposite the door, on which stood a small jug and
basin, pegs were in the partition just like those in a
bathing-machine, and a bathing-machine lookingglass was fastened to the wall. There was one chair
for which there was hardly room, and a wee bit of
carpet in front of the bed. Whenever I go to the
sea-side and take a dip in the ocean, I am always
vividly reminded of my old Convent cell. I was
favoured some time ago with a private view of Hollo
way Gaol, and have no hesitation in saying that the
prisoners’ cells in that interesting building are incomC
�22
Convent Experiences.
parably more comfortable, more roomy, more private,
and more genteel than those occupied by ladies and
gentlemen in Convent-s and Monasteries; moreover,
■prison cells are well warmed and well ventilated, but
■our cells were cold and shamefully ill-ventilated.
Considering the defective ventilation and general
neglect of sanitary laws, it is astonishing that the
health of the community was not much worse. Some
of the dormitories in my Convent were just as badlyveniilated and over-crowded as were many of the
Metropolitan Workhouse Wards a few years ago.
Ignorance of, and contempt for, the body, combined
with an excessive reverence for the precepts of their
God are the causes which in Convents produce such
lamentable results; but as members of the Reformed
Church are neither ignorant nor fanatical, to what
influences are we to impute their shortcomings ?
In every cell there was a crucifix and in most a
crown of thorns—however, in mine there was only a
crucifix. The recollection of that crucifix brings to
my mind a silly taunt often flung at Catholics by
those who ought to know better. On Sunday, after
a late breakfast,—for the God of the day is not
exacting,—Protestants frequently pay Popery the
compliment of going to High Mass at the Pro-Cathe
dral or St. George’s. They hear fine music, they see
prettv flowers, they smell sweet incense, and they go
home saying, “What a sensuous worship it is,” but
it never occurs to them that out of a hundred
Catholics not more than five ever hear High Mass at
all. The High Mass is for the select few, but the
Low Mass is for the multitude. Long before the
Protestant has left his bed, hundreds and thousands
of Catholics have been to a Mass where there is no
music, no incense, and no sermon ; where there are
no flowers, no candles, and no attractions. At seven
and eight o’clock the Protestant may see at the
Italian Church, Hatton Garden, what he will certainly
�Convent Experiences.
23
never see in his own place of worship—the poor at
their devotions—unaided by anything to gratify their
senses, and frequently too far from the altar to catch
the low voice of the solitary priest or to see the two
candles which announce that a Mass is going on.
We never once had High Mass at the Convent,
neither could any of us see the altar from our position
in the choir. But I must return to that crucifix. It
consisted of a cross stained black (paint was for
bidden), on which was pasted a gaudy paper figure
of Christ. It did not elevate my soul to God, it did
not recall His crucified Son to my mind,—it was a
grotesquely ludicrous object, and it always reminded
me of Punch. Once, in an indignant mood, I turned
it with its face to the wall, but the Novice-mistress
turned it back again, telling me that if I could not
put up with an ugly crucifix I was no true child of
the Cross ; but the good soul tried to find me a less
objectionable one,—in vain, they were all alike;
indeed, everything that met the eye was as tasteless
as it could be, for Jesus had been satisfied with the
mere necessaries of life, and the disciple ought not
to be “ above his Master.”
The extinguishing of the lamp, accompanied by
the exclamation, “May Jesus Christ be praised,”
announced that everybody was in bed. At half-past
four a great bell rang, and somebody thumped loudly
at each cell door, saying “ Arise thou that sleepest,
and Christ shall give thee light.” At five, we were
all in the Chapel for morning prayers, followed by
Prime, Tierce, Sext and None of the Divine Office,
commonly called Little Hours. Most of the active
Orders use the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin,
which is usually printed with the English translation,
but we said the long office from the Boman Breviary
—the same which all the priests say all over the
world, and of which not one word was translated.
Reciting it in a slow monotone, took over two hours
�24
Convent Experiences.
daily, and I think I may venture to assert that the
two hours so spent were felt by the majority as a
very heavy penance; but as I shall have to return to
this subject we will leave it now.
The Angelus bell rang at the end of Kone, and
we all returned to our cells to make our beds, &c. ;
but the et cetera was no joke, especially to those Nuns
who slept in the Five Wounds, for they had to carry
the water in which they had washed, as well as their
empty jug (which rarely had a handle or a spout) down
three flights of steep stairs and across a very uneven
yard to the pump where they had to wait their turn
among the others. Sometimes the bell rang for
“ Meditation” before the poor girls got back to the
Five Wounds with the fresh water. However, most
of the Novices slept nearer the pump, and had time
for a few minutes Spiritual Reading before we were
all summoned into the Chapel again. I should like
a medical man to have seen us “ meditating.” It was
then half-past six, and we all (having been standing
since half-past four), knelt until a quarter to eight.
The mental prayer or meditation lasted till seven,
and then came Mass and Holy Communion. Then
we breakfasted upon brown bread, butter, and coffee
without sugar. There was never the remotest dif
ference in the routine of the Convent during the early
morning hours, and before proceeding further, it is
necessary to examine that routine very closely. We
had supped soon after seven upon brown bread and
butter, and the very weakest tea without sugar, and
we had passed the evening on our feet and on our
knees. At half-past four we were on our legs again
—from five to six we were kneeling or standing in
the Chapel (there is not much sitting during Office),
then came the pilgrimage to the pump, followed by
an hour and a quarter’s kneeling, bolt upright on a
hard deal stool, the hands closely joined (not clasped
which is less irksome), not a sound could be heard
�Convent Experiences.
25
from the old priest at the altar, and not a thing could
he seen, save the back of a Novice in front of you,
for we were arranged in rows one behind the other. The
quality of the bread and butter served at supper was
excellent, and the quantity unlimited, but many of
the Choir-novices could eat but very little of such
simple food. Insufficient air, sleep, and exercise, com
bined with almost uninterrupted brain-work, do not
tend to promote appetite; the nervous system was
habitually over-wrought; the Choir-novices were in a
constant state of tension, and the diet, even had they
been able to enjoy it, was ill-adapted to repair the
waste going on in the delicate machine upon which
such terrible demands were made. The Choir-novices
are the chief victims of the conventual system, for
the Lay-sisters, from whom mere muscular labour is
required, have ordinarily excellent appetites, and the
diet seems to suit them, moreover to them the transi
tion from the world to the cloister is frequently a
change for the better.
The Choir-novices sometimes fainted on their return
to their cells after Little Hours—one with whom I had
many conversations frequently fainted before breakfast
—she languished for want of sleep. There was plenty
of time to sleep provided you fell asleep at a quarter
to ten, as the Lay-sisters were sure to do after working
in the garden all day, but an over-taxed brain refuses
to sleep at the word of command, and many of the
Choir-novices could not compose themselves till after
midnight. It was seldom known that anybody had
fainted, for, from motives of piety, the Novices suf
fered in silence like their Master; moreover, they
were afraid of being sent back into the world as
too delicate for the cloister, so that not until they
broke down altogether was their enfeebled state
of health adequately realised. I was now among the
Bible doers, who literally took “ no thought for the
body,” and who fasted with a happy heart and a
�•2 6
Convent Experiences.
cheerful countenance, “ as to the Lord and not to
men.” Any Novice taken ill in the chapel was after
wards permitted to sit during meditation. Just in
front of me knelt an unusually tall girl, who had per
mission to sit, tand one day I asked her how it was
that she never availed herself of that permission.
She replied, “because I should fall asleep immedi
ately.” The Novice-mistress had something to lean
against, and often went to sleep; had we had some
thing to lean against ire should often have gone to
sleep ! That tail-girl (I forget nearly all their names)
drooped very soon after her arrival for want of more
animal food ; her lips and the inside of her eyelids
became quite white. Had she earlier made her re
quirements known she would have had some meat for
breakfast, but, like them all, she dreaded being sent
away as too feeble to observe the rule, so kept gradu
ally losing her strength until her languishing appear
ance excited attention. She had been educated in
the Convent-school, and, like many of the pupils, she
returned to live and to die among the companions of
her childhood. I am quite certain that all the girls
in that large Novitiate were voluntary victims, that
not the slightest attempt was made to induce them to
remain, and that they dreaded nothing so much as
the possibility of rejection. One pretty, lively Novice
was expelled during my stay for disobedience, and on
the morning’ fixed for her departure, she positively
refused to leave her bed, and had to be dressed and
ejected by main force.
And now let us go to breakfast. Some of us were
quite tired by breakfast-time, and there was but little
rest to be had during meals, for we sat upon forms or
stools, which afforded no support to the poor back.
We had brown bread and butter on brown wooden
platters, and about a pint of very fair coffee, nice and
hot, but without sugar. We were allowed to talk
during1 breakfast, and not one of the meals was hurried
�Convent Experiences.
27
over. The quantity of coffee was, I believe, unlimited ;
as often as a mug was pushed into the middle of the
table somebody got up and put coffee into it.
Then came the washing-up, a duty which generally
devolved upon the new-comers. Two large tubs of
very hot water were brought in by a Lay-sister, the
mugs were washed by one Postulant, rinsed by another,
and wiped by a third. We were cautioned never to
catch hold of anything by its handle. Handles were
looked upon solely as excrescences intended for orna
ment, and were therefore to be avoided, especially
during the washing-up. The water-jug in my cell
was the only dne I ever saw which had a bardie
and a spout; they had all fallen victims to circum
stances at the pump before my arrival, but the dinner
mugs, being entrusted to the Choir-postulants, were
most of them intact. Even now I rarely meddle with
handles, to the extreme amusement of my acquaint
ances. After the washing-up came the dread “ mark
ing ” of the Breviary, ready for Matins, and Lauds,
which were said daily at six o’clock in the evening.
Common sense and human nature are frequently
outraged in Convents ; but, unfortunately for those
who are so clamorous for their demolition, it can be
shown that most Convent-practices, so far from being
in opposition to the “Word,” are in strict accord
ance with it.
Supernatural motives and uncommon actions dis
tinguish alike the Prophet of Mount Carmel, the
Baptist in the Desert, and the Bernard in the Cloister.
Eervent old David praised God “ seven times aday,” and seven times a-day does the Church call
upon her children to do the same—so far so good.
But David knew the meaning of every word he said,
whereas a very small proportion of those whose mis
fortune it is to “ say Office ”—under pain, mind, of
11 mortal sin ”—understand one word of it.
To the majority of the over-worked secular priests
.•
*
�28
Convent Experiences.
of London the obligatory “ Divine Office ” is a very
serious infliction. Some of them have told me so;
one, indeed, with amazing frankness, said that the
Church had done wisely to make prayer compulsory,
for otherwise he for one should never pray at. all!
However, priests may say Office just when they like
—all at once or piece-meal—out loud or in a whisper
—fast or slow according to—I was going to say
devotion—but I had better say time. An hour suffices
for most priests to say the ordinary Office of the day
with sufficient distinctness to satisfy their consci
ences, and as they occasionally understand some of
it, things might be worse. In the Convent matters
are worse, considerably worse—for there it is very
unusual for anybody to understand any of it. I was
quite an exception, for having formerly given some
attention to Italian and having long been familiar
with the Psalms and Hew Testament in Latin, I
could soon find my way about the Breviary far better
than I ever could about the building, but I was the
only Hovice who understood anything more than the
Doxology. Every morning a Nun came to teach the
Novices to “ mark the book,” and at the end of twelve
months many of them were still unable to find their
places, and even the old Nuns themselves were often
at fault when the “ Commemorations ” were numerous.
I believe that “ Office ” was cordially hated by most
of the community, and that among the many uncon
genial occupations of the day not one was so tho
roughly distasteful to the majority as that unintelli
gible and most fatiguing Office. It was said—that
is the longest part of it—at six o’clock in a loud,
distinct monotone, and it occupied nearly an hour.
Many of the poor girls had been using their lungs
the whole afternoon in the various Schools of the
Order, and were quite tired out. I myself have fre
quently had to stop from sheer exhaustion long before
it was over; it was a most oppressive and irrational
�Convent Experiences.
29
affair. Once I asked the Ko vice-mistress if she really
thought God could possibly be pleased with such an.
offering. Her answer conveyed volumes. She re
plied, “ Never allude to the subject, for I cannot
bear to dwell upon it; I always offer up my intention
before it begins, and that is all I can do.” She, and
many of them, could say large portions by heart,
but nobody could translate a line. I thought it very
sad. On Sunday the Office for the Dead was said in
addition, so that the poor lungs got but little rest
even on the Day of Rest.
I have said before that Postulants had plenty of
liberty, so after the marking of the Breviary, I could
do much as I liked until twelve, when I had to
prepare the table for dinner. Being generally very
tired after so much standing, I was glad to have a
long rest in the garden, where I was frequently joined
by the Novice-mistress, with whom I had many very
interesting conversations, but it was only very
gradually that I began to see how fatal even to the
interests of the poor soul are the results of taking
“ no thought for the body.” Bible-readers are indis
putably “ wiser in their generation ” than Bible
doers, and if they could only persuade fervent Chris
tians that the hearers of the word are more acceptable
to God than the doers of it, the Monasteries would
soon be vacated ; but at present the poor fools really
think that they must suffer with their Master here if
they would reign with him hereafter.
Prom the Novice-mistress, I ascertained that many
Novices had been obliged to give up their vocation
and return- into the world in consequence of “ bad
knees.” Constant kneeling upon those hard stools
with no support whatever, seriously and permanently
injured the knee; water formed beneath the skin ;
the joint stiffened ; became enlarged and painful, and
the poor Novice was sent home. A very pretty girl
in the cell next to mine had a bad knee while I was
�30
Convent Experiences.
there—it swelled considerably—the other one became
painful, and for some weeks she could not put her
feet to the ground : however, she got better. Other
diseases (peculiar to women) were common in the
community ; they were indisputably induced by pro
tracted kneeling ; but as the sufferers never men
tioned their various ailments for fear of being sent
away, they were rarely discovered until after the
Vows had been taken.
“Let him that readeth understand,” that there
are voluntary sufferers outside Convent walls who
cast their gifts before a much more numerously fre
quented altar, and who adore a deity who is only to
be propitiated by wasps’ waists, exposed chests, dis
torted feet, and enamelled skin. When I was at school
some years ago, a girl of seventeen suddenly fell back
wards during tea-time, and was carried away in a fit;
the doctor attributed it solely to the camphor she was
in the habit of chewing to make her eyes bright. A
few months ago I visited regularly, first in the hospital,
and afterwards in the workhouse, a poor woman,
who died a very lingering death, owing to a diseased
bone in her instep. She told me she attributed
her then condition to the tight boots she had had
the folly to “ indulge ” in formerly. Magnanimous
victims 1 they suffer without any prospect of recom
pense, whereas, the fools of the cloister are silly
enough to believe that their Father who sees “ in
secret ” will hereafter “ reward them openly
they
actually think Christ said what he meant, and meant
what he said, and they count it all joy to share his
bitter chalice. Continual cheerfulness reigned in the
Novitiate ; I saw only two Novices who seemed dis
contented, they both left; one with whom I am
intimately acquainted begged hard to be re-admitted,
but without success; it was the monotony that
wearied her. Several (I think five), died during my
stay. I am sure they died “ in sure and certain hope
�Convent Experiences.
31
of a happy resurrection but one and all had a terri
ble conviction of an intervening Purgatory of a
frightful character; certainly a “ strange god ” was
worshipped there. One young consumptive Postulant
sickened immediately after her arrival; she begged
to be “ professed ” on her death-bed, her request was
granted, and she died in the religious habit. I may
take this opportunity of saying that Nuns do not
look so dead as other corpses, this is mainly owing to
their being buried in the same dress they wore in
life; those I saw did not look dead at all. I believe
low fever was one of the commonest causes of death.
Pour young Novices carried the coffins to the cemetery,
and the graves were very shallow ; had they been
deeper, the coffins would have floated. These deaths
all occurred in the “ Mother House ” of the community,
in Holland. Sickly members are generally sent
back from “ Missions ” to die in the Mother House.
The mortality was, I believe, high in the Order, so
the Nuns thought, but I am no judge. I confine
myself to what I know to be facts ; the Choir-novices
soon declined in health, and I saw very few elderly
Nuns.
At twelve the bell rang for vespers, and at half
past twelve we dined. There was always beef for
dinner, preceded by soup, accompanied by vegetables
or stewed fruit, and sometimes followed by a pudding.
The beef was generally stewed; if cold, there was
always abundance of nice, good, hot gravy for the
potatoes, but we seldom had cold meat. Strange to
say, this sameness of animal food never affected me
unpleasantly, neither did I ever hear anyone complain
of it or appear weary of it. We each had a clumsy looking soup plate, in which we received everything
we ate. We had large wooden spoons, which were
never washed—we licked them, wrapped the bowl in
paper, and rolled them up in our dinner-napkins with
our forks. Sand was handed round after dinner in a
�32
Convent Experiences.
saucer, we dipped our forks in it and rubbed them
bright with a piece of paper. A religious book was
always read aloud at table, and the mortification of
the eyes was especially enjoined during meals; once
I availed myself of it to transfer all my meat from
my plate to my pocket; it was tainted, and as it was
forbidden to leave anything (though a pig was kept),
I had no alternative. Lest any No-Popery champion
should thence conclude that the meat was invariably
unfit for food, I must add that it was generally good
and sufficiently well prepared, though always over
cooked, to be moderately inviting ; he will, however,
be pleased to hear that the beer was always detestable.
The reading during dinner was a gross absurdity.
Eating was a merely animal process, and consequently
disgraceful, so we were enjoined to nourish our souls
the while with holy reflections ; but as it was just
possible that our thoughts during feeding time might
take a carnal turn, a spiritual book was read aloud.
I was older than the rest, and upon a very different
footing with the Novice-mistress, so some months
later, when we had become very intimate I ventured
to insinuate that very few of the Novices were
attending to the reading, and that I sincerely hoped,
upon gastronomical grounds, that nobody was listening.
She seemed amazed at the surmise, for though she
admitted that her head was far too full of other
things, hers being a post of very great responsibility
and the Novices numerous, to allow of her attention
being fixed upon the reading, it had never occurred
to her that the thoughts of others might be wander
ing too. I asked her to put the matter to the test,
so one day she called out during dinner, “ Sister
Eudoxia, what is the reading about?” The poor
Novice rose, blushed, and muttered that she didn’t
know. Several more were appealed to with the same
results, and my triumph was complete. Of course,
the Novice-mistress, as in duty bound, reproved us
�Convent Experiences.
33
collectively for our supineness concerning our salva
tion, and reminded us that “ the kingdom of God is
not meat and drink.”
Immediately after dinner we had to say the 51st
Psalm out loud, marching the while from the refec
tory to the chapel, where some prayers were said
kneeling; then, after five “ Our Fathers ” and five
“Hail Marys,”repeated with extended arms, we pro
ceeded to the garden for the first Recreation ; but
several of the poor Choir-novices being by that time
quite tired out, were obliged to confess their need of
repose, and used to pass the Recreation time lying on
their straw beds in their cells. I have said there was but
little shade in the garden, and walking up and down
in the sun just after dinner was not invigorating—
we had no sun-shades, and my skin has never
recovered its previous hue. The interval between
breakfast and dinner had been spent by the Choir
novices in either teaching or studying, and at two
o’clock a bell called them all from the garden or the
dormitory to the same occupations, which lasted until
four. The Novitiate was ill-ventilated, it had. no
fireplace; the seats had no backs. In summer the
Novices might study in the garden, but as they could
not write comfortably in the open air they were gene
rally in the Novitiate. The carriage of most of
the Nuns was very bad—they stooped sadly, owing,
doubtless, to the demands made upon their spines
and chests. At four another bell rang—it was the
favourite bell “according to the flesh,” for it
announced a mug of coffee, a piece of bread-andbutter, permission to talk, and a brief respite from
lessons. The coffee was indescribably grateful—
never were the refreshing effects of that dear little
berry more apparent than in that Teaching Order,
where the nervous system was always on the stretch.
Close to me sat a clever Novice of twenty-two.
She was preparing for an examination and was
�34
Convent Experiences.
learning two foreign languages; I was her English
mistress, and a better pupil I never had. Novices
always do their best “ as to the Lord and not to
men.” I think she sometimes drank a quart of
coffee at four o’clock. She told me she never could
say a single prayer without distractions ; she thought
of her studies right through meditation, mass, office,
<&c., and was wholly absorbed by them. She had a
marvellous memory, but, like them all, she was
cruelly over-worked and became subject to attacks
of hysteria. Ignorance of, and contempt for, .the
poor body produced these melancholy results. Let
it not be supposed that the Superiors of Monastic
Orders are in clover while th e underlings are doing
bitter penance. I have never known and never
heard of the Superior of any Convent who had not
wretched health ; they are generally subject to violent
headache, neuralgia, and indigestion. Once I saw a
bit of rag peeping out from behind the Novice
mistress’s ear. I asked what it was. After a little
hesitation she said she had very sore ears, and that
something was the matter with her head. A little
coaxing induced her to let me see it. She took me
into her cell—it was close to mine and just like it—
she took off her stiffly-starched white cap and tight
skull-cap which were under the heavy black veil of
the Order. A Nun looks very strange without her
head-gear. I should not have known my Novice
mistress, she looked more like Jack Sheppard ! Her
poor head was all over scabs—white scabs—and
underneath these scabs a watery discharge was
slowly oosing. There was no skin behind her ears,
which were very red and quite wet. She used the
bits of rag to prevent the two surfaces from coming
into contact, for the skull-cap just caught in the tops
of the ears and bound them tightly to the head. She
had formerly had abundant auburn hair, and soon
after it was cut off this disease made its appearance.
�Convent Experiences.
35
She told me that others had similar heads.- I was
horror-struck. I moistened the scabs with warm
water and tenderly detached them all; then I saw
the thin discharge going on beneath. I often
washed her head, but all the scabs returned. Of
course the disease had become chronic. Air could
not possibly penetrate through the three thick cover
ings worn on the head, one of which was so stiff
that it was like card-board—it took a quarter of an
hour to rub the starch into it. Why they ran
counter to Bible teaching in regard to cutting off the
hair I never knew. It did not seem to answer.
Some of the Nuns had setons; the Infirmarian told
me so. She said they could not do without them,
but I do not know why they were required. I
never heard of them in this country, save, indeed,
as a thing of the past, but there they were in full
force.
At a quarter-past four we were all in the Chapel
for the Visit to the Blessed Sacrament; and as it was
the only time when we were at liberty to choose our
own devotions and say what we liked to God, that
brief visit was much appreciated. Moreover, it came
just after the coffee, and as it only lasted ten minutes
our poor knees had not time to become insupportably
painful. I only cared for mental prayer, and though
I had not the same reason for objecting to “ Office ”
as the others, I very early began to discover that the
immense amount of vocal prayer of all sorts appointed
by the Rule was calculated to put all real devotion to
flight, and that prayer was likely to become a merely
mechanical affair. My old Confessor had begged of
me to be in no hurry either to censure or to commend
what I saw in the Convent, but to wait quietly and
study the effect the whole thing made upon me before
I came to a conclusion. I followed his advice.
After the Visit most of the poor Novices resumed
their studies, and some of them took a sly glance at
�36
Convent Experiences.
their Breviary to see if they had forgotten where to
find and how to read the Antiphons, which at six
o’clock would have to be distinctly repeated in the
Chapel. I have known a Novice lose her appetite for
a week at the very thought of having to say the An
tiphons in the Choir, and then when the dread mo
ment arrived I have seen her burst into tears and
leave the Chapel sobbing. The nerves of a fervent
Novice who is striving with all her might to enter in
at the narrow gate, are necessarily morbidly sensitive,
and the mode of life is enough to undermine the
strongest constitution.
I do not recall one Novice who did not droop visibly
during my stay. They faded cheerfully, suffered
heroically, and “ died daily ” to all the comforts and
luxuries of life with a constancy and a devotion past
all praise; but willing as was the “ spirit ” the poor
neglected “flesh” was weak. The very thought of
those poor girls saddens me still. The tendencies,
the inevitable tendencies, of Convent virtues depressed
me, and the conviction that they were not one whit
exceeding the spirit of the New Testament, which I
was just then continually reading, drew my thoughts
into a very unexpected channel.
Roman Catholics face boldly all the New Testament
difficulties, and most generously do they try to meet
them. Protestants, on the contrary, shirk them;
they wish Christ had never said “ Whosoever forsaketh not all that he hath and hateth not all his
relations, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my
disciple.” Protestants would rather be imperfect
and stick to their money than be perfect on Christ’s
terms ; so would most Catholics. I am not extolling
Catholics over Protestants ; all I contend for is that
good Protestants repudiate those principles which are
pre-eminently Gospel principles, and that good Roman
ists cordially embrace them and carry them out to
perfection.
�37
Convent Experiences.
Convents and Monasteries are not to blame ; if the
spirit that animates them be to blame, then let its
whereabouts be discovered and let it be stifled forth
with ere more victims wither beneath its influence.
Long before I contemplated a Convent life I was
familiar with bodily penances. None were allowed
in the cloister. Some of the Novices arrived with a
tight iron chain twisted round them ; it was at once
taken away and never returned.
The reader has now been informed how most days
passed in the Convent; from half-past four in the
morning until half-past nine at night there was no
change in the daily routine, but on Saturdays there
was a different programme. Before looking at it I
will state that after three months I was clothed, and
was a very happy, healthy Novice. I have said before
that many of the Novices concealed their ailments,
and were frequently very much to blame for their
reticence. I spoke out boldly to the Novice
mistress upon matters physical, and had the satis
faction of hearing her inform all her children
collectively that they were to sit in the Chapel when
kneeling affected them unpleasantly. We always
addressed her on our knees, an invariable custom in
all Convents, for the Superior represents God. This
startles Protestants, but it has no peculiar effect
upon Catholics, who from childhood upwards are
accustomed to listen to their Confessor week after
week as if he were God. Nothing could exceed the
good understanding there was between the Novice
mistress and her Novices, they all loved her; kneeling
did not diminish the affectionate familiarity of our
intimacy with her.
On Saturdays many strange things came to light.
We wore knitted black worsted stockings, and on
Saturdays we washed them, but no soap was allowed
—soap was said to spoil them. On Saturdays we
cleaned out our cells in the strangest way. Wet
D
�38
Convent Experiences.
sand was flung under the bed and we swept it out
with a common birch-broom. Fleas were looked for
on Saturdays. The Convent was beautifully clean
but there were fleas in the straw beds, and, as no
sheets were used, it was easy to find the fleas in the
twilled flannel coverings which did duty for sheets.
Once I caught seventeen fleas in “ our ” cell! The
straw beds were not uncomfortable, but they were
dangerous; the straw wasted, the beds became thin,
and many of the Nuns suffered from rheumatism,
which they assured me was caused by the want of
warmth underneath them ; the beds should have
been refilled more frequently.
On Saturdays we went to Confession. I am quite
familiar with the edifying and suggestive revelations
current in No-Popery publications. Of course “ they
speak that they do Ivnow and testify that they have
seen." I am going to do likewise. The priests 1
know consider it a misfortune to have anything to do
with Convents; they esteem no infliction comparable
to the bore of hearing Nuns’ confessions; they would
far rather hear a regiment of soldiers, who have a
catalogue of mortal sins to get rid of, than listen to
the monotonous rigmarole of a scrupulous Nun in
whose whole lifetime it would be difficult to find halfa-dozen voluntary deviations from the path of rectitude.
I know that if I were a priest I should avoid Convents.
Moreover a Convent priest always plays second fiddle
to the Superior and ranks after her in the estimation
of the Novices. Our old priest rarely said a word to
us. We were forbidden to ask him any advice, for
then his influence might have clashed with that of
the Novice-mistress. We were urged to get over our
Confession as quickly as possible in order not to keep
the rest waiting, and I am quite sure that very few
of us exceeded five minutes. I have been to confes
sion many hundreds of times “in the world,” andean
say with all sincerity that it is very rare to be ques
�I
Convent Experiences.
39
tioned at all in the Confessional. You are expected
to make haste and be off, as the secular priest has no
time to spare, and his poor, ignorant, half-prepared
penitents have the greatest claim upon him. I know
but one Catholic priest who likes hearing Confes
sions ; most of them hate it.
While I was a Postulant I had a large piece of
soap, but when I was clothed it was taken away, and
I was instructed to kneel down and ask for a piece of
community soap. I did so, saying “ May I for the
love of God have a piece of soap ; ” the usual form of
petition. A very hard bit of white soap, not quite
an inch square, was put into my extended hand, and
I was told that it was against Holy Poverty to use
the corner of my towel (certainly with such a bit of
granite as that piece of soap, it would have been !)
but that I might have a bit of an old stocking. I
made my acknowledgments in the accepted form,
“ Deo gratias,” and retired with the soap. The
next day was Saturday, and while sitting in the No
vitiate wondering where all the others were, a Novice
came and told me to go and wash my arms. Quite
amazed, I asked why ? “ Because,” replied Sister
Adelphine, “ the Novice-mistress says so ; ” she added
“ we always wash our arms on Saturday afternoons.”
This I thought a most troublesome and inconvenient
arrangement; but it never occurred to me till later
that arms were washed on Saturday afternoons only !
Legs were never washed at all!
Whatever struck me as strange I always discussed
with the Novice-mistress, not on my knees, but “ face
to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.” From
her I learnt that nobody was allowed to wash until
she had put her stays on and had covered her neck
with a large handkerchief. Soap was to be used for
the face on Saturdays only. Arms were to be washed
on Saturdays only. Feet were never to be washed
with soap, and the water was only to rise to the ankle.
�40
Convent Experiences.
She had been eighteen years in the Convent, and her
ablutions had never extended further. Coarse flannel
chemises were worn next the skin; they were never
tak&n off at night, and were changed only once in
three weeks. Recently-clothed Novices, like myself,
were allowed to retain their own under-linen for some
weeks, or even longer. Woollen chemises were only
given to those who seemed likely to remain.
I was thunder-struck when I fully comprehended
the washing arrangements, and the Novice-mistress
was equally thunder-struck when she fully realised
what my notions of ablution involved. Only one
Postulant had ever presented herself to that large
community whose ideas upon soap and water at all
resembled mine. She left just before my arrival;
and, by a very curious coincidence, I have made her
acquaintance and we are very intimate. She is a
very intelligent Frenchwoman ; and when she found
that she could not have her accustomed cold bath,
she gave utterance to her sentiments with great free
dom, and left before she was elevated to the rank of
Novice. I proceeded more cautiously, and reserved
my remarks for the ever-willing ear of my friend the
Novice-mistress. I found that this woful neglect of
personal cleanliness was mainly due to profound
ignorance of the requirements of the body ; but as I
and the French lady were the only two among the
hundreds that, in the course of eighteen years, had
come under her notice who had expressed the smallest
astonishment at the washing arrangements, she was
quite justified in considering us peculiarly fanciful in
our notions. I could not persuade her that health
was at all contingent upon the condition of the skin.
When we discussed insufficient air, food, sleep,
clothing, and exercise, she readily embraced my
views, because the low tone of health among the Choir
novices was clearly attributable to those causes ; but,
unfortunately for my argument, no ill effects met the
�Convent Experiences.
41
eye which could be as clearly traced to insufficient
ablution. There were seventy young ladies m the
celebrated school attached to the Convent; they were
from the best families in the country. I was early
appointed “ Surveillante ” in the largest dormitory,
and was there while the children dressed and un
dressed. They used as much soap as they liked, but
they washed no more than we did—their feet were
washed less frequently, for while we might wash ours
every week they were allowed to wash theirs (and
no higher than the ankle) only once a fortnight.
Surely had they been accustomed to ample ablutions
at home, their parents would never have tolerated
such disgraceful neglect at school. I never heard one
of the children make any remark upon the subject,
and they all were in excellent health—so were the
numerous Lay-sisters, and yet not one drop of water
ever penetrated below the collar-bone or above the
ankle. They were all extremely dirty. With but
few exceptions all Monks, Nuns, and the children in
Convent schools are equally dirty—unblushingly
dirty.
...
The “ religious ” of the Order of Saint Dominic
are obliged by their rule to be clean in their persons
__but they are exceptions. I have known ladies
from other Orders who have either been Novices or
pupils, and they all agree with me that bodily filth is
part and parcel of the system pursued in Convents.
My remarks made no impression whatever upon the
Novice-mistress ; she thought me eccentric, and being
very much attached to me humoured me a little now
and then in regard to my skin. I have seen her ex
pressive eyes fill with tears at the thought of the in
adequate sleep, food, &c., which caused so many of
her Novices to languish; but to the advantages of
soap and water she was hopelessly insensible. The
Catholic Church teaches her children to hate, despise,
and mortify their flesh; the spiritual books tell them
�4-2
Convent Experiences.
to be ashamed and afraid of their bodies. Luckily
most of them give the Church the go-by, but in the
Convent they are conscientious and they act out their
convictions. Still I am bound to say that in my
opinion ignorance rather than fanaticism is at the
bottom of Convent filth.
The discovery of a bundle of babies’ bones would
indisputably have both startled and shocked me, but
my impression is that I should have rallied from its
effects far more rapidly than I did from the discovery
of the daily, monthly, yearly filth of the “ Spouses
of Jesus.” There was an incongruity about it I
never could get over ; and how it happens that my
views on the matter were so very unprecedented mys
tifies me still.
It was on a Saturday that I was told I was to leave
Holland, for that an English teacher was sadly
wanted in one of their Mission-Houses in London,
and that in a day or two I should return to my own
country with my new Superior. They avoided as
much as possible sending Novices from the MotherHouse, because, as the vows could not be taken else
where, their travelling expenses had to be paid back
again for the Profession. However, as nobody else
would have been equally available just then, I was
selected to go to London with the former Novice
mistress, whose new title was Sister Superior. I told
my dear, old friend that we should in all probability
never meet again. I had already almost made up my
mind to leave the Order, and she knew it. The very
many confidential conversations I had had with her
during nearly a year and a-half, combined with my
own observations, had convinced me that to make
the religious vows perpetual is both silly and cruel.
I am quite sure that many of the Nuns regretted
having made their vows, and I am equally sure that
no power on earth would induce them to break them.
I am certain that nothing is hidden from the Novices ;
�Convent Experiences.
43
they are frequently in regular harness for two years
before they take their vows, and know perfectly well
to what mode of life they are binding themselves ;
but it is a sad mistake to make the vows perpetual.
After a few years, when the first fervour has worn off,
when the health is seriously impaired, and when there
is nothing to look forward to but monotony, some of
them begin to doubt whether, after all, they have
done wisely. One of the Nuns told me she had never
ceased regretting the step she had taken, and she was
indisputably miserable.
Courtship precedes matrimony and the Novitiate
precedes the vows—both frequently turn out failures
—the bride and the Novice may make a mistake—one. becomes a wretched Nun, the other a miserable
wife, and yet neither is to blame. The Novice, how
ever, has ample time to make up her mind; she is
animated by the best motives; she feels happy, but
still she is honestly shown both sides of the question ;
she has less excuse than the bride, who sees but one
side; but she, the Novice, deliberately puts her head
into the noose and very rarely withdraws it. The
Visitation of Religious Houses by Protestant authori
ties twould be wholly useless. Nuns can get out of
durance without their aid if so disposed—but they
very rarely are so disposed, however miserable they
may be. Nuns can be released from the two vows of
Poverty and Obedience—one was so released by the
Bishop; she was an English woman of five-andthirty, and she left Holland during my stay there.
Protestants constantly forget that the inmates of
Convents do not want to get out, and that if they
were out they would still pursue the mode of life
which they consider in harmony with the precepts of
the Gospel, and with the practice of the Early Church.
There are Monks and Nuns in “ the world ” as well
as in the Cloister. I know some—some, moreover,
who lead a far more ascetic life than would be
�44
Convent Experiences.
allowed in most Cloisters. All the Nuns I knew en
tered the Convent in order the more closely to imitate
Christ. Had “ the world ” not been so hostile to his
interests, they would have remained in it.
They suffer quite as much as the relatives who de
plore them, but they see no alternative. Prove to
them that they would be more like Christ without his
poverty, his chastity, and his obedience, and that ab
solute self-renunciation is no part of his teaching,
then and then only will the Monasteries and the
Nunneries be vacated; but as long as the New Tes
tament contains the texts upon which their course of
action is founded, so long shall we see the muchdespised fruits of their voluntary Poverty, Chastity,
and Obedience.
PRINTED
BY C. W. REYNEEL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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
Convent experiences
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Barlow, Adela F. [Miss]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 44 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT144
Subject
The topic of the resource
Convents
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 (Convent experiences), 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
Convents
Conway Tracts
Nuns
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/27fdb2b9e00077c6746a10fdbc6d8977.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=YWe0OyULCI2UHMg8z3WMt0JbdENXbY-R1mU8-k5xJuoG9iguh0PXiv7ZU-Wr7UALQDu-RNL4qVKHhq64l8mF9N4Xy%7EtErU6pFvupv4x0ll6TE9mF35fypjdvjoNPwNwPNd%7EyaJtkw5xZmgPJgw8E65IMtnlOprVsQA6eLRFYmj-y8%7E3Y0a2-AO9ULv9-o1gejKz864Ghx1MowCHzkkPmgxeKySGr-6fMFiERa0LwJdlvmF2um7WG2vZZ%7Em4OyZwTO6yi91689vKWgqTDgp3LpfGFrvBENtSmc1HD7XjLKHg%7E4HDBJGFnFPvyvXmLhr-ZqUTd5rylOIA62FlZ7T0DLA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c7de91b3deb6f4f92e9780a458630021
PDF Text
Text
DREAMS AND GHOSTS.
DELIVERED BEFORE THE
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY,
ON
SUNDAY AFTERNOON, 7th FEBRUARY, 1875.
BY
G. G. ZERFFI, Ph.D., F.R.Hist.S., F.R.S.L.,
Lecturer on Historic Ornament, National Art Training School,
South Kensington.
Author of Goethe's 1 Faust, with Commentaries,' '■Spiritualism and
Animal Magnetism,’ <fc, <fc.
BOND ON:
PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
1875.
Price Threepence.
�SYLLABUS.
Naturalism and Spiritualism.
Astrologers and Philosophers.
Perceptions either sensual or cerebral.
Dreams. Object and subject blended into one.
“ Noctambulatio.”
Dreams of reality.
Hallucinations.
Nikolai of Berlin. Abercrombie. Brierre de
Boismont.
Natural or Supernatural agencies.
Hysteria and Revivals.
Are Ghosts possible ?
How to treat those who see them.
Shakespeare’s Ghosts.
Some practical points to be taken into con
sideration.
Conclusion. .
�DREAMS AND GHOSTS.
IND is assumed to be opposed to Matter,
Nature to be different from Spirit, and
Reality to be unconnected with Ideality. These
assumptions, and a continuous misuse of words, have
for thousands of years produced misunderstandings
of the utmost importance to Science and the welfare
of Humanity.
Mysticism and Rationalism, Naturalism and
Spiritualism, have been arrayed against one another
like two hostile armies ; and whilst the one party
took everything literally, and required a certain
notion to be attached to every word, as the result
of a clear perception, the other roamed into the field
of the allegorical or parabolical, performed tropological gambols with exquisite cunning, and terrified
us by an anagogical treatment of the simplest
matters. If a certain substance was stated to be
black or white, it might be black only in substance,
whilst in essence it was white ; all depended whether
it was taken in its reality or in its ideality.
A fluid may be in substance, say, oil, but in
essence fire ; allegorically it may be food for hungry
souls; tropologically it may represent virtue gliding
smoothly through the heavenly gates, and anagogically it may be spiritual balm on our wounded
hearts to cool their passionate throbbing for the
vanities and pleasures of this world.
The difficulties were made still greater by the
combinations of these four categories ; a thing might
be to one mind allegorico-tropological, whilst to
another it appeared litero-anagogical. The term
B
M
�4
Drtams and Ghosts.
allegorical is used when you say one thing and
mean another ; the terms tropological or symbolic
are synonymous, and imply when you mean one
thing and say another; and anagogical, is to argue
from generalities to particulars; namely, “ all men
are sinners ; Joe Smith is a man, therefore he must
be a sinner.” A syllogism, which, at all events, is
not very complimentary to Joe Smith.
For centuries, nay for thousands of years, science
had often no other task than to sift the allegoricotropologico-anagogical nonsense that was propounded
by mystics, dogmatists, and metaphysicians, who
brought confusion into the simplest phenomena of
this world. The differences between mystics and
rationalists often existed in mere words,—the one
trying to oppose a common-sense explanation upon
which the other insisted. Obstinacy on both sides
made the struggle still fiercer and hindered the real
progress of knowledge. I said in one of my Lec
tures, that the “unknown” had always a mysterious
charm for man. Astrologers need not know as much
as philosophers. The astrologer gazes at the stars,
sees threads millions of miles in length extending
from certain stars to particular individuals, and
talks of the influence these mystic ties must exer
cise on the destinies of those thus attached to
heavenly bodies. If the individual believes in this
star-theory, the philosopher tries in vain to detach
him from his star, and all he can do is to prove the
impossibility of the man’s having anything to do
with the star or the star with him. So it is with
the great question in dispute concerning mind and
matter. If people start with the conviction that
there is something above nature, or as they call it
“ supernatural,” that impressions on our senses are
possible, even though an outward object to create
such impressions be wanting, that there exists
beyond nature a realm peopled by various strange
beings, how are we to proceed to argue the point ?
�Dreams and Ghosts.
5
■ What is Supernatural ?
The very expression, though continually used,
designates in itself a “ nonentity.” All things must
exist in space and time; space and time are the
first conditions of anything existent, but all nature
with its attributes of space and time fills the Uni
verse, and there is undoubtedly no room for any
thing above or beyond nature as a Universe.
Super-earthly or supersensual might have some
meaning as referring to that which is beyond our
globe, but supernatural has certainly no sense.
In discoursing on dreams and ghosts, I shall
endeavour to avoid being dogmatic, and simply take
up certain psychological phenomena, lay them before
you, and you will be kind enough to draw your
own conclusions.
First of all it must be borne in mind that our
perceptions of the outer world are not only sen
sual (by means of our senses) but also intellectual
(by means of ideas produced in the brain), that is
cerebral. The senses produce nothing but mere
sensations in their special organs, furnishing thus
the material from which intellect, by applying the
laws of causation, forms the outer world under the
existing conditions of space and time.
All our perceptions when in a waking and nor
mal state, are certainly results of impressions on
our senses, which produce an effect of which our
intellect causes us to become conscious. Now is it
possible that impressions may reach our brain from
quite a different source than the outer world,
impressions produced by our own organisation, work
ing on our brain exactly like impressions of the outer
world ? If this be possible, we should endeavour
to find out the relation in which such a phenomenon
would stand to its effect, and whether such
effect would afford us means of making ourselves
acquainted with its real cause; and we should be
at once obliged, as in the material world, to investi-
�6
Dreams and Ghosts.
gate the apparition, that is the outward impression
on our senses in its relation to its own reality.
People do dream, have dreamt, and will dream;
Apparitions, or to speak more colloquially, ghosts
have been really seen.
Dreams and spectral visions are the strong points
of those who assume an Empire of Spirits altogether
independent of matter. There was probably a time
in the phase of the progressive development of
humanity, when man was not yet able to discrimi
nate between dreams and reality. I am inclined to
consider the whole period during which myths, nur
sery tales, miracles, and pious wonders, such as flying
monks and nuns who “ levitated ” from the ground,
were assumed to be realities—a period of dreams.
For the question, whether perceptible visions, as
perfect and distinct as those caused by the impres
sions of the material world can be produced in the
brain, must be answered in the affirmative ; pheno
mena known to us all, phenomena, the effects of
which we experience nearly every night, prove this
with incontestable force, namely Dreams !
What are dreams ?
They are not, as has been assumed, a mere play of
our fancy, an echo of our imaginary faculty, or an
epilogue of those outward impressions which we
received when still awake. Fancies, as the effects
of our imagination, are weak, imperfect, and transi
tory ; so that the most vivid imagination is scarcely
able to reproduce the image of an absent person,
even for a few seconds. In oui' dreams everything
affecting our perceptive faculty appears as exterior
to ourselves as are the impressions received from
the outer world. All objects appear clear and defined,
exactly as in reality, not only with regard to our
selves, but perfectly finished in all their details,
surrounded by all real impediments; every body
with its shadow, every object with its peculiar form
and special substance. That our dreams are entirely ■.
�Dreams and Ghosts.
7
objective is shown by the actions that take place in
them being often contrary to our expectations and
our wishes. Our astonishment is excited by the
dramatic truth of the characters and their actions;
so much so that it may almost be asserted that a
person dreaming is, for the time, a kind of Shake
speare.
The deception produced by dreams is sometimes
so great that, reality stepping into its rights when
we awake, has to combat our vivid impressions to
prove that what has been was only the airy creation
of a dream. This goes far to prove that dreams are
not a function of our brain, and totally distinct
from its power of imagination. Aristotle already
called “ sleep a special sense,” and made the obser
vation that in dreams our imagination is often
engaged in representing extraneous objects. This
leads us to the conclusion that during dreams our
faculty of imagination is at our disposal, and that
this cannot be at the same time the in strum ent or
organ of our dreams.
Dreams resemble madness, they may be called a
short and passing madness, whilst madness is a long
and sometimes lasting dream. The essential con
dition of dreams is sleep, in which the normal
activity of our brain and senses is suspended.
Only when this activity ceases dreams begin to
work; just as the pictures of a magic lantern
appear in a room deprived of light. It is a further
-fact that in our very dreams our reasoning faculty
is often at work: we reason about their incongruity, their ridiculous combinations. There is,
therefore, in us a force by means of which
we can fill space with forms, we can hear and
understand voices, can see, smell, and taste with
out any outward influences on our senses ; which
influences are necessary when we are awake;
we ourselves, therefore, are the sole cause, object,
and empirical basis of our thoughts, though in no
�8
Dreams and Ghosts.
way identical with them. In working on our
imagination this force does not gather impressions
through our senses from without—but undoubtedly
from within. For our senses are closed to the
outer world, and all the objects of our dreams
appear to be the creations of our own subjectivity.
Object and subject are thus blended into one. Let
us not lose sight of this important assertion ; for
I intend to lead you step by step to the most
incredible phenomena, which, however, are facts,
and may be explained in a very rational way. We
must.only give up the old “shell and kernel theory,”
and see that there is no contest between the within
and without, but that mind and matter, however
complicated, marvellous, and incomprehensible their
functions may be, are one. The “ gross and brutal
materialism” and the “moonshiny, dreamy idealism”
formulae must be given up. If dreams are facts
whilst we are asleep, might dreams not be possible
whilst we are half or entirely awake ?
The Scotch have for this state an excellent term
—they call it “ second sightwhilst one sight
through our eyes is going on, another faculty of
seeing, as in our dreams, is at work in us. We see
and at the same time create what we see. Our
imagination is impressed, but its impressions are
produced by an inner force of our own. The term
“ second sight,” however, is applicable to a “ species ”
of our mental and bodily functions, we cannot use
it for the genus. To designate that indisputable
and undeniable force in us which produces per
ceptions without any outward influences on our
senses, we will use the expression “ organ of
dreams.” So soon as we assume an organ we
naturally wish to know its construction and mode
of acting, and, in fact, are anxious to see the
machine and its working; I must content myself at
this moment with merely giving you some further
effects of which this organ must be the cause.
�Dreams and Ghosts.
9
There are undoubtedly different degrees of dreams;
of some we are only dimly conscious, of others we
often are in doubt whether the incidents of our
dream did not happen in reality. We have dreams
in which we dream only of those realities which
surround us. What we dream is at the same time
true and real. It is as if our skull were trans
parent, as if the outer world were directly affecting
our brain, instead of impressing it by means of our
senses.
This mysterious state we might call “half
dreams,” or, still better, “ dreams of reality.”
These dreams often reach a higher phase when the
horizon of the dreamer is enlarged so as to enable
him to see beyond the walls of his bedroom. Our
“ organ of dreams ” appears often to lead us to
distant places, often utterly unknown to us, never
before seen. Instances of this are numberless.
Recently a gentleman wrote to a newspaper “ that
he was lifted up, or rather levitated on the tower
of St. Mark at Venice; that he looked down upon
the town, seeing it in all its reality as clearly as if
he had known the place before, though he had
never been at Venice.” Of course he might have
seen many engravings or paintings of the town,
and have read many descriptions of it; to this he
does not allude, but, at all events, we can have no
reason to doubt that, whilst asleep, he was trans
ferred to Venice, and was impressed by the visionary
city as though it had been the real one.
A still higher effect of which the “ organ of
dreams ” may be assumed to be the cause is “ Noctambulatio,” described by the Greeks as “upnobateia” (sleep-wandering), that is somnambulism.
It is very common in Austria and Germany, France
and Italy; less common in England, but more fre
quent in Scotland. Somnambulists dream, and at
the same time often perform their daily occupa
tions ; some have copied music, others have made
�IO
Dreams and Ghosts.
notes of sermons, others have put their rooms in
order, others have climbed dangerous heights, or
walked on parapets; and though their senses are
perfectly asleep, all the sensual functions are
performed.
They see, they feel, they avoid
chairs, tables they move about, and hear the noise
they make; this is also the case with people arti
ficially put into this peculiar state. The brain
appears to be in the deepest sleep, that is in perfect
inactivity—what organ is there active in us ? Have
we after all really a double life; is there something
active in us whilst our brain, the organ of our
mighty intellectual faculties, is at rest ? If so,
there must be in us a separate Spirit that enters
and leaves our body, and is strangely occupied not
only when still attached to us, but also when it has
left the shell and floats through the infinite. But
is this so ? I think that the theory of psycholo
gists and physiologists is much more likely to be
near the truth, than the assumption that there are
lively sprites in us which are altogether independent
of our material organisation. Modern psycholo
gists assume that in such a state as I have alluded
to, a total depression of the vital functions of-the
brain and an accumulation of all vital force in the
ganglia take place.
These ganglia have their
centre in the “ plexus Solaris,” or “ cerebrum abdominale,” (the brain of the stomach), which con
sists of a few annular vessels filled with a nervous
fluid, standing in the same relation to the ganglia
as the brain to our nervous system. This has given
origin to the hypothesis that dreams have a special
organ, which during a total depression of the func
tions of the brain is most active, so much so “ that
apparently an accumulation of all the vital force
takes place in the ganglia, whose larger tissues,
with the ‘plexus Solaris,’ are turned into a sensorium, which, as if by substitution, performs the
functions of the brain, dispensing with the aid of
�Dreams and Ghosts.
11
the senses to receive impressions from without, and
still exercising all the faculties of the brain, some
times even with greater perfection than when
awake.”—(See my work, ‘Spiritualism and Animal
Magnetism.’ London: Robert Hardwicke. 1872.
Second Edition, page 33.) By this means we may
trace a positive, self-conscious force in us, and a
negative or unconscious force ; a positive and nega
tive element in our nature. The equilibrium of
these forces or elements may be disturbed ; the
brain or the positive force may be with all its glo
rious structure, its intricate and complicated wind
ings, its admirable power of consciousness, if de
ranged, lowered, depressed, exhausted under the in
fluence of the ganglia, and the brain of the stomach
may rule the brain of the head. That is, the
“ organ of dreams ” becomes master of the “ organ
of intellect.” It is a well-authenticated fact that
somnambulists move with great decision, extreme
quickness, that they conform to anything surround
ing them ; that they observe everything with the
“ organ of dreams,” that they dare more when led
by this mysterious organ than when awake.
Our nerves of motion originate in the spine, they
are connected by the “ medulla oblongata ” with
the cerebellum, the regulator of our motions, which
again is connected with the cerebrum, the seat of
our consciousness and perception. Now, how is it
possible that perceptions which determine our
motives for movements, when transferred to the
tissue of the ganglia in the stomach, should direct
the steps of a somnambulist with the swiftness of
lightning ? All we can assume is that the cerebral
force of the somnambulist in such a state is not
entirely asleep, but only sufficiently awake to direct
his steps, to receive impressions through organs
which are different from our senses; thus dreams,
half-dreams, and somnambulism are but effects of a
special organ in us which becomes the more active
�12
Dreams and Ghosts.
the more passive our brain is. We must consider
a still stranger state, arising from a complication of
the disturbed balance between the functions of the
brain and those of the “ plexus Solaris.”
Let us assume a state in which our brain is, at
least, partially awake; we see the objects in our
room with perfect clearness; the lamp on our
writing table, the books on our shelves, the pictures,
&c., and still we suddenly see a figure before us,—
a dear relation not long dead, a beloved child, whose
last parting words still resound in our ears. Such
cases are recorded by perfectly credible persons.
How is this ? Our answer would be: we do not
doubt your assertion; we believe your having seen
your dead mother, but you were in a half-dream ;
your brain was, in spite of its partial capacity of
receiving certain impressions through your senses,
depressed, and your ganglionic system hard at work
to make you dream, whilst in this state. All cases
of hallucinations and spectral visions may be
reduced to this natural cause. If we admit that
our “ organ of dreams ” can produce impressions on
our senses when asleep, we may assume, with great
probability, and without leaving the firm ground of
physical possibility, that this organ may work in us
whilst our senses of vision and hearing are awake.
The perceptive faculties of our brain ’ will be
influenced exactly as in our dreams, though we be
not asleep. The phantom or object of our visual
organ will stand before us in a given form, as perfect
as any object of our dreams. But its immediate
cause of existence must be looked for in our own
inner organism. These phantoms, in accordance
with the faculties of our “ organ of dreams,” will
assume form, colour; emit sounds which will affect
us like the language of living beings; and if our
organ of dreams is in an excited state of activity,
the phantoms presenting themselves will be hazy in
appearance, pale, greyish, ghastly, nearly transpa-
�Dreams and Ghosts.
13
rent; their voices will be hollow and whispering, or
hoarse and whistling. A heavy supper (say, a Welsh
rare-bit,) nervous debility, over-work, great grief,
or a glass of grog as an overdose, will produce the
most important changes in these phantoms ; but as
soon as the visionary tries to bring his faculty of
reasoning into play, that is, as soon as his positive
or cerebral force becomes master of the negative or
abdominal element, the phantoms vanish. Nothing
can more speedily cure our propensity to see spectres
than a firm will to verify, by close investigation, the
reality, the substance of the apparition.
Spectres, like dealers in mysticism and dogmatic
incredibilities, prefer above all the twilight, or rather
no light at all. Visionaries of whatever sort and
stamp do not like to be disturbed in their manipu
lations by candles and gas-jets, and least of all by
some rays of common sense and sound logic. Mid
night, dark abodes with painted windows, have been
set down from old as the time and places when not
only Erin’s but “ any clouds are hung round with
ghosts.”
That visions and apparitions are facts produced
by our own selves cannot be denied, but they do not
prove anything extraneous to us, or the existence
of some undiscovered country from whose bourne
some travellers do return.
We may now investigate their causes, and we shall
find that some very material physical derangement
of our constitution is the principal one. Already
Hippokrates and Galen drew the attention of medi
cal men to phenomena of this kind, and tried to
classify the diseases according to the visions of the
sick person. It is pretty well known that those
suffering from “ delirium tremens ” generally see
rats, cats, mice, serpents, black dogs, elephants,
devils with big horns, grotesque monkeys, or some
terrifying monster of the animal kingdom. So
much so, that even the visionary realm of ghosts
�14
Dreams and Ghosts.
appears to abominate drunkenness as something
loathsome and bestial. Those suffering from con
sumption have pleasant visions; bright, sunny plains,
beautiful cool woods, present themselves to their
eyes; they see angels in long robes with broad, airy
wings, and hear strange melodies resounding through
space. The sooner people having such visions con
sult a physician the better. Madness is, not neces
sarily always, but frequently accompanied by
hallucinations.
There are some rare cases, perfectly authenticated,
in which apparitions have been seen by individuals
who at least were in a state of perfect bodily
health. The most known is that of Nikolai,' the
celebrated author and bookseller of Berlin. This
case was laid before the Academy of Sciences at
Berlin, 1799. Nikolai’s statement was the follow
ing :—“ On the 24th of February, 1791, after a sharp
altercation (the excited, nervous state of the vision
ary is to be taken into special consideration), I
suddenly perceived, at the distance of ten paces, a
dead body. (The great accuracy with which the
distance is recorded shows at once that Nikolai was
altogether dreaming; whoever heard of a man seeing
a dead body before him and trying to measure the
distance between the apparition and himself.) I
inquired of my wife whether she did not see it. My
question alarmed her. The apparition lasted eight
minutes. (Another peculiarity of these kind of
visionaries is that they always are most particular
with regard to dates and time. Is anybody childish
enough to suppose that a man seeing a dead body
takes out his watch, and counts the minutes, and
notes them down ? The tale, as told, bears in its
intrinsic evidence all the usual traces of impossi
bility which we may study in all reports on so-called
“ supernatural ” matters.) At four in the afternoon
the same vision appeared. I was then alone and
much disturbed by it. I went to my wife’s apart-
�Dreams and Ghosts.
ment. The vision followed me. At six I perceived
several figures that had no connection with the
former vision.” Nikolai was undoubtedly dreaming
whilst awake : he was bled by a judicious medical
man, and the vision did not return.
“A. stranger in Edinburgh died suddenly in an
omnibus. The corpse was exposed, and a medical
man called in to report on the cause of death. After
several days’ close study of a medical subject, he
perceived, on raising his eyes, the form of the dead
stranger opposite him, as distinctly as he had seen
him on the table of the police office.” The.over
wrought cerebral faculty was under the dominion of
the sympathetic nerve, which, in its turn, still
affected by the impression of the corpse, represented
it to the debilitated powers of the brain.
Abercrombie, in his ‘ Inquiries Concerning the
Intellectual Powers ’ (11th Ed., Lond., 1841, p. 380),
relates the case of a man who was beset with hallu
cinations all his life. “ His disposition was such
that, when he met a friend in the streets, he was
uncertain whether he were a real person or a
phantom.”
Unscientifically trained persons often give them
selves up to credulity, and to that craving after
abnormal supernatural agencies which has done so
much evil throughout the whole progressive develop
ment of humanity. They take these kind of visions
for granted, and jump at the conclusion that, as
visions were seen, they must be substances or
essences from another world. I recommend any
body suffering from “ Psycho-mania,” or from
“ Table-danceology,” or paralysis of the brain from
knock-conversation, or who has “levitation fits,”
or “ air-floating paroxysms,” to read Brierre de
Boismont ‘On Hallucination,’ 1845. His cases are,
unhappily, neither systematically arranged nor
psychologically or physiologically explained; yet
they must convince anybody believing in super-
�16
Dreams and Ghosts.
sensual agencies, that strange things may happen,
all taking their origin in a derangement of our ner
vous and cerebral system, without troubling any
spirits from another world. If spirits really exist,
why have they not yet proven themselves useful ?
Why do they not appear half-an-hour before a ship
burns down, and 400 human beings are killed and
drowned, to warn the captain ; or why do they not
alter the signals of a railway in right time to prevent
a collision and to save an infinity of wretchedness ?
Because they do not choose to do it—might be the
answer of some “ Supernaturalistbut why should
spirits come and talk nonsense at the bidding of A
or B, and why not teach us in an evening the
multiplication table, or give us some information
which might be turned to some use or comfort for
humanity ?
Hysteria on the one hand, and a reaction against
the growing materialistic and utilitarian tendencies
of our times on the other, drive those who are
endowed with a vivid emotional nature into the
regions of ghostly shadows. They tremble that
there should be no more mysteries; no more tidings
from another world, no more communications with
dear pretty angels, no horrible monsters to frighten
young and old babies ! Why do they not throw
themselves into the arms of poetry and art, num
berless spirits and fancy-wrought forms may be
brought up from the depths of our cultivated minds.
We ought not allow ourselves to be dragged into a
lowering of our cerebral powers, our faculty of
reasoning, by the inordinate use of our sympathetic
nerves, or the unconscious emotional, ganglionic
element in us. For there can be no doubt that an
unusual mental excitement, paired with bodily
depression, may abnormally develope the emotional
element in us, and produce the most destructive and
pernicious results. This statement was born, out
during the period of St. John s “ dance mania 5
�Dreams and Ghosts.
17
people in their paroxysms saw the Saviour enthroned
with the Virgin Mary. We do not doubt these
visions ; we only are convinced that Christ and the
Virgin Mary were no realities; they formed no
more the outer phenomena that impressed the
visionaries than do the forms we see in our dreams,
but the excited organs of dreams produced them.
For Ghosts are impossibilities—they can neither be
seen nor heard; except they are bodies—but then
there is an end of the so-called spiritual kingdom.
So that those who call themselves Spiritualists, are
the greatest materialists, and work into the hands
of those who intend to reduce everything to mere
ponderable and calculable substances.
In order to see—a body or a substance is required,
which by means of reflection of the rays of light
acts on our retina; in order to hear—a body or
substance is required to act by means of the vibra
tion of the air on our tympanum. All that
visionaries or ghost-see-ers may justly assert, is that
they are conscious of the impression on their per
ceptive faculties of something that reflects light,
creates sounds, though there is nothing which could
produce these phenomena—that is they dream—for
all other phenomena, if they really happen, how
ever mysterious they may appear, however incredible,
are mere deceptions a la Dr. Lynn, or Maskelyne
and Cooke, and of course not worthy of any scientific
treatment.
The danger in playing with the so-called super
natural ” is that the derangement in one individual
becomes contagious. One hysteric girl in a school
is capable of infecting all the others. But for any
such derangement the best cures are rational ones,
or wherever these do not suffice a drastic physical
one will do. An English physician was called into
a ladies’ school, where one hysterical girl had infec
ted many others ; after he had in vain tried various
remedies, he one day observed to the mistress of the
�18
Dreams and Ghosts.
establishment in the hearing of the patients that
there remained but one chance of effecting a cure,—
the application of a red-hot iron to the spine of the
patients so as to quiet their nervously excited sys
tem. Strange to say, the red-hot iron was never
applied, for the hysterical attacks ceased as if by
magic. The same was the case with a revival
mania in a large school near Cologne ; Government
sent an inspector down ; the boys pretended to
have visions of Jesus Christ, but the implacable
officer threatened to close the school if any other
spiritual inspector should interfere with his business,
and the students should be for ever excluded from
pursuing their studies : the effect was as magical as
the red-hot iron remedy—the revivals ceased at
once.
Shakespeare, that master-mind, who knew the
most hidden recesses of our hearts, whose writings
form the most complete and exhaustive psycho
logical essays, who made many a ghost “ revisit the
glimpses of the moon, to make night hideous,” has
solved the “Spirit Question” in a clear, commonsense, and exhaustive way in “ Macbeth,” when he
makes the ambitious thane exclaim :—
“ Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand 1 Come, let me clutch thee !
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight ? Or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain ? ”
To beware of false creations in science and
religion, not to allow our heat-oppressed brain an
unruly dominion over our intellectual faculties, is
conveyed by those few lines of our immortal bard.
The brief consideration of dreams and ghosts
which I have placed before you may be summed up
in the following points :—
�Dreams and Ghosts.
’9
1. That we have an organ in us which can act
on the perceptive faculties of our brain from
within.
2. That this “ organ of dreams ” has its seat in
the centre of our ganglionic system or the sym
pathetic nerves, namely in the “ plexus Solaris.”
3. That our cerebral faculties may be lowered
and the faculty of our ganglia heightened.
4. That spectral visions, religious excitements,
emotional extravagances, mysticism, and symbolic
charlatanism are merely products of a deranged
balance between our vegetable or ganglionic and
our cerebral or intellectual life.
5. That there is nothing in nature that ought
not to be capable of explanation from a natural
point of view, as there is no room for anything to
be above or without nature.
6. That instead of admitting in some instances
our ignorance of the laws of nature with regard to
certain phenomena, to assume some “ supernatural ”
interference is an insult to the all-pervading spirit of
the Creator, who cannot allow his spirits to wander
about to serve small table-talk. Anything beyond
the horizon of human intellect is of evil. This
evil peopled heaven and earth with gods, goddesses,
angels, and demons ; it formed a strong element in
our double nature, and took its origin in our
craving to fathom the unfathomable. It is, in fact,
nothing but a piece of pride. We think ourselves
better than others when we have dear little
apparitions which others have not; we consider
ourselves chosen, elected, specially inspired, small
prophets, benighted evangelists, and mighty instru
ments to testify that God takes us more into his
councils than others. The roaming in the Empire
of Ghosts, the taking of dreams for realities, the
neglect of this world for the sake of other distant
unknown worlds is nothing but inordinate pride.
If I have erred in trying to explain hypotheti-
�20
Dreams and Ghosts.
cally some curious phenomena of our nature, I can
only plead that the striving of finite beings in
whom the cerebral functions are not lowered by
tropological or anagogical studies should be after
truth in the sense of the immortal Lessing :—
“If God were to hold in His right hand all
truth, and in his left the everlasting active desire
for truth though veiled in eternal error, and were to
bid me choose, I would humbly grasp his left,
praying, Almighty Father, grant me this gift—
absolute truth is for Thee alone.”
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
To provide for the delivery on Sundays in the Metropolis, and
to encourage the delivery elsewhere, of Lectures on Science,
—physical, intellectual, and moral,—History, Literature,
and Art; especially in their bearing upon the improvement
and social well-being of mankind.
THE SOCIETY’S LECTURES
ARE DELIVERED AT
ST GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
On SUNDAY Afternoons, at FOUR o'clock precisely.
(Annually—from November to May).
Twenty-Four Lectures (in three series), ending 2nd May,
1875, will be given.
Members’ £1 subscription entitles them to an annual ticket
(transferable and admitting to the reserved seats), and to eight
single reserved-seat tickets available for any lecture.
Tickets for each series (one for each lecture) as below,—
To the Shilling Reserved Seats—5s. 6d.
To the Sixpenny Seats— 2s., being at the rate of Threepence
each lecture.
’
For tickets apply (by letter) to the Hon. Treasurer, Wm. Henry
Domville, Esq., 15 Gloucester Crescent, Hyde Park, W.
Payment at the door :—One Penny ;—Sixpence
and
(Reserved Seats) One Shilling.
PRINTED BY C. W. RRYNELL, LITTLE PULTBNBY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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
Dreams and ghosts. A lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society on Sunday Afternoon, 7th February, 1875
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Zerffi, G. G. (Gustavus George)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Sunday Lecture Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT12
Subject
The topic of the resource
Spiritualism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Dreams and ghosts. A lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society on Sunday Afternoon, 7th February, 1875), 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
Conway Tracts
Dreams
Ghosts
Naturalism
Spiritualism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/07c4358d873efb0604cddf6ef718f01a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=k7E-tNmLaA6bpn9aY-6sqfSpdMYthKXhU5LAIcDYB5Ake5bXlCZana3X1Cvxq8n9XfIPrECpCFMrZg4R5gc7TUtx3I4EA2M3F8RvlaYXCoVc0oSGJCs2Dt9A7L2NMDZZXI%7ES2tmLjM8p1z1OaJT5W50KFVXlxJ4fpO79Grk4Blh2pZS6%7EOuLIfK4XaOmfcc%7EK5%7ELabd9M3-Ya%7Ef9Me4sbKmdJD4X4Rfb4L9sXV4vFztBK9UiNMEjVxCcibCJwuKmTxawQ5Tpdsjte%7EbnL6stiiqvfsRtTVS6Ln3m2fSk04kxzPvbjSrt%7EGRsgPmoeFnxUnEicR70wBVD58Nwoby4lw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f615596e4caa7fc0d4bf2f13d7fc585e
PDF Text
Text
HIS
LIFE,
WORKS,
AND
INFLUENCE
UPON THE
SPIRIT OF THE REFORMATION.
fuinrt
DELIVERED BEFORE THE
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY,
ON
SUNDAY AFTERNOON, 28th FEBRUARY, 1875.
A.
ELLEY FINCH.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. H THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�SYLLABUS.
Intellectual and Ecclesiastical condition of Europe about
the beginning of the sixteenth century. Characterised by
the awakening of the human mind from the long slumber of
the Middle Ages, stimulated mainly by three memorable
events :—
1. The invention of the Printing Press (1440).
2. The dispersion of Scholars on the fall of the Eastern
Empire of the Bomans (1453).
3. The actual discovery of the shape and smallness, of the
Earth through the voyages Of Columbus and Vasco
de Gama (1492-7), and Magellan’s Squadron (1522).
Sketch of the Life of Erasmus (1467-1536). His visits to
England and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. His
friendships with Colet, Linacre, Grocyn, More, Fisher, and
others of our learned -men. His zeal and travels for restoring
the culture of Classical Literature. His Works—‘Praise of
Folly,’ ‘ Adages,’ Edition of the Greek Testament, ‘ Familiar
Colloquies,’ ‘ Complaint of Peace,’ Editions of Classical Authors
and Christian Fathers, &c.
Bise of the Beformation, and its outbreak (1517) through
the intrepid preaching and conduct of Luther. His contro
versy with Erasmus. Divergence of their views.
Two aspects of the Beformation :—
1. Theological—A contest respecting the standard of
Beligious Truth. Ended in the substitution of an
assumed infallible Book for an alleged infallible
Church. (Luther.)
2. Historical-—The emancipation of the human reason
from the yoke of ecclesiastical authority through
the revival of learning. Still in progress by the
advance of culture and the freedom of discussion.
(Erasmus.)
�Syllabus.
Erasmus’s ‘Greek Testament’ (pditio princeps) 1516,followed
by Robert Stephens’s third (first critical) edition, 1550; Elzevir’s
(textus receptus), 1624; Mill’s, 1707 ; Wetstein’s, 1751; Matthsei’s, 1782-8 ; Griesbach’s, 1796 ; Scholz, 1830-6 ; Lachmann’s,
1831 ; Tischendorf’s, 1841, and other critical editions, embrac
ing the collation of upwards of six hundred manuscripts, and
the discovery of more than one hundred thousand various
readings, and no “ immaculate ” text, necessitates the science
of biblical criticism, i.e., the application of scientific truths
and tests, methods of inquiry and canons of evidence to the
investigation of the genuineness, authenticity, and true inter
pretation of the Christian Records.
Illustration of various readings—First Epistle General of
John, chap, v., verses 7, 8.
Concise account of the following ancient existing Scripture
Manuscripts :—
Language.
t----------------------------------
Source or
Text.
Date.
Latin.
Greek.
Codex Alexandrinus . 1 Codex Brixianus .... Byzantium (4th to
J 7th
(in the Gospels) J
„ Versio Vulgata . Palestine . j Cent.
„ Vaticanus ....
,, Vercellencis . . . Alexandria
A.D.
,, Cantabrigiensis.
The Spirit of the Reformation—the assertion of the principle
of private judgment arising from Reason and the Moral Sense,
in opposition to the practice of persecution resulting from the
spirit of dogmatism—is hostile to Priestcraft, but friendly to
Truth, by respecting the rights of conscience, and encouraging
the fearless advancement of Religious Knowledge through
Liberty of Inquiry, Freedom of Thought, and Honesty of
Expression.
�ERASMUS:
HIS LIFE, WORFS, AND INFLUENCE UPON THE SPIRIT OF
THE REFORMATION.
Throughout the greater part of the times historically
known, as the Middle Ages, down to so late a period as
the end of the 15th century, the Christian Countries of
Europe were ruled in reality by the Popes of Rome.
They were mapped out into Ecclesiastical Provinces,
each presided over by a Roman Archbishop ; Provinces’
were divided into Dioceses, and these into Parishes, each
with its Romish Priest, forming altogether an ecclesiasti
cal network, the strings of which were grasped at Rome
by the Pope and the College of Cardinals. In addition
to this clergy there were numerous orders of begging
Monks and Friars, Benedictines, Cistercians, Domini
cans, Franciscans, and Augustinians, whose numbers
swarmed everywhere; there being in most towns from
one to half-a-dozen Monasteries or Religious Houses.
The Power wielded through this ecclesiastical system
was enormous. Kings even were not secure of their
crowns till they had the sanction of the Church ; for, by
whatever jesuitical casuistry Vatican Decrees are now
sought to be explained away, in the days we are speak
ing of, Sovereigns were dethroned, their kingdoms laid
under interdicts, and their subjects were absolved from
their allegiance, by the usurped deposing power of the
Pope. The Roman Catholic Clergy alone baptized and
married, and buried, or refused Christian burial, they
alone disposed of dead men’s goods. No man’s Will
could take effect until proved in an Ecclesiastical Court.
If their claims were disputed remonstrants were handed
over to the secular arm or Civil Power, which acted in
abject submission to the arbitrary dictates of the
Church.
The Revenues of this Priesthood were immense.
�6
Erasmus; his Life, Works, and Influence
Even the Monks, under their vows of poverty begging
alms for bread in return for prayers, obtaining bound
less wealth from the superstitious credulity of those who
thought that by giving them their property they could
save their souls.
But the ecclesiastical was not the only power in
Europe that was Roman. The whole learned world
was linked to Rome through the subtleties of the* scho
lastic system. All scholars talked and wrote in Latin,
the language of Rome. Learned people of all sorts were
looked upon as belonging to the Clergy. In England,
a man charged with crime, if he could only show such a
modicum of learning as being able to read and write,
could claim “benefit of clergy,” that is, be tried in an
ecclesiastical Court, which practically amounted to an
exemption from the punishments of the criminal law of
the Land. This tended to give all learning a clerical caste,
so that matters of real knowledge or science, which
could only be proved by observation of the facts of
Nature,—such, for instauce, as, whether the Sun moved
round the Earth, or the Earth round the Sun, were
settled by texts taken from the Bible I Whilst, as to
the Christian Religion itself, it had ceased to be what it
was in the days of Christ and the Apostles, an affair of
the heart; it had become a Theology, which is a thing of
the head.
About the beginning of the 16th century the restless
ness of the human mind under this servile system
becomes very observable, and is distinctly traceable to
the influence of certain memorable events, which were
then of recent occurrence. One was the invention of
the Printing-press, which occurred in about the year
1440, and which operated in two ways—in the multi
plying and cheapening of books, thereby diffusing
knowledge, and in substituting reading or private study
for oral instruction. Previously to the invention of
Printing, books were in manuscripts, comparatively so
few in number, that teaching was of necessity chiefly
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
7
carried on by means of Lectures or Sermons. Now, the
oral teacher unavoidably exerts over his audience a sym
pathetic influence, imbuing them with the bias of his
own views, and the gain to Truth must have been con
siderable, when the solitary student, intent only on its
pursuit, could acquire knowledge through the mute
medium of the printed page, and exercise upon it his
own powers of reflection, unprejudiced by the presence of
a personal Instructor. Thus it was that the PrintingPress came to deprive the Pulpit of its supremacy, and
to subordinate the Sermon to the Newspaper.
Another event was the taking of Constantinople by
the Turks, in the year 1453. This celebrated city had
been the home, or the refuge, of learning since its founda
tion by the Emperor Constantine in the year 330. On
its fall, learned Greeks and Jews, driven from the East,
were dispersed over Europe, and mostly settled in Italy.
The Greek and Hebrew languages were again studied,
and thence there resulted a remarkable revival of
classical learning, and there arose an intelligent criti
cism of the Latin credentials of the Roman Catholic
Faith. What (said the faculty of theology in Paris),
what will become of our religion, if the study of Greek
and Hebrew be permitted ? Time has verified this
prophetic fear of the Romish Church, and has shown,
that the prevalence of the Latin tongue was an essential
condition of her power.
The third event I shall advert to was the discovery of
the rounded form, and relative smallness, of our Earth,
through the Voyages of Columbus and Vasco de Gama
in the years 1492-7, and of Magellan’s expedition in the
years 1519-1522. The effect on the human mind of this
physical discovery must have been very powerful, since
it shocked directly some of the most cherished religious
notions of those days. Fact had now falsified faith ;
for the infallible Church had transmuted a geographical
problem into a theological dogma, by committing her
self against the figure of the Earth being round. Her
�8
Erasmus; his Life, Works3 and Influence
teaching was now shown to be untrue, and the authority
of her fervid Fathers Lactantius and Augustin proved to
be worthless, by the astounding achievement of the
actual circumnavigation of the Globe !
It should be observed that the spread of knowledge
at the period we are referring to was remarkably rapid.
Schools of learning were numerous, many of them dating
from their foundation by Charlemagne in the ninth cen
tury ; and Europe was dotted over by Universities, all
of which were more or less in close connection with one
another. The one language, Latin, was common to them
all, and students passed freely from one to another,
flocking often in great numbers to an University where
there happened to be a famous Professor.
Such, shortly, was the ecclesiastical and intellectual
condition of Western Christendom about the time of
the advent of the illustrious scholar, whose career we
are going slightly to trace. It was a time, when:—
“ Much was believ’d, but little understood,
And to be dull was constru’d to be good;
A second deluge Learning had o’er-run,
And the Monks finish’d what the Goths begun.
At length Erasmus, that great injur’d name,
(The glory of the Priesthood, and the shame!)
Stem’d the wild torrent of a barb’rous age,
And drove those holy Vandals off the stage.”
Desiderius Erasmus was born at Rotterdam in about
the year 1467. His parents were, one Gerard, a native
of Tergouw, and Margaret, the daughter of a Physician
at Zevenbergen in Brabant. Gerard in the Dutch
language signifies “ beloved,” and the son, following a
quaint fashion of the times, called himself by its Latin
and Greek equivalents—that is “ Desiderius ” in Latin
and “Erasmus” (more accurately Erasmios) in Greek.
As a boy he was considered slow at learning, and was
early placed in the choir of the Cathedral of Utrecht,butat
the age of nine he was removed to a then distinguished
school at Deventer, a town on the Yssel, where he had as a
schoolfellow a future Pope, Adrian the VI., and where
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
9
he made astonishing progress, causing Zinthius, one of
the masters, to prophecy that Erasmus would eventually
reach the highest pinnacle of learning. On leaving
school he was, much against his will, induced by his
guardians (he was already an orphan, having lost both
his parents), to enter the Augustinian Monastery of
Steyn, and to become a Monk. Whilst an inmate, he
was allowed by way of solace, to occupy the greater
portion of his time in study, especially of such of the
Greek and Latin classics as could there be met with.
His deliverance from the monastery was owing to his
accomplished scholarship, and happened thus. In the
year 1491 the Bishop of Cambray, being about to set
out for Rome in the hope of becoming a Cardinal, was
in search of a scholar to be his secretary and companion,
and he selected Erasmus. Erom Cambray Erasmus
(leaving the service of the Bishop, who did not go to
Rome after all) proceeded to Paris, and mastered the
studies that were then taught to the students of its
University (chiefly the scholastic philosophy or science
of sophistry, a metaphysical jargon enabling doctors
of theology endlessly to confute one another), living
very poorly, and more or less in pecuniary difficulty,
supported partly by presents, that it was customary for
the rich and noble to make to students, and partly by
begging, which was a common practice of the Monks
of the Mendicant Orders. In 1498 Erasmus visited
this country, remaining here until the year 1500, em
ploying his time a good deal at the. University of
Oxford, and in making the acquaintance of the most
learned and noted Englishmen of that day, especially
Thomas Linacre, Physician to Henry the 8th, William
Grocyn who was engaged at Oxford in giving Lectures
on the Greek Language, Thomas Latimer the theologian,
Thomas More, afterwards Lord Chancellor, and Colet,
Dean of St Paul’s and founder of St Paul’s School.
Erasmus appears to have been greatly delighted with
this visit to England, and was much impressed with the
�io Erasmus; his Life, Works, and Influence
number of our learned men, and they too were equally
taken with the varied scholarship of their visitor, almost
inducing him to’ settle at Oxford and give lectures
there. On leaving England, Erasmus was struck down
by fever at Orleans. He recovered, he says, through
the intercession of Saint Genevieve, though not without
the help of a good Physician. In the year 1506 Erasmus
paid a second visit to this country, staying about a year,
renewing his intercourse with his old friends, and visit
ing for the first time the University of Cambridge,
where he was made a Bachelor of Divinity. Leaving
England he again visited Paris, and afterwards crossed
the Alps to see the Cities of Italy, Turin, Venice, and
Rome, always pursuing his studies, and making the
acquaintance of great men and scholars, with whom he
carried on a voluminous and instructive correspondence.
He now obtained from the Pope a release from his
monastic vows. It seems to have long been his ambi
tion to pay a visit to Italy, then renowned through the
world for her antiquities, her arts, and her learning,
where the old classical memories had never died out, and
where, in the days of Erasmus, they were recovering their
influence.
In the year 1509 we find Erasmus again in London,
living with his friend Sir Thomas More, and it was
whilst with him that he produced one of his most bril
liant works—one, indeed, of the most famous satires of
world. Erasmus, reflecting on the name of his friend the
More, thinking how strange so wise a man should bear
the name of fool—(More being the Latin for folly)—
thinking too how many fools there were in the world,
and what various forms folly assumed, conceived the
idea of satirising and turning the weak side of all classes
of men into ridicule, under the pretence of eulogising
folly. Such was the origin of his book ‘Encomium
Morise,’ or ‘ Praise of Eolly.’ In this masterly per
formance, abounding in wit and eloquence, the super
stitions of the Monks of his time, the pride, avarice and
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
11
tyranny of the Nobles are exposed in a vein of scathing
satire. The Miracle-mongers, the traffickers in Pardons,
and the theologians generally are attacked with great
force of humour, and exhibited in lights that make them
appear really ridiculous ; the schoolmen, the Mendicant
Friars, even the Pope himself, being handled in a vein of
sarcastic pleasantry. The fame of this remarkable book
was immense. In a few months it went through seven
editions; Kings, Bishops, Cardinals appear to have
been delighted with it, the great Pope Leo the 10th
reading it through from beginning to end. Of course it
was attacked, though it was long before the Monks
broke silence. Their dull brains did not at first take in
the fact that they were being turned into ridicule, and
that, (to use the expression of Dorpius), their heads
were being fitted with asses’ ears.
The enlightening influence of this little book, in
rousing men to a consideration of the ecclesiastical state
of things around them, forcing them to ask themselves
whether all that they had been taught to believe could
be true, must have been very great.
Soon after this second arrival of Erasmus in England
he was invited to Cambridge University by Fisher the
then Chancellor, a very learned man and a warm patron
of letters, and who was labouring to improve the studies
of the University, which were scarcely so advanced as
those of Oxford in the culture of the great classical
authors and the Greek Language. At Cambridge
Erasmus gave the first Lectures ever given there on
Greek, and was appointed Lady Margaret’s Professor of
Divinity. His stay at Cambridge was, however, com
paratively short; he complained that the living and bad
wine did not agree with him, and we soon find him
again travelling about the world, particularly at Ghent,
at Strasburg, and at Basle.
In the year 1508 there appeared from the printing
press of Manutius Aldus in Venice, in a greatly im
proved edition, another very remarkable work of
�12 Erasmus; his Life, Works, and Influence
Erasmus termed the 1 Adages,’ that is, proverbs, or
impressive sayings and maxims, which he had labori
ously culled from the whole compass of classical and
polite literature, for the most part derived with diffi
culty from hidden and defaced manuscripts, many of
them in the Greek language. A perfect cyclopaedia of
wit and wisdom, interspersed with reflections and disser
tations of his own, exposing, with admirable humour and
irony, the superstitions and follies of monks and kings.
The Proverbs collected in this vast magazine (one of the
most astonishing monuments of literary diligence exist
ing in the world) amount to upwards of four thousand.
An immense number of copies were sold, and distributed
amongst the thinking portion of the European Public.
In allusion to the Printing-press, as the unconscious
agent in this diffusion of book-knowledge, Erasmus
finely remarks, “ whilst the vast Alexandrian library of
the great Ptolemy was confined to the walls of a single
building, Aldus our printer is constructing a library
which will have no limits but those of the literary
world! ”
Bearing in mind that these brilliant and attractive
Works of Erasmus, diffusing a knowledge of classical
literature, assailing (under the mask of playful wit) the
conduct of Popes, Monarchs, and Ecclesiastics, and
satirising the vices, impostures, and scandals of the
Church and Court of Rome, were being published
during the years immediately preceding the rise of the
Reformation, we cannot doubt how much they effected
in preparing the world for coming events.
But the prodigious learning and resources of Erasmus
were far from being exhausted, and, in the year 1516, he
gave to the learned world, through the printing press of
Froben at Basle, the entire New Testament in Greek,
with a Latin translation and annotations. The work
was dedicated to the Pope, with an account of the ancient
manuscripts that had been used in its production. They
were indeed few in number compared with those that
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
13
have since been discovered and collated, and, with refer
ence to the Apocalypse, there was but one Greek manu
script, and that so defective that Erasmus had to make
up the Greek version by translations of his own from the
Latin. The book was not indeed, in several particulars,
faultless, yet, having regard to the time when it was
composed, to the existing means of accomplishing so
great a work, to the fact that it was the “ editio princeps,” or first edition, of the Greek Testament that had
ever been printed (for, at the time when Erasmus pro
duced his Greek Testament, as well as for centuries
before, the Church Bible was a Latin version of the
Scriptures), and, judging it even by all that has been
effected by the research and accomplishments of the
numerous subsequent critical editors, it is impossible to
deny, that it was a very marvel of ability and industry.
The sale of it was very rapid; upwards of 3,300 folio
copies were disposed of almost immediately. At length
Scholars and Divines, and Princes and Nobility, were
enabled to possess an actual copy of the Christian Scrip
tures in their original tongue. Of course curiosity led
to translations into the vernacular languages which soon
followed, and, it is hardly possible to exaggerate the
debt which we, living now, owe to Erasmus for this
splendid monument of his scholarship, of which, as I
shall have occasion again to refer to it, I will only now
remark, that the annotations are distinguished by that
boldness of criticism which in our day is denounced as
rationalistic. As usual, the book provoked enmity and
censure, again the malevolence of the Monks was
aroused. In reference to his emendations of the vulgate
or Latin text they accused him of impiety in presuming
to correct the Holy Ghost. “Is every fool then,” he
retorted, “to be permitted to corrupt the manuscripts
of the gospels, and a scholar to be declared impious for
restoring what has been corrupted ?” It was also
bitterly attacked by rival scholars, but, when his Greek
was charged with want of elegance, Erasmus simply
�14 Erasmus; his Life, Works} and Influence
replied, “ The apostles did not learn their Greek from
the orations of Demosthenes.”
The next work of importance that engaged the pen of
Erasmus was an edition of the ‘Life and Works of St.
Jerome.’ This was published in July, 1516, in nine
splendid folio volumes. As in former works, so in this,
Erasmus accompanied the text with learned scholia,
that is, brief critical and explanatory notes, in which
all the resources of his vast erudition were called into
requisition to elucidate obscure and doubtful points.
The work was dedicated to Warham, Archbishop of
Canterbury, and speedily passed through three editions.
During all this time Erasmus was continually travelling
about, making ceaseless journeys to Churches, Monas
teries, and Universities containing rare or noted manu
scripts, thereby rescuing for the Printing Press those
immortal works of the wise ancients that were hourly
perishing with the worm-eaten parchments on which
they were traced. He had left England for Basle in
1515, but we find him back here again in 1517. Still
however he declined to remain amongst us, partly, he
states in a letter to the Physician of the Cardinal of
• York, on account of the sweating sicknesses, plagues,
and contagious fevers that were of so frequent occur
rence here in the 16th century, arising chiefly, accord
ing to Erasmus (whose observations exhibit consider
able sanitary knowledge), from our disregard of the
laws of health, in the filthy and stifling state, and
defective ventilation, of the ordinary residences of the
people.
This year 1517 signalised the outbreak of the Refor
mation in Germany, and Erasmus was at once involved
in correspondence with Luther, Cardinal Wolsey, Albert
Prince Elector and Cardinal Archbishop of Maintz, and
with the Pope himself. He appears to have been inde
cisive in his theological opinions, and desirous to bring
about some middle course between the antagonistic
views of the Church and the Reformers; but the quarrel
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
i$
soon became too embittered for mediators, and Erasmus,
though clinging to the Roman Church, incurred severe
censure from both sides. As I shall presently more
particularly discuss his position in relation to Luther,
I pass on to the consideration of his principal remaining
literary productions.
There is a work of Erasmus I must mention, for it
shows clearly his humane nature and correct moral prin
ciples. This was his book called ‘ The Complaint of
Peace.’ No man ever detested war more cordially than
he did, and, even in that warlike age, he lifted up his
voice loudly against it. Nothing, he shows, can be more
utterly at variance with war than Christianity, whose
founder is emphatically called “The Prince of Peace.”
He is powerfully severe on the Clergy of his time for
the way in which they foment the warlike passions of
princes and people. “ Priests and Bishops,” he ob
serves, “ leave their churches and follow armies to the
field, waving above the contending hosts the holy Cross,
thus made the symbol of war by those whose mission it
is, before all things, to preserve peace. Their prayers
must indeed be a mere mockery to God, when their very
cannon are named after the Apostles, and engraved with
the images of the Saints !”
In 1524 Erasmus published a paraphrase of the New
Testament, which was esteemed so highly that a copy
of it, translated into English by Nicholas Udal, Master
of Eton College, was, by an order in Council, directed
to be placed in every Parish Church in this Country
beside the Bible.
The last work of the great Scholar I shall mention
was that which is the best known of all—viz., ‘ The
Familiar Colloquies,’ published in 1526, professedly
designed for the instruction of youth, and long de
servedly much read in our schools. It consists of a
large number of conversations on a great variety of
subjects, conducted in the most natural manner, full of
delicate humour, keen irony, and subtle wit. In it the
�16 Erasmus; his Life, Works, and Influence
clergy are everywhere represented as idle and corrupt.
Indulgences, auricular confession, and eating fish on
fast days, are satirically laughed at. Again and again
the coarse, overfed, ignorant monks are lashed with
ridicule, and their lives and conduct exposed. The
indignation of the clerical world was now really roused
to resentment, but the success of the work was splendid.
It is related that a publisher in Paris, Colineus, hearing
that it was about to be condemned by the University,
printed no less than 24,000 copies, and sold them all.
However, in the end, the reading of the book was pro
hibited by the Faculty of Theology, on the grounds,
amongst others, that Christians are discouraged by it
from becoming monks, that grammatical is preferred to
theological erudition, and that it contained “ erroneous,
scandalous, and impious propositions, in which the
author, as though he were a heathen, ridicules, satirises,
and sneers at the holy ceremonies and observances of
the Christian Religion.”
From this time Erasmus became the object of attack
by theologians on all sides, and had to defend himself
from the censures of the Sorbonne in Paris. There can
be no doubt that these controversies, and the works from
which they proceeded, had much effect in undermining
the power of the monkish party, in laughing down their
superstitions, and bringing their whole system into con
tempt. But it was not only the monks that were to
blame. Erasmus saw, he says, a new set of fanatics
arising on the reformed side, as ignorant, as presump
tuous, as hostile to liberal culture as the fanatics of the
Church. He dreaded lest the world, instead of being
freed from the yoke of superstition, should merely expe
rience a change of masters. This new Gospel (he writes
of the views of the ignorant adherents of Luther) is pro
ducing a new set of men, so impudent, hypocritical, and
abusive, such liars and sycophants and ranters, agreeing
neither with one another nor with any one else, so uni
versally offensive and seditious, in short, so distasteful
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
17
to me, that if I knew any city in which I should be free
from them I would go there at once.
The enemies of Erasmus of course increased with the
bitterness of his scornful attacks upon their miser
able superstitions, and their gross illiterate ignorance.
“ Every goose now hisses at Erasmus ” (he writes). But,
in his retreat at Basle, on the banks of the Rhine, the
great champion of literary culture still carried on the
theological feud. One of his most characteristic pieces
is the letter of farewell to his assailants that he pub
lished in 1525, in which they are contemptuously styled
“ certain impudent jackdaws, young men, whose igno
rance is matched only by their arrogance.”
In the year 1529 the progress of the reformed faith,
and the violence of the mob, in attacking and defacing
the members and Churches of the Roman Catholic Reli
gion, compelled Erasmus to remove to Friburg. His
account of his flight, given in a letter to a friend, is
extremely graphic and sarcastic. “ The rabble,” he says,
“ heaped such insults on the images of the Saints and
the Crucifix itself, that it was astonishing there was no
miracle, considering how many there always used to be
whenever the saints were even but slightly offended.”
In the year 1534 affairs were sufficiently quiet to
enable Erasmus to return to Basle, where,—whilst re
posing in the hospitable home of his friend Jerome
Froben, the famous printer, and engaged in revising,
“ segra manu ” (he tells us), his latest works, and shortly
after hearing of the tyrannical murder of his eminent
friend Sir Thomas More,—Erasmus was summoned to
meet his last enemy, and on the 12th of February, 1536,
being in the 69th year of his age, he there succumbed to
the attack of death.
Though of the Roman Catholic Faith, no priestly
mummeries were enacted round his death-bed. “He
has died,” exclaimed the illiterate monks in their dogLatin, “ sine Lux, sine Crux.” But the liberal and
beneficent city of Basle knew better how to celebrate the
B
�18 Erasmus; his Life, Works, and Influence
event of a great man, whatever his creed, having closed
his career in their midst. The Magistrates, with the
Professors and Students of the University, shared among
them the envied honour of carrying to their last restingplace in Basle Cathedral (a sanctuary for the literary
dead) the remains of the great luminary of the age, the
greatest scholar perhaps of any age, lamented by all
lovers of learning, respected by every crowned head in
Europe, hated only by ecclesiastics incapable, through
ignorance, of appreciating his merits—merits, which, on
any candid review, must ever appear most remarkable.
His attainments were indeed stupendous, and, in his own
age, his powers of reason, imagination, and caustic wit
were unmatched. Though neither physically nor men
tally cast in the heroic mould of Luther ; quite unable,
like him, to have stood alone against the united power
of Church and State, yet, with pen in hand, and sur
rounded by his books, the whole learned world in ex
pectation of what he should utter, Erasmus reigned
supreme I His sarcasms were hurled against vice, igno
rance, and error, with crushing effect. At a time when
literary ignorance was the besetting sin, his variety of
erudition, and unrivalled powers of diffusing knowledge
and inspiring the love of literary culture, were invalu
able. The faculty of humour appears to have been his
most original mental quality. That civil irony, by
whose unsparing use he succeeded in making the super
stitions of his day supremely ridiculous, has never been
surpassed. The dogmas of theology were his aversion.
The sum of our religion, he avers, is Peace, which is to
be preserved by defining only primary points, leaving
the rest to every one’s own judgment. That a man’s
Faith should be looked for in the life he led, not in the
creed he professed. His desire was to correct the
abuses of the Church without rebelling from her autho
rity, to reform her discipline, and recall religion from
ritualistic rites and ceremonies to the simplicity of the
Gospels. His great weapon for effecting such reform
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
19
was knowledge combined with common sense and the
use of reason. Far before his own age, he embodied in
himself what we now term the modern spirit—the spirit,
of doubt and free enquiry. Like the Broad Churchmen
of our day, he had outgrown the narrow orthodoxy of
his Church, and, like them, he conscientiously refused
to separate himself from her communion. He broke off
from Luther, as we shall presently see, .when Luther’s
dogmatic theology and impetuous conduct threatened
rebellion rather than reform, and when reason, literary
culture, and freedom of speech were becoming stifled by
the violent conduct of the Reformers. The sagacious
mind of Erasmus was rather sceptical and critical than
affirmative and dogmatic. In religious strife, the arena
of argument and discussion was his vantage-ground, and
to aid in educating the mind to the skilful use of these
intellectual weapons by means of his well-reasoned
writings was no insignificant contribution to the reli
gious crisis of his age, the great contest with the fana
ticism of the 16th century.
Of the person and manners of Erasmus his friend
Beatus Rhenanus has told us that he had a cheerful
countenance and an agreeable utterance, was a pleasant
companion, a constant friend, generous and charitable.
Leaving the grave of our incomparable scholar, we
must now revert to events which my narrative has some
what outstripped.
In the year 1517 the magnificent taste of John de
Medici, Pope Leo the 10th, was engaged in, ^amongst
other splendid works, the erection of the Church of
St. Peter’s at Rome, and he was pressed for supplies of
money. To replenish his exhausted exchequer he com
missioned Tetzel, a Dominican Friar, to preach through
out Germany a sale of Indulgences, that is, a remittance
from the pains of purgatory and all other punishments
of sin, in consideration of money payments made to the
Pope. A sale of Indulgences for the perpetration of sin,
however nefarious, was nothing novel. It was a recog-
�20 Erasmus; his Life, Works, and Influence
nised practice of the Roman Catholic Church ; but the
proceedings of Tetzel, who had been created an Inquisitor
to. give more influence to his mission, were conducted
with unusual indecency and audacity. Travelling
through towns and villages, hawking them about at
fairs, market places, and taverns, his conduct respmhlnd
that of a mountebank or quack doctor, and the temper
of the times was foreboding some intellectual explosion.
Tetzel’s profanity appears to have excited deep disgust
and indignation in the mind of an Augustinian Monk,
Martin Luther, who first remonstrated and then publicly
denounced Tetzel’s whole proceedings as a gigantic
scandal. Drawing up propositions denying the right of
the Pope to pardon sin, denying that Indulgences could
possibly be more than a release from the censures of the
Church, he reduced these to the form of scholastic theses
for discussion, and, on the 31st Oct., 1517, nailed them
publicly to the door of the Church at Wittenberg, with a
challenge to Tetzel and all others whom it might concern
to come forward and publicly confute them. This
slight, but significant, act of an almost obscure Monk
was the outbreak of the Protestant Reformation .’ Almost
all Germany, who had no idea of allowing their money
to be drained to Rome, took up the cause of Luther, who
proceeded to denounce numerous other religious rites
and ceremonies as errors and superstitions of the
Romish Church.
The Pope, failing methods of conciliation, on the
15th of June, 1520, issued a Bull, in which Luther’s
opinions were condemned as heresies, and his books
ordered to be publicly burnt. This proceeding of the
Pope was instantly met by Luther, in a manner and
with a spirit, that at once showed the intrepid and impe
rious character of the man. Causing a huge bonfire to
be lit within the walls of Wittenberg he, on the
20th Dec., 1520, committed the Pope’s Bull to the
flames, together with the Canons and Decretals that set
forth the Pope’s supremacy.
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
21
All communion with the Church of Rome was thus for
ever renounced, and the reformed churches date their
origin from this transaction.
Now, for many years previously to this outbreak, long
before Luther was heard of, Erasmus had been working
for the reformation of the Church ; but a reform, not a
revolution, had been his cherished idea, to be brought
about by the advancement of learning, and the diffusion
of a knowledge of the Scriptures, but to be so effected as
not to create schism, and so that the unity of Chris
tendom under one head should remain unimpaired. The
reckless impulse of the dauntless Luther, who had
sought to shatter the fabric of the Papacy at a single
blow, simply shocked the nervous Erasmus, causing him
to conclude that the advance of knowledge, through
peaceful discussion, and the consequent reform of abuses,
the improvement of morals, and extinction of supersti
tions, would be retarded, rather than aided, by Luther’s
defiant acts.
These illustrious characters were undoubtedly actuated
originally by like motives, and were, at the outset, sin
cerely desirous of acting in concert, mutually discussing
their respective views in a serious written correspondence;
but Erasmus, unable to agree with the Augustinian
theology of Luther, and terrified by his extreme course
of action, had broken off from him, and now indeed
stood aghast at the conflagration, moral and material, that
was spreading from the burning of the Pope’s Bull.
The religious questions at issue between Rome and the
Reformers were thenceforth discussed in Diets or Poli
tical assemblies. The Reformers and their tenets were
condemned by an edict of the Diet of Worms in 1521,
which excommunicated Luther and all his adherents.
At the first Diet of Spires in 1526 it was resolved that
the cruel and persecuting Edict of Worms should not be
carried out, but, at the Second Diet of Spires in 1529
the decision of its First Diet was ruthlessly reversed.
The iniquitous decree of this Second Diet of Spires was
�22 Erasmus; his Life, Works, and Influence
solemnly protested against by the Elector of Saxony, the
Landgrave of Hesse, the Prince of Anhalt, and other
political powers and great men, whence, as you may
remember, the Reformers derived their designation of
Protestants, by which term all Christian sects that differ
from Rome have ever since been styled.
The religious dissensions still continued, followed, as
always has been the case, by holy wars! in which the
excesses of German peasants and Dutch Anabaptists
were extinguished in the blood of 80,000 victims; but
they were ultimately brought to an end in the year
1555 in an imperial Diet, which decreed that Protestants
who embraced the theological propositions known as
“ The Confession of Augsburg ” should be entirely
exempted from the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff.
And thus at last was reached the first stage of what
religious rulers have termed Toleration, which is, the
insolent permission of men in power, granted to other
men to think and believe on religious questions, and to
worship the Deity, as their reason and conscience may
dictate.
The grand Protestant Reformation, whose historical
outline I have so barely sketched, in order to be under
stood must be considered under two aspects, the Theo
logical and the Historical.
Theologically regarded, the Reformation was the
result of a contest respecting the standard of Religious
Truth, that is to say, whether it was to be found in the
Church or in the Bible, and it has hitherto been, prac
tically, very little more than a change of theological
dogmas ; for, though it effected the abolition of Saint
Worship, and the ceremony of the Mass, the destruction
of images, the eradication of Monkery and the free cir
culation of the Scriptures, it ended in imposing upon
the human mind theological propositions stereotyped in
ecclesiastical creeds, confessions of faith, and articles of
Religion dialectically deduced from the language of an
assumed infallible book, but substituted as bonds, in the
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
23
place of other theological propositions that had been
dogmatically decreed by an alleged infallible church.
Yet, to this extent, it was an immense step in advance,
and even now, notwithstanding all our scientific and
moral progress, a large majority of protestant Christians
firmly adhere to the religious conclusions that were then
arrived at, the basis of which, as the ultimate standard
of theological faith, is thus forcibly described by Chil
lingworth writing in the year 1637 :—
“ The Bible I say, the Bible only, is the Religion of
Protestants. Propose me anything out of this book, and
require whether I believe it or no, and, seem it never so
incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it
with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can
be stronger than this—God hath said so—therefore it is
true.”
Regarded historically, the essential principle of the
great Reformation appears to be of a more profound and
general nature. In the struggle that is ever progressing
between the efforts of the human reason, on the one
hand, to assert its own freedom, and, on the other hand,
the coercion exercised over it by ecclesiastical power, a
struggle that, in our day, is rapidly attaining the pro
portions of an impending conflict between Superstition
and Science, the Reformation may be described as the
sudden expansion of the human mind, invigorated
through the revival of learning, to burst asunder the
bonds of priestly tyranny; to assert the right of every
man to exercise his own judgment in matters of the
highest importance to him ; to inquire into and discuss
them, and to seek for Truth, unfettered by any dogmatic
authority whatsoever, and in the freedom of his indi
vidual reason and conscience.
Seen from this historical point of view, it is not the
dogmatic and unlettered Luther, “bellowing in bad Latin,”
but rather, the cultured and rationalising Erasmus—
“ Sapping a solemn creed with solemn sneer,
The lord of irony, that master spell— ”
�24 Erasmus; his Life, Works, and Influence
who appears as the chief apostle of the Reformation, and
the principles abounding in his writings to be those to
which we now owe our present liberty of religious
thought. He, though but the precursor of bolder
prophets than himself, was the first distinguished enemy
to ignorance and superstition, the first restorer of morality
on the Gospel precepts. If, as was said at the time by
the monks, “ Erasmus laid the egg, but Luther hatched
it,” we may now add, that the continued and still soaring
flight of its vigorous offspring is owing to the prolific
power of the parent, and to those principles of nurture
which the prophetic genius of Erasmus descried. It is
to the development of that culture of the understanding
which he had at heart, and to the freedom of intellectual
discussion which is its natural fruit, that the enlightened
religious opinions of our own day are chiefly owing, and
their resistless advance in this country, since the days
of Chilling worth, is remarkably conspicuous, when read
in the light of the judgment of the judicial Committee
of the Privy Council delivered, in Wilson v. Fendall, the
case of Essays and Reviews, on the 8th of February.,
1864. By virtue of that well-advised and authoritative
declaration of the law, all, both cleric and lay, are
secured in their liberty, as respects the interpretation of
the Bible, to accept “ as parable, or poetry, or legend, the
story of a serpent tempter, of an ass speaking with man’s
voice, of an arresting of the earth’s motion, of water
standing in a solid heap, of an universal deluge dried up
by the wind, of the personality of Satan, together with
many other alleged miraculous events.” All are by that
judgment legally entitled advisedly to maintain and affirm,
that “ the Scriptures are not entirely God’s Word, though
the Word of God is contained in Scripture, and that
the dark patches of human passion and error that
form a partial crust upon it, are to be separated and
distinguished from the bright centre of spiritual truth
within.”
Now our present more accurate knowledge of the nature
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
2$
and contents of the Bible has resulted from the progress
of Biblical Criticism, a secular science, for which, in its
origin, we are very much indebted to the great learning
and labours of Erasmus. Almost the very first general
demand that was created by the revival of letters was to
obtain a sight of the Christian Scriptures, but at that
time they positively had no existence for the people at
large, for they were to be found only in manuscripts
in the Greek, Syriac, Latin, and other ancient or
oriental tongues, few in number, and buried in the
sacristies of Churches, and the libraries of Monasteries
and Universities scattered over Europe. It was the work
of Erasmus, by means of unwearied travel and inces
sant toil, to copy and collate some of the more important
of these, and to publish the first printed edition of the
New Testament in its original tongue. This gigantic
task accomplished, the rest has been comparatively easy.
Thousands of copies of this first edition of the printed
Christian Scriptures were issued and disseminated, and
translations into the vernacular languages were imme
diately made, and then, to some extent, the people at
large obtained the opportunity of reading them, and
comparing with their simple spiritual and moral teach
ing the pompous ceremonial, and ritualistic apparatus, of
the Romish Church. Other editions also rapidly fol
lowed. Industrious scholars vied with one another in
a critical examination of ancient manuscripts, and in
publishing the results. In 1550 the renowned printer
Robert Stephens published his 3rd edition of the Greek
Testament, which contained in the margin notes of the
various readings of the manuscripts he had consulted.
This, the first critical edition, was succeeded by others
on a similar plan, the chief of which you will find speci
fied in the syllabus in your hands, and a conclusion has
been thereby arrived at, which, stated in its simplest
form, you will probably think sufficiently striking, viz.,
That the careful collation of upwards of 600 ancient
manuscripts of New Testament Writings exhibits a total
�26 Erasmus; his Life, Works, and Influence
of more than 100,000. various readings, and the discovery
of no single text that can be selected as immaculate.
Such was the condition of things which brought into
existence that most important branch of modern scholar
ship, the secular science of Biblical Criticism, which may
be defined as an intellectual method or discipline, based
on reason and evidence, for applying the truths, the
tests, the logic and canons of proof, of the more exact
sciences to the investigation of the genuineness, the
authenticity, and the true interpretation of the Christian
Records. The light which is now flowing in upon us
from the free, but conscientious, pursuit of this important
study, especially in Germany, Holland, Erance, and
England can hardly be exceeded. It has made its way
in this country where, a generation or so ago, it would
have been thought incredible. It has shown that our
authorised version of the Bible, in many respects
indeed most admirable, is nevertheless so imperfect, that
two companies of translators appointed by authority are
now engaged in revising and correcting it.
Of the various readings in the ancient manuscripts I
will call your attention to one, as the discussion of it
chiefly dates from the publication of Erasmus’s Edition
of the Greek Testament. It is the passage contained
in the 7th and 8th verses of the 5th chapter of the
first General Epistle of St John, known controversially
as “ The Text of the three heavenly witnesses.” It is
commonly found in the Latin, but not in the Greek
Manuscripts.
In your Bibles you will find it in these words—“w
heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear
witness in earth.” These words you observe are wanting
in the original Greek. It is a text almost crucial with
reference to the theological dogma of the Trinity, and
the controversy respecting it has been, whether the
Trinitarians interpolated it, or the Arians expunged it.
The passage in question was omitted by Erasmus from
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
27
his first and second editions, but was inserted by him in
his third edition, on the presumed authority of a single
Greek manuscript, which was pressed upon him by
Edward Lee, Chaplain to King Henry the 8th and after
wards Archbishop of York. This manuscript, the Codex
Montfortianus, now in the library of Trinity College,
Dublin, was not, apparently, ever seen by Erasmus him
self, and is believed to have been forged between the
years 1519 and 1522 for the express purpose of betray
ing Erasmus into making the desired alteration in his
printed text. At any rate, since the decisive controversy between Professor Porson and Archdeacon Travis
in the year 1790, respecting the genuineness of this
text, the ablest critics are unanimous in rejecting it as
spurious, all the Greek manuscripts of undoubted anti
quity and integrity alike omitting it. As, notwithstand
ing such rejection, our authorised English version,
though professing to be translated from the original
Greek, at present retains it, it is a matter of expectant
curiosity to see what our “ New Testament Company of
Translators ” will do with it.
A concise account of some of the most ancient exist
ing manuscripts of the New Testament will place in
perhaps yet stronger light the source of, and necessity
for, the science of biblical criticism.
,
The autographs or manuscripts that were written
by the Apostles or their amanuenses have long since
perished, and we have no information whatever con
cerning their history. No manuscript of the Scriptures
now extant can be traced higher than .the fourth century
after Christ.
At the commencement of the Christian era the Latin,
as a general language, was gradually supplanting the
Greek, and it appears from the testimony of Augustin
that the Latin Church possessed numerous versions of
the Scriptures in the Latin language made at the first
introduction of Christianity. Hence, of the most ancient
now existing manuscripts of the New Testament Scrip-
�2 8 Erasmus; his Life, Works, and Influence
tures, some are in Latin, and some are in Greek ; and it
has not been possible to ascertain with certainty which
of these are the oldest.
The interesting subject of the date, integrity, and
authenticity of the numerous manuscripts of the Chris
tian Scriptures is involved in so wide a controversy and
variety of critical opinion, that even the few facts I
shall allege in such observations as I can now venture
to make must be accepted partly as probabilities only,
in which very eminent scholars concur.
Of the most ancient and important existing Greek
manuscripts, there are three, respectively known as the
Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Vaticanus, and the
Codex Cantabrigiensis or Bezse; and there are three,
- equally in some respects, important Latin manuscripts,
probably as ancient, or perhaps more so, than the three
Greek ones—viz., the Codex Brixianus, the Versio
Vulgata, and the Codex Vercellencis. None of these
manuscripts are perfect, and all differ more or less from
one another. They exhibit, however, three distinct
classes of text, respectively traceable to the territories
whence they were originally derived—viz., Constan
tinople or Byzantium, Palestine, and Egypt or Alex
andria. Viewed under this threefold distribution, the
ancient Latin manuscripts coincide so remarkably, in
style and arrangement of language, with the ancient
Greek ones, that I can conveniently group them together
in the following remarks.
The Greek Codex Alexandrinus is a manuscript pre
served in our British Museum, where part of it may be
seen open in a glass case. It consists of four volumes,
three of which contain the Old, and the fourth the New
Testament and other writings. Its Pedigree has been
traced with singular success. It was a present to King
Charles the First from Cyrillus Lucaris, Patriarch of
Constantinople in the year 1628. Cyrillus found it in a
monastery on Mount Athos, and took it with him to
Alexandria, whence he brought it to this country. It
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
29
was written, according to tradition, by Thecla the martyress, a noble Egyptian lady, shortly after the Council
of Nice, which assembled in the year 325. Its delicate
penmanship is characteristic of a female hand. It is
written on vellum in uncial or capital letters, an acknow
ledged mark of high antiquity. A fac-simile of so much
of this manuscript as contains the New Testament was
published in London in 1786 by the late Dr. Woide,
with types that were cast for the purpose.
The ancient Latin manuscript that corresponds with
the Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels is the Codex
Brixianus, a manuscript of great beauty and of the most
expensive character, being written on purple vellum in
silver characters. It is attributed to the learned Philastrius Brixiensis, who was Bishop of Brescia in Italy in
the year 381, and it is preserved at Brescia in the church
there of his name. It has often been inspected by
scholars. The text represents the ancient Italic version
of the Scriptures previously to its revision by St. Jerome,
in the latter part of the 4th century.
These Codices Alexandrinus in the Gospels, and
Brixianus entirely, are exemplars of what is termed the
Constantinopolitan recension, or Byzantine Text.
The Greek Codex Vaticanus is a manuscript preserved
in the Library of the Vatican at Rome. It is written on
vellum in uncial letters, in three columns in each page,
but without any division of chapters or verses. The
uniform shape of the letters and colour of the ink seem
to show that it was written throughout by the same
hand. This manuscript contains, with some exceptions,
the entire Bible, and is thought to contest the palm of
antiquity with the Codex Alexandrinus already referred
to. It has been repeatedly collated. Fac-similes of parts
of it have, from time to time, been published, and an
entire printed edition of it appeared a few years ago at
Rome under the auspices of the Cardinal Angelo Mai—
a version that has been received with a not unnatural
shyness on the part of Protestant Divines.
�30 Erasmus; his Life, Works, and Influence
The ancient Latin manuscript that corresponds with
the Greek Codex Vaticanus is the Versio Vulgata, which
is a manuscript representing the Latin text as it was
corrected by St. Jerome at the instance of Pope Damusus,
who flourished about the year 366. It is also preserved
in the library of the Vatican, and forms the foundation
of the Roman Catholic authorised Bible, declared to be
authentic by the Council of Trent, and which, as many
of you know, is still, as it has always been, a book in the
Latin language styled ‘ Biblia Sacra.’
These Codices Vaticanus and Versio Vulgata are
archetypes of the Palestine Text.
The Greek Codex Cantabrigiensis or Bezaa is a manu
script preserved in the Library of Cambridge University
(where it can be seen under a glass case), to which it
was presented in the year 1581 by Theodore Beza, a
French Protestant and refugee. In his letter of pre
sentation Beza states that it was found in the monastery
of St. Irenaeus, at Lyons, where it had evidently lain for a
long time. It contains only the Gospels and the Acts of
the Apostles. It has, of course, been often collated, and
an exact facsimile of it was published under the patronage
of the University in the year 1793. It is also written in
uncial letters, and is confessedly of a very high antiquity,
written probably between the fifth and seventh centuries.
The ancient Latin manuscript that corresponds with
the Codex Cantabrigiensis is the Codex Vercellencis, a
manuscript that has been immemorially ascribed to
Eusebius, Bishop of Verceli, as being the result of a
revision of the then existing text, undertaken by him at
the desire of his friend Pope Julius, who flourished about
the year 331. It is deposited among the relics which
are reverently preserved and shown in St. Eusebius’s
Church at Verceli in Piedmont. There is no reason to
doubt its extreme antiquity, or its originality.
These Codices Cantabrigiensis and Vercellencis, and
parts of the Codex Alexandrinus are now the most ancient
existing source of the Egyptian or Alexandrine Text.
�upon the Spirit of the Reformation.
31
These several manuscripts, with the Codex Sinaiticus
(discovered by Tischendorf in a monastery on Mount
Sinai in 1859, probably the oldest MS. extant), and
one of the ancient Syriac version (of which time does
not permit further mention), carry the critical inquirer
as near to the source of the sacred writings as it is now
possible to ascend. Not one of them can be accepted as
exhibiting an immaculate text. The utmost that an
orthodox critic of the highest authority, the late eminent
scholar Dr. Bentley, could say with reference to the
textual veracity of Scripture is, that the real text of the
sacred writers does not now (since the originals have
been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or edi
tion, but is dispersed in them all. Whilst another
accomplished critic, Dr. Nolan, in his learned work
on the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, has declared,
that “ the notion of a literary identity between the
present manuscripts of the inspired text and the originals
which were published by the sacred writers is a vulgar
error, with as little foundation in reason as justification
in fact.”
The truth seems to be that the Scriptures, in common
with all other ancient writings, have been preserved and
diffused by human transcription; hence the admission of
mistakes has been unavoidable. These, increasing with
the multitude of copies, necessarily produced a great
variety of different readings, the majority of which, it
should however be observed, are very minute, and, did
they not relate to a book of which, though it be but a
modern version of the lost original, it has again and
again, and still continues to be, solemnly asserted by
our evangelical theologians that every word of it is
inspired, would be regarded as of a trifling and insigni
ficant character.
Returning to the argument of the Lecture, I conclude
by affirming that the essential Spirit of the Protestant
Reformation, and its cardinal principle, are to be sought
for under that which I have characterised as its his-
�32
Erasmus; his Life, Works, &c.
torical aspect, with which are associated the name and
labours of Erasmus, and that they are manifested in the
irrepressible aspirations of the human mind, enlightened
by advancing Science, to establish the right of every
individual to judge for himself, that is, to follow, in
matters most deeply affecting his welfare and peace of
mind, the decisions of his reason, and the dictates of his
moral sense, thereby to emancipate himself from the
yoke of ecclesiastical systems, and the thraldom of
theological creeds, which superstition has invented, and
sacerdotalism has transmitted, and which, all history
assures us, have ever been enforced by the pestilent
practice of Religious Persecution. This Spirit of the
Reformation, however hostile to priestcraft, is friendly
to Truth, by respecting the rights of conscience, and by
encouraging the fearless advance of religious knowledge,
through liberty of inquiry, freedom of thought, and out
spoken honesty of expression.
And, whilst we have amongst us men like Darwin,
Huxley, Tyndall, Carpenter, to keep alive the lamp of
Science ; others, like Dean Stanley, and Bishop Colenso,
to rival the illustrious Erasmus in sacred scholarship
and in critical acumen; others again, like the singleminded and unselfish Voysey, who, however much
resenting the tyranny of the letter, are moved by the
spirit of Truth to proclaim for all the loving Father
hood of God, we may rest assured that the sceptre of
knowledge must, eventually, be wholly wrested from the
grasp of superstition, and that, meanwhile, the Progress
of the Reformation cannot be stayed.
PRINTED BY C W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, LONDON, W.
�
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
Erasmus : his life, works, and influence upon the spirit of the Reformation.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Finch, A. Elley
Description
An account of the resource
London
Collation: 32 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: A lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society on Sunday afternoon, 28th February 1875. Printed by C.W. Reynell. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway and part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Sunday Lecture Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N217
CT134
Subject
The topic of the resource
Desiderius Erasmus
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Erasmus : his life, works, and influence upon the spirit of the Reformation.), 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
Conway Tracts
Desiderius Erasmus
NSS
Reformation
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ba717514708438544e2ae82accc94728.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=L7WO09R6Lz4ORm2a1QYrJedJWjlsVag3zyKlr7cP6njnWtGUPK54ugSUF-rDvLLsrcRQbNtgocAYK%7EoeP0JA2tFJTDGfz9-m8R%7EHUJAhDFhuHZv-YYlC5%7Ee0uqh9yqsZLKsZYMU8rLNu4ET1u5ZLUIabfkEJr0FH7MzH9%7EsfPnn4yTKrcUGYqoriSm-msl7FTJFAaXeuMsen98qsOsEtptRi4ts5gwhIy3fImKad9n2DL4A7A%7EId8Yv94Pb1R1hqmLk5fvekGvQjgiMrUNLsQdrMyNCwizadwiDNxXw8QnE5Wdlsuu6hbY%7E7Zbu6%7ER1-CSFCINCT1LZhvNv2VVdlQw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5b5c82759aa35b08320aaefe0acef540
PDF Text
Text
��M !■ ETI N Ci; O F
■ JoCRETY
"’’ .
Cz
January 12, 1876,
1E
F'MlRTHSft VfSM VMM BISCOVRstt DKLITKRKI) fJY
REV
W. IL EURNES^ D.D
Sunday, Jan. 1O, 1876,
i*M the ^tension el %
! /•>'
nOrbinaihm.
-•>
January 12, 1823.
it Pi XHELPHIA:
■^■i ' 4<J
A 0O„ PRINTERS.
£
��AT THE
MEETING
OF
THE
CoDgregat/w
(Unitarian Society,
January 12, 1875,
TOGETHER WITH THE DISCOURSE DELIVERED BY
REV. W. H. FURNESS, B.D.,
Sunday, Jan. IO, 1875,
©n I Ije ©tension of fIje ^iftieflj ^rniifrersnrg of |jis ©rbinntion,
January 12, 1825.
PHILADELPHIA:
SHERMAN & CO., PRINTERS.
1875.
��On November 3d, 1874, the Trusted of the First Congiegational Unitarian Church of Philadelphia issued the
following notice to the members of the parish :
First Congregational Society of Unitarian Christians.
Philadelphia, November 3d, 1874.
A meeting of the members of this Society will be held at the
Church on Monday, the 9th inst., at 8 p. m., to devise an appro
priate plan for celebrating the completion of the fiftieth year of
Dr. Furness’ pastorate.
As his half century of faithful and distinguished service calls
for fitting commemoration, and as the members of this Church
must rejoice at an opportunity of giving expression to their
love, admiration, and respect for him, a meeting that concerns
such an object will commend itself, and prove of interest to
every one, so that the bare announcement of it, it is deemed,
will be sufficient to insure a full attendance of the parishioners.
By direction of the Trustees,
, Charles H. Coxe,
'
Secretary.
�4
In pursuance of this notice, the members of the Societyheld a meeting in the Church on the evening of Novem
ber 9th, 1874, to consider the subject proposed.
The meeting was organized with Mr. B. H. Bartol as
Chairman, and Mr. Charles H. Coxe as Secretary.
After stating the object of the meeting, the Chairman
called for the opinion of the Society. It was voted that
a committee of nine be appointed, who should, together
with the Trustees of the Church, constitute a committee
to take entire charge of the celebration of Dr. Furness’
Fiftieth Anniversary as Pastor of the Church; should
have full power to add to their number, and make such
arrangements as might seem to them suitable to the
occasion.
The Chair appointed on this Committee,
Mrs. R. S. Sturgis,
Mrs. J. E. Raymond.
Miss Clark,
Miss Roberts,
Miss Duhring,
Mr. John Sartain,
Mr. B. H. Moore,
Mr. David Brewer,
And at the request of the meeting, Mr. B. H. Bartol, the
Chairman, was added.
On November 14th, 1874, at 8 o’clock p. m., the Com
mittee appointed by the Society held a meeting at the
residence of Mr. B. H. Bartol, to make arrangements for
the fiftieth anniversary of Dr. Furness’ pastorate.
The Committee consisted of the following persons :
Trustees.
Mr. Henry Winsor,
Mr. John Sellers, Jr.,
Mr. Enoch Lewis,
Mr. Charles
Mr. Lucius H. Warren,
Mr. Joseph E. Raymond,
Mr. D. E. Eurness,
H. Coxe.
/
�5
Appointed by the Society.
Mbs.
Mrs.
Miss
Miss
R. S. Sturgis,
J. E. Raymond,
Miss Duhring,
Mr. John Sartain,
Clark,
Mr. B. H. Moore,
Roberts,
Mr. David Brewer,
Mr. B. H. Bartol.
Mr. Winsor was chosen Chairman, and Mr. Charles
H. Coxe, Secretary.
It was voted, that on the evening of January 12th,
1875, there should be a commemorative service in the
Church, and ministers from other cities should be invited
to be present.
The Chair appointed as the Committee on Invitations,
Mr. L. H. Warren,
Mr. Enoch Lewis,
Mr. B. H. Bartol,
Mr. David Brewer,
Mr. B. H. Moore,
And at the request of the Committee
Mr. Henry Winsor.
It was also voted, that the Church should be hand
somely and appropriately decorated on that occasion.
The Chair appointed as the Committee on Decora
tions,
Mr. Joseph E. Raymond,
Mr. L. H. Warren,
Miss Roberts,
Mrs. R. S. Sturgis,
Miss Clark,
Miss Duhring.
It was also voted, that the Choir on that occasion
should be increased, if it should be deemed expedient
by the Musical Committee of the Church.
It was further voted, that a marble bust of Dr. Furness
should be obtained, and placed in the Church.
�6
Also, that gold and bronze medals should be struck
off, commemorative of the fiftieth anniversary of the
pastorate of Dr. Furness,
And also, that a suitable and handsome present should
be given to Dr. Furness, in the name of the Society, as
a token of their affection and gratitude.
Also, that photographs of the Church should be taken
as it appeared on the day of the anniversary.
The Chair appointed as the Committee on Fine Arts,
Mr. John Sartain,
Mr. B. H. Moore,
Mr. Henry Winsor.
It was also voted, that the exercises at the ordination
of Dr. Furness should be reprinted, and that the anni
versary sermon and the exercises at the commemorative
service should be printed in pamphlet form.
The Chair appointed as the Committee on Publication,
Mr. Dawes E. Furness.
And as the Committee on Finance,
Mr. B. H. Bartol,
Mr. Enoch Lewis,
Mr. Charles H. Coxe.
�7
On Sunday, January 10th„ 1875, Rev. Dr. Furness
preached his fiftieth anniversary sermon.
The following account is taken from the Christian
Register of that week:
“Yesterday was as perfect a winter day as can he
imagined, cool, clear, and bright. The Unitarian church
was filled before the hour of worship with an eager and
deeply interested throng. All the pews were occupied,
and the aisles and the space around the pulpit were filled
with chairs. The church was beautifully decorated with
laurel wreaths, and in front of the pulpit the floral array
was very rich yet very chaste. On the wall in the rear
of the pulpit was an exquisite ivy cross. Among the
festoons which overhung the pulpit were the figures
‘ 1825 ’ and ‘ 1875 ’ in white and red flowers.
“ Dr. Furness seemed to be in excellent health, and
took his part in the rare and touching semi-centennial
service without any apparent ^jh^mSoiM After a brief
recital and paraph rase^^tpprtWiate passages of Scrip
ture, he read with great beauty and tenderness the hymn
beginning, ‘While Thee I seek, protecting Power,’ and
after a prayer full of love, trust, and gratitude, he read
from the twentieth chapter of the Book of Acts, begin
ning at the seventeenth verse. Then the congregation
sang Lyte’s beautiful hymn, ‘Abide with me! fast falls
the eventide,’ etc. The discourse had no text, excepting
the impressive occasion itself. There was less of narra
tion of interesting incidents than in previous anniversary
sermons, yet the half century was reviewed in a simple
and masterly way. The preacheil mannfi was quite
subdued until he reached his studies of the life of Jesus,
�8
when his face became radiant, his tones fuller and
firmer, and his gestures frequent. The allusions to
other denominations and to the anti-slavery struggle
were exceedingly fair and magnanimous. The people
gave rapt attention, and there was evident regret when
the sermon closed.
“ The singing by a double quartette choir was highly
creditable. Mr. Ames’ church at Germantown was closed,
and pastor and people came to express their sympathy
with Dr. Furness’ society, and to enjoy the uplifting
service. Dr. Martineau’s new hymn-book was used, Dr.
Furness having presented his parishioners with a suffi
cient number of copies to supply all the pews.”
�4
e
j
;»
--------
w
�S'
- H-
b*e*«ne
•
t*nes fbiifl* *HI
ari Wte plan* fw'‘’
The ahofc^dM W
Wwsmi'Mww IM < *W •^-.^-«i*veyv
.. . 4w«'y
m»
•
wm Th*
-jm
k.W.
,■•*» w
«wt
m.«*Mh*t w* ■
eii*dL
T
" tk *»«»•• by * ♦ b
b-'« ¥M highly
■»■-.•
M- *•
jno-'h wt*< -•v.v>-<aww* closed,
. . ’ ><. > ;> f • ■^■o-v*'-- heir sympathy
»*
t. i
, .
•
Ffl*6^f<mm
«
<.
.
••*<! to u,hc th* uplifting
■. ,;
> t • ‘-.i ■.- was used, Dr.
<■•■'■ ' M shmM/ww With a suffi-
«*« pews.”
�J
��DISCOURSE
DELIVERED
SUNDAY JANUARY io, ^875,
ON THE OCCASION OF THE
FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY
OF HIS
ORDINATION, JANUARY 12, 1825, AS THE PASTOR
OF THE
-frirst Congregational Mnitarian Cljnrct)
BY
W. H. FURNESS D.D.
��DISCOURSE
It is in vain, dear friends, that I have tried to set in
order the thoughts that come crowding upon me as the
fiftieth year of my service in this place draws to a close.
I cannot tell what direction they will take. But for the
uncertainty of life, I might have reserved for this occa
sion the Recollections in which I indulged on the last two
anniversaries of my Ordination. All I told you then and
countless other memories come vividly to mind and heart
now. They almost hush me into silence, so hopeless is
the endeavor to give them utterance. I must needs talk
about myself. How can it be avoided on an occasion like
this ? I trust in the kind indulgence on your part which
has never failed me in all these years. If I should prove
only garrulous, you will not forget that I have passed the
allotted boundary and am now one of the borrowers from
eternity; although it hardly becomes me to make claim
to the privileges of age in a community where dwells
one, known and revered of all, who has entered his ninety
sixth year, and is not yet old.
First of all, most humbly and heartily do I acknowledge
and adore the good Providence that, for no deserving of
mine, has blest me so bountifully and so long, and given
me such a dear home among you. What friends, kith
and kin to me, have always surrounded me! At the first
here were my fathers—I have followed them all to the
grave. And now, behold! my brothers, my sisters, my
�12
children. What a gift of God the filial, the fraternal,
the parental trust which I have been encouraged to
cherish! It has been my chiefest treasure, the dearest
sign of Heaven’s grace, my support, my well-spring of life.
During my ministry I have received from you, from
time to time, not a few unlooked-for, substantial tokens
of your kind thoughts for me. They shall never be for
gotten. But it is not the remembrance of any special
proofs of your regard that now moves me, but the hearty
faith in your good-will upon which you have always given
me reason to rely. This has been my crowning privilege.
Even when differences have arisen between us, my trust
in your personal regard has never been allowed to be
shaken. Were there exceptions, they are as good as for
gotten now. Even those who have taken such offence at
my words that they withdrew from the church, still gave
me assurance of their friendship. There used to be times
of painful excitement among us, you remember, when I
was helpless to resist the impulse to plead for the op
pressed. I can never forget how cheered I was by one
friend, still living, but not now dwelling in this city, who
came to me and said that he had at the first disapproved
of my course, but that he was then in full sympathy with
me, and that, as to the church’s being broken up, as was
predicted, if I persisted in speaking for the slave, that
should not be, if a contribution to its support from him
(and he named a most liberal sum), could prevent it. Of
course I never thought of availing myself of his generous
aid, or of permitting the contingency to occur that would
make it needful. If it had come to that pass I should
have felt myself bound to withdraw.
You will not think that I offend against propriety in
mentioning such a private experience when you consider
what an encouragement it was, what a joy to know that
I had such friends.
�13
Indeed, I would not refer now to those painful times at
all, could I not in all honesty say that I look back upon
them with pride, not on my own account, oh no! but on
yours, dear friends, on yours. How I feared and trembled,
and with what a faltering voice did I deliver the mes
sages of truth that came to me! You resisted them too.
I tried to hold my tongue and you to shut your ears. I
would fain have run away and hid myself from the sum
mons of Humanity* But I could not do that. I could
not resign my position without putting you in a false one,
in a position which I did not believe you were willing to
take. And you were not willing. This church, I say it
proudly, never committed itself to the WrongB You never
took any action on Sat side. On the contrary, when, in
the midst of that agitation, I was honored with an invi
tation elsewhere, and you had the opportunity of relief
by my being transferred to another church, you asserted,
at a very full meeting, wW decisive unanimity, your
fidelity to the freedom of the pulpit. And now it may
be written in the annals of this Church that in that try
ing time, it stood fast on the ground of Christian Liberty,
and its minister had the honor of being its representative.
While I gratefullS^.cknowledge the friendship which
has been my special blessing for half a century, I gladly
repeat what I have said on former anniversaries of my
ministry, that the kindness I have received has not come
from you alone. How little has there been in all this
time to remind me that we of this Church bear an obnox
ious name! How many are there who are not of this
little fold, but of other denominations, who have made
me feel that they belonged to me! O friends, it is not all
bearing the same religious name, but all bearing different
religious names and yet each respecting in others the
right of every one to think for himself,—this it is that
�14
illustrates most impressively the broad spirit of our com
mon Christianity. I had rather see this fact manifest
than a hundred churches agreeing exactly with me in
opinion.
I preached my first sermon in the fall of 1823, in Water
town, Massachusetts. And then, for a few months, I
preached as a candidate for settlement in Churches in
Boston and its vicinity needing pastors. Kind and flat
tering things were said to me of my ministrations, but I
put little faith in them, as they came from the many rela
tives and friends that I and mine had in that quarter, and
their judgment was biased by regard for me and mine.
I was strengthened in my distrust when friends, fellow
students, and fellow-candidates, were preferred before me.
I never envied them their success. I felt not the slightest
mortification, such a hearty dread had I of being settled
in Boston, whose church-goers had in those days the repu
tation of being terribly critical, and rhetoric then and
there was almost a religion. I felt myself utterly unequal
to that position. All my day-dreams had been of the
country, of some village church.
In May, 1824, I gladly availed myself of the oppor
tunity that was offered me of spending three months in
Baltimore as an assistant of Mr Greenwood, afterwards
pastor of the Stone Chapel, Boston. Before I left Bal
timore, the last of July of that year, I received a letter
from this city, inviting me to stop on my way home
and preach a few Sundays in the little church here. I
accepted the invitation as in duty bound, but rather re
luctantly, as I had never before been so long and so far
away from home, and I was homesick. I spent the
month of August here. I do not recollect that I had any
thought of being a candidate for this pulpit. Such had
been my experience, my ill success,—I do not wonder at
�15
it now,—that I was surprised and gratified when, upon the
eve of my departure, I was waited upon by a committee of
four or five,—I have had a suspicion since, so few were
the members of this Church then, that this committee
comprised nearly the whole Church meeting from which
they came,—and they cordially invited me to return and
become their pastor. As I had come here a perfect
stranger, and there were no prepossessions in my favor, I
could not but have at the very first a gratifying confi
dence in this invitation. Although I asked time for con
sideration, I responded at once in my heart to the kind
ness shown to me. Thus the aspirant to a country parish
was led to this great city.
The three hundred miles and more that separate Phila
delphia from my native Boston were a great deal longer
then than they are now. It took then at least two days
and a half to go from one to the other. A minister of our
denomination in Boston and its neighborhood had then a
great help in the custom then and there prevalent of a
frequent exchange of pulpits. One seldom occupied his
own pulpit more than half of the time. But this church
in Philadelphia was an outpost, and the lightening of
the labor by exchanges was not to be looked for. There
was no one to exchange with nearer than William Ware,
pastor of the church in New York. The place to be
filled here looked lonely and formidable. I accepted,
however, the lead of circumstances, moved by the confi
dence with which the hospitable members of this church
inspired me. I was drawn to this part of the vineyard
by their readiness to welcome me.
My ordination was delayed some months by the diffi
culty of obtaining ministers to come and take part in it.
It was a journey then. The days had only just gone by
when our pious New England fathers who made it had
prayers offered up in their churches for the protection of
�16
Heaven (or rather in their meeting-houses, as all places
of worship except the Catholic and Episcopal were called;
we never talked of going to church, we went to meeting).
Ordinations have ceased to be the solemn occasions they
were then. Then they were sacramental in their signifi
cation, like marriage. As our liberal faith was then
everywhere spoken against, it was thought necessary that
my ordination should be conducted as impressively as
possible. It is pleasant now to remember that with the
two Wares, Henry Ware, Jr, and William, and Dr
Gannett, came one of the fathers, far advanced in years,
the venerable Dr Bancroft, of Worcester, Mass., the
honored father of a distinguished son, to partake in the
exercises of the occasion. They are all gone now.
This Church had its beginning in 1796, when seven
persons, nearly all from the old country, shortly increased
to fourteen, with their families, agreed, at the suggestion
of Dr Priestley, who came to this country in 1794, to
meet every Sunday and take turns as readers of printed
sermons and prayers of the Liberal Faith. These meet
ings were occasionally interrupted by the yellow fever,
by which Philadelphia was then visited almost every
year, but they were never wholly given up.
In 1813 the small brick building was built in which I
first preached, and which stood on the southwest corner
of the present lot? directly on the street. A charter was
then obtained under the title of “ The First Society of
Unitarian Christians.” So obnoxious then was the Uni
tarian name that the most advanced men of our faith in
Boston, the fountain-head of American Unitarianism,
remonstrated with the fathers of this church, and coun
selled them to abstain from the use of so unpopular a des
ignation. But our founders, being Unitarians from Old
England and not from New, and consequently warm ad
�17
mirers, and some of them personal friends, of Dr Priestley,
whose autograph was on their records as one of their
members, felt themselves only honored in bearing with
him the opprobrium of the Unitarian name. The title
of our Church was afterwards changed to its present de
nomination, to bring it nominally into accord with our
brethren in New England. In 1828 this building took
the place of the first.
It was about ten years before I came here that the
Trinitarian and Unitarian controversy began. One of its
earliest forms appeared in published letters in 1815 be
tween Dr Channing, the pastor of the Federal Street
Church in Boston,- and Dr Samuel Worcester,! An able
orthodox minister of Salem, Mass. In 1819 Dr Chan
ning preached a sermon at the ordination of Mr Sparks
in Baltimore, which was then and ever will be regarded
as an eloquent and felicitous statemenwof the views of
the liberally disposed of that day. It commanded great
attention far and wide, and gave occasion ma very able,
learned, and courteous controversy between Dr Woods
and Mr Stuart, professors in the Orthodox Theological
School in Andover, Mass., on the one side, and Pro
fessors Henry Ware, Sr, and Andrews Norton, of the Cam
bridge Theological School on the other. The controversy
spread mostly in Massachusetts. In the^mall towns
where there had been only one church, there speedily ap
peared two. Families were divided, not without heats
and coolnesses, to the hurt of Christian fellowship. As
a general rule, fathers took the liberal side, mothers the
orthodox.
When I came here in 1825, the first excitement of the
controversy had somewhat subsided. It had lost its first
keen interest. It was growing rather wearisome. It had
snowed tracts, Trinitarian and Unitarian, over the land.
Accordingly, although I was a warm partisan, full of con3
�18
fidence in the rational and scriptural superiority of the
Unitarian faith, I did not feel moved to preach doctrinal
sermons. And, furthermore, as I was on my way hither
in the mail coach, in company with my friends, ministers
and delegates from Boston and New York, I was greatly
impressed by a remark made by one of my elders to the
effect that people were bound to their several churches,
not by the force of reason and the results of religious in
quiry, but by mere use and wont and affection.
Of the truth of this remark, by the way, I had a
striking instance some years ago. One of our fellow
citizens, now deceased, an intelligent, respectable man, a
devoted member of one of our Presbyterian churches,
used to come to me to borrow Theodore Parker’s writings,
in which he took great pleasure. But he said he never
dreamed of withdrawing from his Church. As Richter
says, his Church was his mother. You could not have
weaned him from her by telling him how many better
mothers there were in the world. This truth impressed
me greatly, and was a comfort to me in my younger days.
Although I have rarely preached an outright doctrinal
discourse, yet I had many interesting experiences in ref
erence to the spread of liberal ideas. I regret that I
have not done in my small way what that eminent man,
John Quincy Adams, as his Memoirs now in course of
publication show he did in his wonderfully thorough way,
—kept a diary. Very frequently has it occurred that per
sons have come to me who had chanced to hear a Unita
rian sermon, or read a Unitarian book for the first time,
and they declared that it expressed their views precisely,
and they did not know before that there was anybody in
the world of that way of thinking.
Once, many years ago, I received a letter from a
stranger in Virginia, bearing a well-known Virginia
name. She wrote to tell me that a year before, she was
�19
in Philadelphia, and, much against her conscience, had
been induced by her husband to enter this church. Although there was nothing of a doctrinal character in the
sermon, the effect was to move her when she returned
home to study the Scriptures for herself with new care.
The result was that she now believed upon their au
thority that there was only one God, the Father, and
that Jesus Christ was a dependent being. There were
some texts, however, that she wished to have explained,
and therefore she wrote to me. The texts she specified
showed that she could not have met with any of our
publications, for, had she done so, she would certainly
have found the explanations she desired. Of course I
did what I could to supply her wants.
I think this incident would have passed away from
my mind or been only dimly remembered if, twenty-five
years afterwards, and after the war of the Rebellion, I
had not received another letter from the same person.
In it she referred to our Correspondence of five-andtwenty years before, and said that she wrote now in be
half of some suffering people, formerly her servants
(slaves, I presume). Through the kindness of Mr John
Welsh, chairman of a committee that had been chosen
by our fellow-citizens for the relief of the Southern people,
I was enabled to send her a sum of money. A quantity
of clothing was also procured for her from the Freed
men’s Relief Association. My Southern friend returned,
with her thanks, a very minute account of the disposi
tion she had made of the supplies sent to her. She ap
peared to have accepted with a Christian grace the
changed condition of things in the South. May we not
give something of the credit of this gracious behavior to
the liberal faith which she had learned to cherish?
It was cases like this that caused me to feel less and
less interest in doctrines and religious controversies. I
�20
have been learning every day that, much as men differ
in religion and numberless other things, they are, after
all, more alike than different, and that in our intercourse
with our fellow-men it is best to ignore those differences
as much as possible, and take for granted that we and
they are all of one kind.
And furthermore, in free conversation with educated
and intelligent persons of this city, with whom I have
become acquainted, I long ago found out that it was not
orthodoxy that prevailed; it was not the doctrines of
Calvin and the Thirty-nine Articles that were rampant,
but that there was a wide-spread scepticism as to the
simplest facts of historical Christianity. To persons of
this class, numerous, years ago, and not less numerous
now, it mattered little whether the Bible taught the
Trinity or the Unity of the Divine Nature. The ques
tion with them is, whether it be not all a fable.
It was this state of mind that I was continually meet
ing with that qarly gave to my humble studies a very
definite and positive direction. It was high time, I
thought, to look to the very foundations of Christianity,
and see to it, not whether the Christian Records, upon
which we are all resting^, favor the Trinitarian or the
Unitarian interpretation of their contents, but whether
they have any basis in Fact, and to what that basis
amounts. As this feemed to be the fundamental inquiry,
so, of all inquiries, it became to me the most interesting.
In studying this question I could not satisfy myself
that any external, historical argument, however power
ful, in favor of the genuineness and authenticity of the
Christian Records, could prove decisive. For even if it
were thus proved to demonstration that we have in the
Four Gospels the very works, word for word, of the
writers whose names they bear, there would still remain
untouched the question: How, after all, do we know
�21
that these writers, honest and intelligent as they may
have been, were not mistaken?
There was only one thing to be done: To examine these
writings themselves, and to find out what they really are.
With the one single desire to ascertain their true char
acter, that is, whether they be narratives of facts or of
fables, or a mingle of both, they were to be studied, and
the principles of reason, truth, and probability were to be
applied to them just as if they were anonymous frag
ments recently discovered in some monaster^ of the East,
or dug up from under some ancient ruins.
On the face of them, they are very artlessly constructed.
Here was one good reason for believing that, though it
might be difficult, it could not be impossible to determine
what they are. Since Science can discoveife^T^inv com
pound the simples of which it is composed, although
present in infinitesimal quantities, surely then it can be
ascertained of what these artless works of human hands
are made: whether they be the creations of fancy or the
productions of truth.
Then, again, as obviously, these primitive Records
abound in allusions to times, places, and persons. Here
was another ground of hope that the inquiry into their
real character would not be in vain. When one is tell
ing a story not founded in fact, he takes good care how
he refers to times, and persons, and places, since every
such reference is virtually summoning a witness to testify
to his credibility.
Encouraged by these considerations, I have now, for
forty years and^wre, given myselr to this fundamental
inquiry. It has been said that only scholars, far more
learned men than I pretend to be, can settle the his
torical claims of the Four Gospels. But the fact is, the
theologians in Germany and elsewhere, profound as their
learning is, have busied themselves about the external
�22
historical arguments for the truth of the Gospels. They
have been given, it has seemed to me, to a quibbling
sort of criticism about jots and tittles. But it is not
microscopes, but an eye to see with, that is the one thing
needed for the elucidation of these Writings.
When we first occupied this building, I read courses
of Expository Lectures every Tuesday evening, in a
room which was fitted up as a vestry, under the church,
for some four or five months in the year, for five seasons.
The attendance was never large; some thirty persons
perhaps gave me their presence. But my interest in the
study came not from my hearers, but from the subject,
in which, from that time to this, I have found an in
creasing delight. Continually new and inimitable marks
of truth have been disclosed. Unable to keep to myself
what I found so convincing, I have from time to time
published the discoveries, or what appeared to me dis
coveries, that I made. The editions of my little pub
lished volumes have never been large. Many persons
tell me they have read them. I can reconcile the fact
that they have been so much read with their very limited
sale only by supposing that the few copies sold have been
loaned very extensively s Do not think, friends, that I
am making any complaint. As I have just said, my in
terest in the subject has not depended upon others, either
hearers or readers. The subject itself has been my abun
dant compensation.
To many of my brothers in the ministry I have ap
peared, I suppose,*4o be the dupe of my own fancies.
What I have offered as sparkling gems of fact have been
regarded as made, not found. Some time ago I came
across an old letter from my venerated friend, the late
Henry Ware, Jr, in which he expostulated with me for
wasting myself upon such a barren study as he appears to
have regarded the endeavor to ascertain whether this
�23
great Christendom be founded on a fable or on the ada
mant of Fact.
So dependent are we all upon the sympathy of others,
that I believe my interest in this pursuit would have
abated long ago had it not been that the subject had an
overpowering charm in itself, and that one great result
of the inquiry, becoming more and more significant at
every step, was to bring out in ever clearer light the
Godlike Character of the Man of Nazareth. As he
has gradually emerged from the thick mists of super
stition and theological speculation in which he had so
long been hidden from my sight, his Person, as profoundly
natural as it was profoundly original, has broken upon
me at times as “ the light of the knowledge of the glory
of God.” Not in any alleged miracle, not in any nor
in all His works, wonderful and unprecedented as some
of them were, not in His words, immortal as is the wis
dom that he uttered, but in that reserved fulness of per
sonal power of which His works and words,—His whole
overt life gives only a hint, significant, indeed, but only
a hint—there, in himself, in what He was, in the native,
original power of the Man, the secret of His mighty in
fluence has been laid bare to me. That it is that ex
plains the existence of the wondrous stories of His life.
They had to be, and to be just what they are, with all
their discrepancies, mistakes, and somewhat of the fabu
lous that is found in them, born as they were of the irre
sistible force of His personal truth. And that it is, also,
which is the inexhaustible fountain of Inspiration, of
Faith, and Love, and Hope, which the Infinite Mercy has
opened in the world, and of which men, fainting and per
ishing in their sins, shall drink, and from within them
shall flow rivers of healing and of health.
As I have intimated, friends, there have been times
when I have felt somewhat lonely in this study. But
�24
some ten years ago a marked change came over the
course of religious thought occasioned by the appearance
of a Life of Jesus, by an eloquent and learned man in
France, who, belonging to the sceptical school, scarcely
believing that such a person as Jesus ever had an exist
ence, went to Syria upon a scientific errand, and when
there was struck by the evidences that he beheld of the
geographical truth of the New Testament. So strong a
conviction was born in him of the reality of Jesus that
he was moved to write his life. It is true there is little
else in the book of Ernest Renan recognized as fact, be
yond the actual existence and the great sayings of Jesus.
This was something, coming from the quarter it did.
And, moreover, with all the doubts which it suggests as
to particular incidents in the Gospel histories, its publi
cation has been justified by the effect it had in turning
attention to the human side of that great life. It has
created a new interest in the Man.
And further, Science, becoming popular, is impressing
the general mind so deeply with the idea of the inviolable
order of Nature, that it is not to be believed that men
will look much longer for the credentials of any person,
or of any fact, in his or its departure from that order.
Nothing can be recognized as truth that violates the laws
of Nature, or rather that does not harmonize with them
fully. Deeply impressed with the entire naturalness of
Jesus, I believe that the time is at hand when the evi
dences of His truth, of His divinity, will be sought, not
in any preternatural events or theories, but in His full
accord with the natural truth of things. As the one Fact,
or Person, in whom the highest or deepest in Nature is
revealed, He is the central fact, harmonizing all nature.
Never, never, from the first, has it been more important
that the personality of Jesus should be appreciated than
at the present time. The Darwinian law of Natural
�25
Selection and the Survival of the Fittest is in all men’s
minds, and in the material, organized world of plants and
animals, we are all coming to consider it demonstrated.
As an animal, man must be concluded under that law.
In the physical world, as Professor Tyndall tells us, “ the
weakest must go to the wall.”
But man is something, a great deal more than an ani
mal. He has an immaterial, moral, intellectual being,
for which he has the irresistible testimony of his own
consciousness; and as an immaterial being, it is not at
the cost of the weak, but it is by helping the weak to
live that any individual becomes strong. This, this is
the great law of our spiritual nature^ The highest, the
elect, they whom Nature selects, the fittest to live, are
those who are ready to die for others, sacrificing their
mortal existence, if need be, to lift up the weakest to
their immortal fellowship. In the unchangeable order
of things, not only is it not possible for a moral and in
tellectual being to become great by sacrificing others to
his own advancement, his greatness can be secured only
by giving himself for them.
Let Science, then, go on pouring light upon the laws
and order of the material Universe. But let it stand by
its admission that the connection between that and the
immaterial world, however intimate, is not only inscru
table, but unthinkable; and reverently recognize, stand
ing there on the threshold of the immaterial world, one
Godlike Figure, surrounded by the patriots and martyrs,
the great and good of every age and country, holy angels,
but high above them all in the perfectness of his Selfabnegation. No one took His life from him; He gave it
up freely of himself. And thus is He a special revelation
of the law that reigns in the moral world, as surely as
the law of natural selection reigns in the physical.
4
�26
What renders the character of Jesus of still greater
interest at this present time is the fact that there are
thoughtful and enlightened men who aver that they
would fain be rid of Him, since He has been and still is
the occasion of so much enslaving error. They might
as well, for the same reason, join with Porson and “damn
the nature of things,” for what has occasioned greater
error than the nature of things? It can be got rid of
as easily as the Person of Jesus.
For some twenty years or more before the war of the
Rebellion, the question which that war settled interested
me deeply. But on the last anniversary of my ministry
I dwelt chiefly upon the experiences of that period. I
need not repeat what I said then. It was a season of
severe discipline to us all, to the whole people of our
country.
I will only say here, that so far from diverting my
interest from the great subject of which I have been
speaking, it harmonized with it and increased it. As I
read the events and signs of that trying time, they be
came to me a living commentary upon the words of the
Lord Jesus. Precepts of His, that had before seemed
trite, began glowing and burning like revelations fresh
from the Invisible. The parable of the Good Samaritan
seemed to be made expressly for that hour. That scene
in the synagogue at Nazareth, when all there were filled
with wrath at what Jesus said,—how real was it, read by
the light of the flames that consumed Pennsylvania Hall I
As the truths of the New Testament, simple and divine,
rose like suns and poured their light upon that long
conflict, so did those days in return disclose a new and
pointed significance in those simple pages, giving life to
our Christian faith.
�27
What a time, friends, has this been, the latter half of
our first national century! It was a great day in history
which gave the world the Printing-Press and the Protest
ant Reformation. But does not the last half century
rival it? The railroad and the telegraph, mountains
levelled, oceans and continents united, time and space
vanishing, the huge sun made our submissive artist,
the establishment of universal liberty over this broad
land,—are not these things responding with literal obedi
ence to the command of the ancient prophet: “ Prepare
ye the way of the Lord; make his path straight?”
It is a wonderful day, a great day of the Lord. We
are stocks and stones if we do not catch the spirit, the
generous spirit, of the Almighty breathif^and brooding
in countless unacknowledged ways over this mysterious
human race. All things, like a host of prophets, are point
ing us to an unimaginable destiny. The authority of the
human soul over the visible Universe is becoming every
hour more assured. We are not here to walk in a vain
show, to live only for the lust of the eye, so soon to be
quenched in dust, or for the pride which feeds on what
withers almost at the touch. Our nature bears the in
eradicable likeness of the Highest. The mystery of it is
hidden in the mystery of
being, and the laws of oui’
minds are revealed in the laws which hold the whole Cre
ation together. We are not servants, we are sons, heirs
of God; joint heirs with Jesus and all the good and
great. And all is ours, ours to raise and enlarge our
thoughts, to set us free from the corrupting bondage of the
senses, to deepen our hunger and thirst for the only Liv
ing and the True, for the beauty of Holiness, the im
mortal life of God. And all our private experience; all
our conflicts, our victories and our defeats; all the joys
and sorrows which we have shared together,—the sacred
�28
memories that come to us to-day of parents, sons, daugh
ters, and dear ones departed,—do they not throng around
us now, and kindle our hearts with unutterable prayers
for ourselves, for our children, and for one another ?
NOTE
On the last anniversary of my ordination (the forty
ninth) I was led to dwell upon the Anti-slavery period
of thirty years before the war of the rebellion. It was a
period of intense interest, a great chapter in the history
of our country.
There was one incident of those times to which I par
ticularly referred a year ago, which I wish to recoid here,
not on account of any great part that I had in it, but for
the interesting character of the whole affair; and be
cause, thinking it of some historical value, I am not
aware that it has ever been recorded save in the daily
press of the time. From a MS. record made some time
ago of “ Reminiscences,” the following extract is tran
scribed :
�29
“ The most memorable occasion in my Anti-slavery ex
perience was the annual meeting of the American Anti
slavery Society held in the ‘ Tabernacle,’ as it was called,
in New York, in May, 1850,1 believe it was. I accepted
an invitation to speak on that occasion, holding myself
greatly honored thereby.
Having no gift of extemporaneous speech, I prepared
myself with the utmost pains. I went to New York
the day before the meeting; saw Mr Garrison and Wendell Phillips. Mr Garrison said there would be a riot,
as the Press had been doing its utmost to inflame the
public mind against the Abolitionists.
“ When the meeting was opened, the large hall, said
to be the largest then in New York, capable of holding
some thousands, was apparently full. The vast majority
of the audience were doubtless friendly to the object of
the meeting.
“Mr Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Edmund Quincy,
Isaac Hopper, Francis Jackson, Frederick Douglass, and
other faithful servants of the cause, were present on the
platform.
“ I saw friends here and there among the audience. I
was surprised to recognize there a son of Judge Kane of
this city (afterwards Col. T. Kane). I had some previous
acquaintance with him, and knew him to be a young man
of ardent temperament, open to generous ideas. I sup
posed then, and still suppose, that he was drawn there
accidentally by curiosity. After a prayer by the Bev.
Henry Grew, Mr Garrison made the opening speech,
strong, bold, and characteristic.
“ He had spoken only a few moments when he was in
terrupted by what sounded like a burst of applause; but
as there was nothing special to call it forth, and as it
proceeded from one little portion of the audience, I asked
Wendell Phillips, who sat next to me, what it meant.
�30
1 It means/ he said, ‘ that there is to he a row.’ The
interruption was repeated again and again. A voice
shouted some rude questions to Mr Garrison.
“Mr Garrison bore himself with the serenity of a
summer’s evening, answering: ‘ My friend, if you will
wait till I get through, I will give you the information
you ask for.’ He succeeded in finishing his speech. I
was to speak next. But the instant Mr Garrison ended,
there came down upon the platform from the gallery
which was connected with it, an individual, with a com
pany of roughs at his back, who proved to be no less a
person than the then well-known Isaiah Rynders. He
began shouting and raving.
“ I was not aware of being under any apprehension of
personal violence. We were all like General Jackson’s
cotton-bales at New Orleans. Our demeanor made it
impossible for the rioters to use any physical force against
us. Young Kane, however, leaped upon the platform,
and, pressing through to me, in a tone of great excite
ment, exclaimed » ‘ They shall not touch a hair of your
head!’ Mr Garrison said to Rynders in the quietest
manner conceivable, | You ought not to interrupt us. We
go upon th^principle of hearing everybody. If you wish
to speak, I will keep ordei|and you shall be heard.’ But
Rynders was not in a state of mind to listen to reason. He
had not come there for that, but to break up the meeting.
“ The Hutchinsons, who were wont to sing at the Anti
slavery meetings, were in the gallery, and they attempted
to raise a song, to soothe the savages with music. But it
was of no avail. Rynders drowned their fine voices with
noise and shouting. The chief of the police came upon
the platform, and asked Mr Garrison whether he desired
him to arrest and remove Rynders & Co. Mr Garrison
answered: ‘We desire nothing of you. We can take
care of ourselves. You probably know your duty.’ The
�31
officer did' nothing. In this scene of confusion, young
Kane became intensely excited. He rushed up to
Rynders, and shook his fist in his face. He said to me
with the deepest emphasis : f If he touches Mr Garrison,
I’ll kill him!’ But Mr Garrison’s composure was more
than a coat of mail. Rynders, indisposed to speak him
self, brought forward a man to speak for him and. his
party. Mr Francis Jacksonjiand I were, the while, hold
ing young Kane down in his seat to keep him from
breaking out into some act of violence. He was the most
dangerous element on our side. Rynders’s substitute
professed a willingness that I should speak first (I was
down on the placards to follow Mr Garrison), provided
I did not make a long speech.
“ Accordingly, I spoke iM little, anxiously prepared
word. I never recall that hour without blessing myself
that I was called to speak precisely at that moment. At
any other stage of the proceedings, it would have been
wretchedly out of place.
“ As it was, my speech fitted in almost ttWell as if it
had been impromptu, although a shamm^e might easily
have discovered that I was speaking mewm’ier. Rynders
interrupted me again and again, exclaiming that I lied,
that I was personal, but he ended with applauding me!
Rynders’s man then came forward, rath® dull and tire
some in speech. It was his own friends who interrupted
him occasionally, Mr Garrison calling them to order.
“ His argument was^hat the blacks are not human
beings. Mr Garrison whispered to me while he was
speaking, that the speaker had formerly been a com
positor in the office of the Liberator.
“ He ended at last, and then Frederick Douglass was
loudly called for. Mr Douglass came forward, exqui
sitely neat in his dress.
“ ‘ The gentleman who has just spoken,’ he began, ‘ has
�32
undertaken to prove that the blacks are n'ot human
beings. He has examined our whole conformation, from
top to toe. I cannot follow him in his argument. I will
assist him in it, however. I offer myself for your exami
nation. Am I a man ? ’ To this interrogatory instantly
there came from the audience a thunderous affirma
tive. Rynders was standing right by the side of Mr
Douglass, and when the response died away, he exclaimed
in a hesitating way: ‘But you’re not a black man!’
‘ Then,’ retorted Douglass, ‘ I’m your brother.’ ‘ Ah,—
ah,’ said Rynders, hesitatingly, ‘ only half brother.’ The
effect upon the audience need not be described; it may
readily be imagined. Mr Douglass then went on, com
plaining of Horace Greeley, who had recently said in his
paper that the blacks did nothing for themselves. ‘ When
I first came North,’ said Mr Douglass, ‘ I went to the
most decided Anti-slavery merchant in the North, and
sought employment on a ship he was building, and he told
me that if he were to give me work, every white opera
tive would quit, and yet Mr Greeley finds fault with us
that we do not help ourselves!’ This criticism of Greeley
pleased Rynders, who bore that gentleman no good will,
and he added a word to Douglass’s against Greeley. ‘ I
am happy,’ said Douglass, ‘ to have the assent of my half
brother here,’ pointing to Rynders, and convulsing the
audience with laughter. After this, Rynders, finding how
he was played with, took care to hold his peace; but some
one of Rynders’s company in the gallery undertook to in
terrupt the speaker. ‘ It’s of no use,’ said Mr Douglass ;
‘ I’ve Captain Rynders here to back me.’ ‘ We were born
here,’ he went on to say, ‘ we have made the clothes that
you wear, and the sugar that you put into your tea, and we
mean to stay here and do all we can for you.’ ‘ Yes!’ cried
a voice from the gallery, ‘ and you’ll cut our throats!’
‘ No,’ said the speaker, ‘ we’ll only cut your hair.’ When
�33
the laughter ceased, Mr Douglass proceeded to say:
‘ We mean to stay here, and do all we can for every one,
be he a man, or be he a monkey,’ accompanying these
last words with a wave of his hand towards the quarter
whence the interruption had come. He concluded with
saying that he saw his friend, Samuel Ward, present, and
he would ask him to step forward. All eyes were instantly
turned to the back of the platform, or stage rather, so
dramatic was the scene, and there, amidst a group, stood
a large man, so black that, as Wendell Phillips said,
when he shut his eyes, you could not see him. Had I
observed him before, I should have wondered what
brought him there, accounting him as fresh from Africa.
He belonged to the political wing of the Abolition party
(Gerritt Smith’s), * and had wandered into the meeting,
never expecting to be called upon to speak. At the call
of Frederick Douglass, he came to the front, and, as he
approached, Rynders exclaimed: ‘ Well, this is the origi
nal nigger!’ ‘ I’ve heard of the magnanimity of Captain
Rynders,’ said Ward, ‘ but the half has not been told me I’
And then he went on with a noble voice, and his speech
was such a strain of eloquence as I never heard excelled
before or since.
“‘There are more than fifty people here,’ said he,
‘ who may remember me as a little black boy running
about the streets of New York. I have always been
called nigger, and the only consolation that has been
offered me for being called nigger was, that, when I die
and go to heaven, I shall be white. If’—and here, with
an earnestness of tone and manner that thrilled one to
the very marrow, he continued—‘ If I cannot go to heav
en as black as God made me, let me go down to hell, and
dwell with the devils forever!’
“ The effect was beyond description.
“ ‘ This gentleman,’ he said, ‘ who denies our humanity,
5
�34
has examined us scientifically, but I know something of
anatomy. I have kept school, and I have had pupils,
from the jet black up to the soft dissolving views, and
I’ve seen white boys with retreating foreheads and pro
jecting jaws, and, as Dickens says, in Nicholas Nickleby,
of Smike, you might knock here all day,’ tapping his
forehead, ‘ and find nobody at home.’ In this strain, he
went on, ruling the large audience with Napoleonic power.
Coal-black as he was, he was an emperor, pro tempore.
“ When he ceased speaking, the time had expired for
which the Tabernacle was engaged, and we had to ad
journ. Never was there a grander triumph of intelli
gence, of mind, over brute force. Two colored men, whose
claim to be considered human was denied, had, by mere
force of intellect, overwhelmed their maligners with con
fusion. As the audience was thinning out, I went down
on the floor to see some friends there. Rynders came
by. I could not help saying to him, ‘How shall we
thank you for what you have done for us to-day ? ’ ‘ Well,’
said he, ‘ I do not like to hear my country abused, but
that last thing that you said, that’s the truth.’ That last
thing was, I believe, a simple assertion of the right of the
people to think and speak freely.
“Judging by his physiognomy and his scriptural name
Isaiah, I took Captain Rynders to be of Yankee descent.
Notwithstanding his violent behavior, he yet seemed to
be a man accessible to the force of truth. I found that
Lucretia Mott had the same impressions of him. She
saw him a day or two afterwards in a restaurant on
Broadway, and she sat down at his table, and entered
into conversation with him. As he passed out of the
restaurant, h^ asked Mr McKim, who was standing there,
waiting for Mrs Mott, whether Mrs Mott were his mother.
Mr McKim replied in the negative. ‘ She’s a good sen
sible woman,’ said Rynders.
�35
“Never before or since have I been so deeply moved
as on that occasion. Depths were stirred in me never
before reached. For days afterwards, when I under
took to tell the story, my head instantly began to ache.
Mr Garrison said, if the papers would only faithfully
report the scene, it would revolutionize public senti
ment. As it was, they heaped all sorts of ridicule upon
us. I cheerfully accepted my share, entirely willing to
pass for a fool in the eyes of the world. It was a cheap
price to pay for the privilege of witnessing such a triumph.
I was taken quite out of myself. I came home, stepping
like Malvolio. I had shared in the smile of Freedom,
the belle and beauty of the world.
“ A day or two after my return home, I met one of my
parishioners in the street, and stopped and told him all
about my New York visitJ He listened to me with a
forced smile, and told me that there had been some
thought of calling an indignation meeting of the church
to express the mortification felt at my going and mixing
myself up with such people. I had hardly given a
thought to the effect at home, so full was I of the interest
and glory of the occasion. I ought to have preached on
the Sunday following from the words: ‘ He has gone to be
a guest with a man who is a sinner !’ ”
����I
‘ A »« **<***■
fl ;Jt ' Jkfll
'•? *
W r t i r •; s
■-'-.a
|
«> *.»■•■>'♦ •>« ”
»••
■
**<feM»*'
�-’"■1JMTZ , i SMO
t y^-M ? ■**
«■<. ;
< > 'a
>K
■ . ?> ',..r: - V ' ■;<;,-••• :i.^-»' ■?&/< ’
gjF
Sfe ’
�MEETING
OF THE
Staig M fflmtmn CJ^nstians,
IN PHILADELPHIA,
HELD IN THE CHURCH, TENTH AND LOCUST STREETS,
JANUARY 1 2, 187 5,
IN commemoration' on the
FIFTIETH
ANNIVERSARY
OF
Rev. W. H. FURNESS, D.D.,
AS PASTOR OF THEIR CHURCH.
��39
On the evening of January 12th, 1875, the meeting
of the First Unitarian Society, in commemoration of the
fiftieth anniversary of the pastorate of the Rev. Dr. Fur
ness, was held in the church.
The following ministers were present:
Rev. Dr. John H. Morison,
Rev. R. R. Shippen,
Rev. Dr. S. K. Lothrop,
Rev. Wm. O. White,
Rev Dr. James Freeman Clarke,Rev. J. F. W. Ware,
Rev. Dr. James T. Thompson,
Rev. Wm. C. Gannett,
Rev. Dr. C. A. Bartol,
Rev. E. H. Hall,
Rev. Dr. H. W. Bellows,
Rev. J. W. Chadwick,
Rev. Dr. A. P. Putnam,
Rev. Thos. J. Mumford,
Rev. F. Israel,
RevMBS G. Ames.
The church was profusely but tastefully hung with
festoons of evergreen; on the wall, behind the pulpit,
was a large cross; among the festoons which overhung it
were the figures “ 1825 ” and ‘L{1875” in white and green
flowers; while in front of the pulpit, covering the com
munion table and all the approaches to it, were growing
tropical plants, amid which was a profusion of vases,
baskets, and bouquets of natural flowers, with smilax
distributed here and there in delicate fringes or festoons.
�40
The regular quartette choir of the church, consisting
of
Mrs. W. D. Dutton,
Mrs. Isaac Ashmead,
Mr. E. Dillingham,
Mr. F. G-. Caupeman,
....
Jr., .
.
.
....
....
Soprano,
Contralto,
Tenor,
Bass,
was on this occasion assisted by
Miss Cassidy,
Miss Cooper,
Mr. A. H. Eosewig,
Miss Jennie Cassidy,
Mrs. Roberts,
Mr. W. W. Gilchrist.
under the direction of Mr. W. D. Dutton, organist of the
church.
�PROCEEDINGS.
At half-past seven o’clock the exercises of the evening
commenced, as follows:
Music.
Tenor solo and chorus, ....
. Mendelssohn.
“ Oh, come, let us worship,” from 95th Psalm.
Mr. Henry Winsor, Chairman of the Committee of
Arrangements, in opening the meeting made the follow
ing remarks:
The occasion of our meeting here this evening is so
well known to all present that there is no need of any
formal announcement of it. We thought some time ago
that this anniversary of our pastor’s ordination, when
the half century of his ministration here is complete,
ought to be in some way marked and commemorated;
and as one of the things for that purpose,—as the best
means perhaps to that end, we invited friends in New
England and elsewhere to be with us here, to-night^ and
I am glad to say that some of them have come; as many
perhaps as we had reason to expect at this inclement
season.
6
�42
And now, speaking for this Society, I want to say to
them that their presence is a special joy to us ; a greater
joy than it could be on a similar occasion to any society
in New England; for there Unitarians are at home, and
each society has many neighbors with whom it can com
mune, and to whom it can look for sympathy, and, if
need be, for assistance. But this Society of Unitarian
Christians has long been alone in this great city, having
no connection with any religious society here and com
muning with none. And so, as I said, your presence on
this occasion is a real joy to us, and, on behalf of the
Society, I heartily thank you for it. But we are here—
we of the congregation are here—not to speak but to
listen; and I will now ask Dr. Morison, of Massachusetts,
to pray for us.
Prayer by Rev. Dr. John H. Morison.
Almighty and most merciful Father, we beseech Thee
to open our hearts to all the gracious and hallowed asso
ciations of this hour. Help us so to enter into the spirit
of this hour, that all holy influences may be around us, that
our hearts may be touched anew, that we may be brought
together more tenderly, and lifted up, with a deeper grati
tude and reverence, to Thee, the Fountain of all good, the
Giver of every good and perfect gift. We thank Thee,
most merciful Father; for the ministry which has been mod
estly carrying on its beneficent work here through these
fifty years. We thank Thee for all the lives which have
been helped by it to see and to do Thy will, and which
have been made more beautiful and holy by being brought
into quicker sympathies with whatever is beautiful in the
world without, and whatever is lovely in the world within.
We thank Thee for the inspiring words which have been
here spoken, brought home to the consciences of this con
�43
gregation by the life which stood behind them, to make
men more earnest to search after what is true and to do
what is right. We thank Thee, our Father in heaven, for
all the sweet and tender and far-reaching hopes, too vast
for this world, which have been opening here, begun upon
the earth and fulfilled in other worlds, in more imme
diate union with the spirits of the just made perfect; and
we thank Thee for all the solemn memories here, through
which the dear and honored forms of those to whom we
who are aged now looked up once as to our fathers and
teachers rise again transfigured and alive before us. We
thank Thee for all those who have been with us in the
ministry of Christ, and under the ministry of Christ,
gracious souls, rejoicing with us in the work which they
and we have been permitted to do, and now, as our trust
is, numbered among Thy saints in glory gverlasting. And
while we here render thanks to Thee for the ministry so
long and so faithfully fulfilled in this place, so allying
itself to all that is sweet in our human affections, to all
that is beautiful in the world of nature and of art, to all
that is holy in the domestic relations, to all that is strong
and true in the defence of human rights, to the deepest
human interests and to thy love, uniting in grateful rev
erence for the past, we would also ask Thy holy Spirit to
dwell with Thy servant, to inspire him still with thoughts
which shall keep his soul always young, his spirit always
fresh, for long years yet to come, with increasing ripe
ness and increasing devotedness; and that he may long
continue to walk in and out here amid the silent benedic
tions of those who have learned to love and honor him.
Our Father in heaven, help us that whatever may be
said at this time may be in harmony with the occasion.
While we here rise up in prayer and thanksgiving to
Thee, grant that Thy heavenly benediction may rest on
pastor and people, that Thy loving spirit may turn our
�44
human wishes into heavenly blessings, and that the words
and example of Him who came into the world, not to
do his own will but the will of Him that sent him, may
comfort and strengthen us; and that the life which has
been such an inspiration and joy and quickening power
to our friend may be to all of us still an incentive to
holiness, and an inspiration to all pure and heavenly
thoughts.
And now, most merciful Father, grant to us all, that
it may be good for us to be here—so gracious and so
hallowed is the time—and Thine, through Jesus Christ
our Lord, be the kingdom and the power and the glory
forever and ever. Amen.’":
Music.
Soprano solo and chorus, .... Spohk.
“ How lovely are thy dwellings fair !”
Mr. Winsor then spoke as follows:
At the ordination of Dr. Furness, fifty years ago, the
sermon was delivered by one eminent among Unitarian
Christians, ^^gtom&is memory will be long cherished
and honored, Henry Ware, Jr., and for this reason I ask
to speak first of all here to-night his son, Rev. John F.
W. Ware, of Boston, Mass.
Address of Rev. John F. W. Ware.
Friends of this Christian Society: I have no
other claim to be standing here to-night and participating
in your service than the one just mentioned—that I am
the son of the man who, fifty years ago this day, preached
the sermon at the ordination of his friend, William
�45
Henry Furness, and what may seem to you my fitness is
indeed my unfitness. Proud as I am in being the son of
a man so much honored, loved, and remembered, I never
feel it quite right in any way to try to represent him, and
had I known that this was to be a part of the conse
quences of my journey I think I should have stayed at
home.
But during the hours that I have been on the way my
thoughts have been busy with that fifty yea® ago, think
ing of the goodly company who, “in the winter wild,”
came down here from New England that they might
plant this vine in the vineyard of the Lord. And none
of them who came at that time to plant are permitted
to be here to-night to help us gather the rich and Opened
clusters. It showed, I thinaMwe love that these men
had for, and the confidence that they had in, their young
friend, that they should have come, in that inclement
time, this long journey by stage, taking them days and
nights of discomfort as it did. IBSik that there was
no sweeter household word in that dear old home of mine
than “ Brother Furness ”—the old-fashioned way in which
ministers used to talk of one anotheAwhich we of to
day have forgotten. In those times it meant something;
to-day we don’t feel as if it did, so we have dropped it.
I think there was no‘name so sweet outside of the closest
family ties as that name, and we children grew—my sis
ter and myself—to have always the deepest love for the
man that our father loved; and as time went by, and
young manhood came, I looked forward to the hearing
of the tones of that voice, and the seeing of that smile,
and the touching of that hand, as among the bright and
pleasant things—a sort of condescending, it always seemed
to me to be, of one who was in a sphere higher up than I
ever hoped to climb to. Then, as I grew older, I re
member the audacity with which I offered him “a labor
�46
of love ” in this church, and I remember I trembled after
I had done it; and I remember how he thanked me, and
how he criticized me, and the criticizing was a great deal
better than the thanking. It was very deep; it meant a
good deal, and it has not been forgotten.
Fortunate man! he who came into this city fifty years
ago; fortunate in the place, and the time of his birth :
fortunate in the education he had had and the faith he had
imbibed; fortunate in the place he had gone to, not to be
coddled among friends, emasculated by being surrounded
by those who thought just as he did, but thrown out by
God’s will into this outpost, where he could grow, as we
cannot where we are surrounded by those of our own
preference and method of thinking; fortunate in the
bent of his study, iii the opportunity to unfold the beau
tiful life of Jesus; fortunate in being of those who
stood up for the slave; fortunate in having lived to see
the issue of the work that his heart was engaged in; for
tunate in being now crowned by the love and benediction
of his people, and retiring calmly and sweetly from the
work of life, still to dwell among those who have loved
him these years long. Oh, fortunate man! God bless
him, and continue him here many years yet, your joy,
your companion, your guide, and your friend.
Not many of us shall see our fiftieth anniversary, for
more and more this profession of ours becomes a thing
of yesterday, to-day, and to-morrow alone. Very few oc
casions there will be again to meet together to celebrate
the fiftieth anniversary of a minister’s settlement.
Let us treasure the memory of this occasion. Let it
go with us who are here to our homes and our works,
and may it remain here with you a thought and memory
and a help; and as, in the beginning, this church drew
its life and its first impulse through a little band of
sturdy and steady and upright laymen, so in the time
�4
47
that lies before you, lay friends of this Society, remem
ber that it is not the past upon which you can lean—the
work that has been done by the servant who retires. It
is the future in which you are to hope, and the charac
ter of that future must be largely your work. With
this simple word, knowing that there are many gentle
men here who are to speak, and will speak more wisely
and properly than I, I ask Mr. Gannett to follow me.
Rev. Dr. Furness then came forward, and said:
My dear Friends : I am very doubtful about the
propriety of my being present on this occasion, not be
cause any deserts of mine would call forth any extrava
gant eulogium, but because I know the kind hearts of my
friends. They would say things which would make me
very uncomfortable! But just before I came from home
I got a letter from our friend, Mr. Weld, minister of the
church in Baltimore. He has sent us from the church in
Baltimore two communion cups—silver cups—as a token
of kind fellowship and recognition of this anniversary
from the church in Baltimore. They wished to have an
inscription placed on them, but they had no time; in
dicating that they were gifts from the church in Balti
more. So I thought I would bring them down without
delay, and put them upon the table, if there was any room
for them.
In all the kind words which my brethren say about
me, I think there is a good deal put in. Just like the old
man who took notes of his minister’s sermons, and when
he read them over to the minister, the ministei said,
“ Stop ! stop ! I did not say that.” “ I know you didn’t,”
he said; “ but I put it in to make sense of it.
So, I
think, on this occasion, there will be a good deal put
�1
48
in. If you will allow me, I will go and sit down at
the other end of the room, and if they get a little too
strong I can run out. I was entreated to come here
and show myself. I am very grateful to you for your
kind attention.
Address
of
William C. Gannett.
Like Mr. Ware, I only speak as the son of the right
man. The right man stood by Dr. Furness’ side fifty
years ago, and gave him the right hand of fellowship. I
know not whether there are any here that saw the sight
or heard the words; perhaps of all he only. The air
seems full, to me, at least, of the memories of the other
one. And to you who sit and listen, the air must seem
full of the very spirit of communion that these cups just
given symbolize. There ought to have been a white head
here; there ought to have been dark eyes; there ought
to have been a ringing voice; there ought to have been
a voice that would have been full of tenderness as he
stood at this side of the fifty years,—as he then stood at
the other side,—and said the words of an old man’s fel
lowship. He would to-day, as then, have been just six
months Dr. Furness’ senior in the work. I suppose
one can imagine anybody, any old person, as young,
easier than he can his own father or his own mother. I
cannot conceive the one whom I call father standing here,
or in the place which this church represents, as a young
man of twenty-four speaking to a young man of twentythree, and bidding him welcome into the work which he
called partaking in the work of heaven; bidding him
welcome into its pleasures; bidding him welcome into
its pains,—for he had been six months a minister, and
in those first six months of a minister’s life he knows a
<
�49
great deal of the pains that accompany it. It so hap
pened that just after I got your kind invitation to come,
I happened to lay my hand upon the manuscript of that
right hand of fellowship, and not having time to read it
then, I brought it with me in the cars; and only three or
four hours ago I was reading the very words, and read
ing from the very paper which, fifty years ago, was held
and read from, and to which Dr. Furness listened. It
does seem to me as if the reader were here now to say,
“ God bless you, old friend, for having stood ever faithful
to the end.” I almost think he is saying it; and if he
is, I know it comes with just that feeling: “God bless
you, old friend, for having stood faithful to the end ; for
having fulfilled all and more than all the words that then
I said to you.” And that is all I have to say. I was
asked to pass the word along to another boy of the old
men. Your father and my father and Dr. Hall were
classmates. Will Edward Hall speak for his father ?
Address of Rev. Edward H. Hall, of
Worcester, Mass.
I hardly know to what I owe this pleasure, for it is a
great one to me, of joining my thoughts with others to
night, at so early a point of our gathering. I believe
my claim is a double one, and I am willing and anxious
to make it as large as possible, both as the successor of
one who, fifty years ago, was present to give the charge
to the people, and, still tenderer to me, the claim which
has just been presented by the friend who preceded me.
In that class, which I suppose stands eminent among the
graduating classes of Cambridge for the number of men
it has sent into our ministry, to say nothing of their
quality, were the three whose names have just been
7
�50
brought together, who had no greater pride, I believe,
than to have their names in common. And it is for me
one of the pleasantest memories which this hour brings
that they were not only classmates—my father and our
father to-night—but that for so long a time, through their
college course, they were in closest intimacy as room
mates. And yet I should be sorry to think that this was
my only connection with this occasion. It was said, I
remember, of one of the finest and noblest of our officers
killed in the war, that of the many who had met him,
each one seemed to feel that he had made a special dis
covery of that man’s noble character and fine traits, so
did the discovery overpower him, and so sure was he that
to no one else had it come as it did to him; and I am in
clined to think that there is no one of these ministers
here to-night who does not feel as if his connection with
him whom we meet to-night to honor was something
special, as if the inspiration which he had drawn from
that source was one which no one but himself had got.
No qualification for our profession, I suppose, is higher
than the power of historic intuition; the power of seeing
things as they were; of reading the words and seeing be
hind them; the power that reproduces the past. Our
great historians are those who read the past in that way;
our great theologians are those who read the past as if
it were present, and feel a personal intercourse with those
who walked and fspoke in those early days. They are
the holy men and apostles of to-day; they will always
be the apostles to the end of time, and I am glad to feel
that out of our numbers has come one whose power of
divining the past has shown itself so fine and true.
I can hardly help speaking about another feeling.
I am impressed to-night by the difference, the vast dif
ference, between our fathers of a generation ago and
us who are upon the stage to-day. We look back rev
�51
erently to them; perhaps children always do to their
fathers. It is barely possible that our children may look
upon us in the same way. We look upon them as a
group of men set apart by themselves—a kind of priest
hood, conscious of the sanctity of their work. A sort of
moral halo encircles their heads as we think of them, and
we group them in just that affectionate way to which our
friend before me has alluded, as a band of brothers. Will
this generation of ministers ever look to their successors
as they appear to us ? I cannot believe it. That will not
be our claim upon their honor or their regard. Happy
for us if we can have any claim upon it; if men shall
see that the second generation of ministers took bravely
up the work that was half done, uttered the words that
were still unspoken, continued in the path which the
fathers cannot longer tread, and proved that it takes
more than one generation to do the work which Unitarianism is born to accomplish.
But I have no more claim upon your time, and close
by introducing to you, as I have been asked, the Rev.
Dr. Lothrop, of Boston.
• .
Rev. Dr. S. K. Lothrop spoke as follows:
My Christian Friends : I have but a few words to
say, and I rise to say these simply that I may more
fully express what my presence here implies, my deep
sympathy and interest in this occasion.
There are scenes and events in life which, from their
simplicity and beauty, and the moral grandeur which
always mingles more or less with everything simple and
beautiful, can gain nothing from human lips. Eloquence
can coin no words that shall impress them upon the heart
and conscience more deeply than they impress themselves.
This occasion is one of these events. We meet here to-
*
�52
5
night—this company, the members of this church, these
brethren from distant and different parts of the country
—to commemorate fifty years of faithful and devoted ser
vice in the Christian ministry, and rhetoric can add
nothing to the moral dignity and grandeur of this fact,
that is not contained in the simplest statement or expres
sion of it. We meet to do honor and reverence to one,
who, from the earliest aspirations of his youth to the later
aspirations and ever enlarging service of his manhood,
has known no object but truth, no law but duty, no
master but conscience, and who, under the inspiration and
guidance of these has wrought a noble work in this city,
made full proof of his ministry, and given a glorious
illustration of the power of that faith, “ which is the vic
tory that overcometh the world.”
The Unitarian Congregationalists recognize a large
personal freedom and individuality. Among the brethren
present and all called by our name who are absent, there
are wide differences of theological thought and opinion;
and some of us may not entirely concur in all the con
clusions—the result of Christian thought and study—
which our honored brother, the pastor of this church, in
his fifty years of noble service, may have presented in
this pulpit or given to the public through the press. But
however he may differ from him on some points, no one
who has read what he has published, can fail to perceive
or refuse to acknowledge the spirit of devout reverence,
love, faith, the large and glorious humanity that every
where breathe in his words; while every one familiar
with his long life-work in this city, every one who has
known him intimately, had opportunity to study and ob
serve his character, to mark its mingled firmness and
gentleness, sweetness and strength, its martyr spirit ad
hering to conscientious convictions and carrying them
out at whatever cost or sacrifice, its loyal spirit, faithful
�53
to Christ and truth according to honest and sincere con
viction, every one who knows and has witnessed how
these things have pervaded and animated his life, char
acter, work, cannot fail to cherish toward him a senti
ment of reverence and honor; and amid all differences of
opinion there may be between us, I yield to no one in
the strength and sincerity with which I cherish this sen
timent in my own heart. When I visited him at his
house to-day, I could not but feel that while years had
not abated one jot of the vigor of his intellect or the
warmth of his heart, they had added largely to that
something, I know not what to call it, that indescribable
charm, which has given him a place in every heart that
has ever known him, and made us his brethren (I am
only uttering what they will all acknowledge) always
disposed to sit at his feet in love and admiration.
I am oue of the oldest, probably the oldest of our min
isters present. Dr. Furness’ ordination antedates mine,
which occurred in February, 1829, only by four years
and a month. As regards term of service my name is
close to his on our list of living clergymen, and I remem
ber, as if it were but yesterday, his ordination fifty years
ago to-day, and can distinctly recall the deep interest
with which it was spoken of that evening in the family
circle of the late Dr. Kirkland at Cambridge, of which I
was then a member. I had but slight personal acquaint
ance with Dr. Furness, however, till thirteen years after
this, in 1838, when suffering from ill health he was unable
for several months to discharge his duties. His pulpit
was supplied by clergymen from Boston and the neigh
borhood, and as he had many loving friends and warm
admirers in Brattle Square Society, they were very will
ing to release me for six weeks, that I might come to
Philadelphia and preach for him. This visit and service
brought me into more intimate acquaintance with him and
�54
this Society. The pleasant memories of that period, fresh
in my heart to this day, were prominent among the mani
fold recollections that prompted, nay, constrained me to
come and unite my sympathies with yours on this occasion.
It is a glad occasion, yet there is something solemn and
sad about it. Like all anniversaries, it has a double
meaning, makes a double appeal to us. It gives a tongue
to memory, calls up the shadows of the past, brings be
fore us the forms of those we have loved and lost; we see
their smiles; we hear their voices; and as I stand here
to-night, and look back upon those fifty years, and call
to mind the venerable fathers of our faith, whom I knew
and loved and honored in the early days of my profes
sional life, Drs. Bancroft, Ripley, Thayer, Harris, Pierce,
Nichols of Portland, Parker of Portsmouth, Flint of
Salem, and bring before me the Boston Association when
it numbered among its members Channing, Lowell, Parkman, Ware, Greenwood, Frothingham, Pierpont, Young,
and last, though not least, that great apostle who has
just departed, Dr. Walker, I feel as if I had lived a
century, and was a very old man. I feel, however, that
life is not to be measured by years, and I hope, mean al
ways to try to keep as young, bright, joyous, and buoyant
as Dr. Furness seemed this morning when I greeted him
in his own house.
I sympathize in all that has been said here this even
ing, especially in all that has been said in relation to the
future of this Society and its honored and beloved pas
tor. It is no longer a secret, I believe, that he intends
to ask a release from further service. I am sure, my
friends, that all the brethren present will leave with you
their loving benediction, and the hope that something of
his mantle may fall upon whoever comes to try to fill his
place. The whole of that mantle, in all its beauty,
grandeur, and simplicity, you cannot expect any man to
�55
have or wear; if you find a successor wearing a goodly
portion of it you will have great reason to rejoice, to
thank God and be of good courage. As for Dr. Furness
himself, we leave with him our gratitude and reverence,
and our devout wish that the sweetest serenity and peace
and moral glory may mark his remaining years; and for
ourselves, who have come from far and near to hold this
jubilee with him, we all hope to gather here to-night
and carry away with us on the morrow memories, in
spirations, influences that shall quicken us to fresh zeal
and effort in our several spheres of work, determined to
be faithful and persevere unto the end, whether that end
cover twenty, thirty or forty, or, as may be the case with
some of us, fifty years of professional service.
Rev. Dr. James Freeman Clarke, of Boston, being
called upon to read a poem written for the occasion,
spoke as follows:
A great many years ago I was journeying from Ken
tucky to Boston, and passing through Philadelphia, I
could not deny myself the pleasure of going to see our
dear friend, Mr. Furness, and he was then full of the
thoughts which were afterward published in his first
book, concerning Jesus of Nazareth. I spent the whole
morning talking with him, and when the morning was
through, said he, “ Stay a little longerand I said, “ I
will wait till night before I go;” and I spent the after
noon talking with him, and when the night came, he had
not finished speaking, and I had not finished listening.
So I spent another day. We talked in the morning, we
talked in the afternoon, and we talked in the evening. I
still had not heard all I wanted to, and so I stayed the
third day, and, of course, Brother Furness is very much
associated in my mind with his studies on this subject,
�56
which has led me to take the tone which you will find in
these lines:
Where is the man to comprehend the Master,
The living human Jesus—He who came
To follow truth through triumph or disaster,
And glorify the gallows and its shame?
No passive Christ, yielding and soft as water ;
Sweet, but not strong; with languid lip and eye ;
A patient lamb, led silent to the slaughter;
A monkish Saviour, only sent to die.
Nor that result of Metaphysic Ages;
Christ claiming to be God, yet man indeed—
Christ dried to dust in theologic pages;
Our human brother frozen in a creed !
But that all-loving one, whose heart befriended
The humblest sufferer under God’s great throne ;
While, in his life, humanity ascended
To loftier heights than earth had ever known.
All whose great gifts were natural and human ;
Loving and helping all; the great, the mean ;
The friend of rich and poor, of man and woman ;
And calling no one common or unclean.
Most lofty truth in household stories telling,
Which to the souls of wise and simple go ;
Forever in the Father’s bosom dwelling—
Forever one with human hearts below.
Not in the cloister, or professor’s study
God sets the teacher for this work apart,—
But where the life-drops, vigorous and ruddy,
Flow from the heart to hand, from hand to heart.
�57
He only rightly understands this Saviour,
Who walks himself the same highway of truth ;
Unfolding, with like frank and bold behavior,
Such earnest manhood from such spotless youth.
■ ' -«
Whose widening sympathy avoids extremes,
Who loves all lovely things, afar, anear—
Who still respects in age his youthful dreams,
Untouched by skeptic-doubt or cynic-sneer.
Who, growing older, yet grows young again,
Keeping his youth of heart;—whose spirit brave
Follows with Jesus, breaking every chain,
And bringing liberty to every slave.
To him, to-night, who, during fifty years,
For truths unrecognized has dared the strife,
In spite of fashion’s law or wisdom’s fears,
We come to thank him for a noble life.
He needs no thanks, but will accept that love,
The grateful love, inevitably given
To those who waken faith in things above,
And mingle with our days a light from heaven.
And most of all, who shows us how to find
The Great Physician for all earthly ill—
The true Reformer, calm and bold and kind,
Who came not to destroy but to fulfil.
And thus this church grows into holy ground
So full of Jesus that our souls infer
That we, like Bunyan’s Pilgrim, must have found
At last “ The House of the Interpreter.”
Dr. Clarke called upon Rev. Dr. Bartol to speak, who
said:
My Friends : I certainly ought in all sincerity, and I
certainly do in all humility, thank the committee for in8
�58
viting one, so devoid of all conventional virtue, with no
place in any conference, standing for the desert—yet not
quite, I think, belonging to the tribe of Ishmael, for my
hand is against no man, and no man’s hand, I think, is
against me,—to say even one word. But let me tell you
there is good ecclesiastical blood in the family. I throw
myself on one who is worthy, I am sure, and popular in
this church, a cousin by blood. I think there is a good
deal of vicarious atonement in him; and I hope his
righteousness will be imputed to me, though I do not
mean to make him a scapegoat for my sins.
Notwithstanding what my brother has said, I shall call
him not only brother but John Ware; and because of what
he said we shall all be convinced that this is a real
brotherhood in spirit as in name after all. I call it a
very goodly fellowship, not only of the prophets but of
the people to-night. And that is the thought that comes
into my mind in regard to it. Here our brother and
father Furness, your minister, has brought all these
brethren together who stand in thought so wide apart.
Is it not a real fellowship? I need not mention the
names to show you how wide a space of thought they
measure, and the beauty and power of a man’s fellow
ship. It is not to be determined by the number of his
disciples or followers, by the largeness of the congrega
tion he can gather, or the crowds that hang on his lips;
but by the measure which all those men, be they more or
fewer, make in the world of ideas, which is also the world
of love; for a man’s parallax, that twenty friends may
make for him, is a larger parallax than a million friends
may make. And I think it is, in spite of our dear friend’s
utter modesty, an occasion of joy with him. It should
be an occasion of joy that he reaches so far out on either
hand, and gathers such a company together. It is a real
fellowship, a real brotherhood, a real fatherhood; and while
�59
these young men have been speaking—and we have not
begun with the eldest, even to the last, but have begun
the other way—it seemed to me as if the almond blossoms
from the old heads which we remember, as well as see,
have been dropping upon some of our heads, and that
they have shed them upon us. We are glad for that fel
lowship. It is rich beyond measure.
I had a letter from our dear Brother Dewey. He says
in this letter, speaking of the death of Dr. Walker, “ He
seems to say to me, ‘ Your turn next.’ ” Ah, “ sad !” Did
I hear that word? No, not sadtj Death is not sad;
departure is not sad; ascending is not sad. Death is
nothing. But what is meant by our thought? I said to
my dear friend, Dr. Bellows, last night as we were talking,
“ How strange it would be, when we came each one of us
to die, to find that death, which we have thought so much
of, is nothing to think of! Death at last and for the
first time takes everlasting leave of us. Death will just
so surely depart from us as we come to die. And in the
article of dying, it will depart.”
It is well that I should close with this single thought
of fellowship. Providence has been working very won
derfully and very mightily, with all these great causes
which have had great sway in the modern world, through
this gospel of free thought. I call it a gospel,—a gospel
of humanity, this loving gospel to bring people together.
I do not like the word fellowship as an active verb. I
never could speak of fellowshipping one. Fellowship is
the result of being true to our own conviction one to
another; coming and sitting in the circle that takes in
the heaven as well as the earth,—and I will finish my
little talk with what perhaps is as yet an unedited fact
or story, of one of those other elders, not so very old, who
have gone to the majority. Samuel Joseph May illus
trated this bond of fellowship ; how God will have it, that
�60
we must be brethren and fellows, whether we will or not.
He told me that one day, a great many years ago, it must
now be between thirty or forty years, he was returning
from an anti-slavery meeting, on a steamer, when a theo
logical conversation arose between some parties, and one
man was pleased to denounce Unitarians very severely;
and perhaps some of you remember what that denuncia
tion was of the Unitarian Doctrine. It was infidel, it
was atheistic, it was all that was bad. Mr. May listened
quietly until the man got through, who had the sym
pathy of others, and then frankly, like himself, said, “ I
must tell you, sir, that I am myself one of those dreadful
Unitarians.” “ Indeed, indeed,” said the man. “ I have
listened to you with great pleasure at the anti-slavery
meeting; would you allow me to have a little conversa
tion with you at the other end of the boat, privately?”
“ With the utmost pleasure,” said Mr. May. They took
their departure from the little circle to the bow of the
boat. As the man was about to open his converting
speech, Mr. May said : “ Now before we proceed to our
little controversygl wish to ask you one question. Do
you believe it is possible in this matter of theology, I
after all may be right and you may be wrong ?” “ No,
I don’t believe it^s possible,^* said the man. “Then,
then,” said Mr. May, “ I think there is no advantage in
our having any further conversation.” Mr. May had
his place nevertheless in that man’s heart: for we do not
choose our fellows. God chooses our fellows for us. A
man said one day: “ I heard that transcendental lecturer
speak. He got his thought into my mind, and the worst
of it is, I can’t get it out.” Be true to your conviction;
for that is the charm, the beauty, the holiness! And
then—I must say it, yes, I must say it in spite of Dr.
Furness’ presence—not your thought alone, but you will
get into the heart of every man or woman who has the
�61
slightest knowledge of you. And the man and the woman
will love you, and the time will come when they will
not want to get you out of their mind.
Rev. Dr. Thompson, of Jamaica Plain, Mass., then
addressed the meeting as follows:
My Friends : I feel a good deal of embarrassment in
taking my place on the platform, having received no
hint that any word would be expected of me.
If I were as old and gray as some of the brethren who
have preceded me, I might perhaps follow in their
severely sober strain, but you will have to take me as I
am. Before touching on what more immediately con
cerns the occasion, let me frankly confess to having
brought with me a slight pique againsttithe venerated
pastor of this church, and you shall know how it hap
pened. About ten years ago—it will be ten in April—the
Sunday after the first National Conference in New York,
I was seated in this church. Three or four of us ministers
had come on to attend the worship ; by what attraction
you can well imagine. Robert Collyer preached the
sermon, one of the best he ever preached, that on “Hurting
and Healing Shadows.” Now you all know Dr. Furness’
great fondness for conferences and such like, only he
never goes to them ! Well, I think he must have been
a little uneasy while Collyer was preaching from having
heard of the great enthusiasm which prevailed in the
recent conference, and from regretting, though he did
not say so, that circumstances, or something, had pre
vented his being there to share it. While he sat in the
pulpit under this “hurting shadow” he was thinking very
likely—but I do not assert it as a fact—how he could
extemporize something here that would bear a resemblance
to what we had been doing and enjoying in New York;
and he hit on a plan. So, immediately after Brother
�62
Collyer had finished, our excellent friend arose, looking
exactly as he does to-night, and, with that peculiar
twinkle under his spectacles and expression about the
mouth which none of you will ever forget, said, that it
had occurred to him that, as a number of ministers were
present who had attended the New York conference, it
might be interesting to the congregation to hear an ac
count of it from their lips ; and without further ceremony
he would call upon them. When it came my turn he
introduced me in this fashion; (and here comes in the
pique of which I am going to free my mind). “ This
gentleman,” said he (giving my name), “some of the
older members of the society may perhaps remember to
have heard preach here, I will not undertake to say
precisely when, but it was some time within the present
centuryI” Do you wonder that I have had a feeling
about this insinuation ? It was true that I had preached
for him while yet a young man, and he about as old to
my appreciation as he is now. It is also true that in the
abundance of his kindness he wanted to say a pleasant
thing about the sermon ; and he did say it. And what
do you think it was ? I hope it is not too flattering for
me to repeat after having carried it so long in my memory.
He said : “ Thompson, there was one capital word in your
sermon, a capital word.” “ What was it ?” I asked,
surprised. “ It was the word intenerated; where did
you get it ?” “ From the dictionary,” I meekly replied ;
“ and you will find it there.” And now I wish to say
that if at any time within the last forty years you have
heard that word “intenerated” from the lips of your
minister you may know where it came from.
Dr. Furness: I have never used it once. (Laughter.)
What delightful reminiscences of my connection with
this church!
And now let me come to the matter of the jubilee.
�63
It happened to me less than a week ago to walk into the
sanctum of our Brother Mumford, the accomplished
editor of the Christian Register. I entered expecting to
see my welcome in the generous smile with which he
usually meets his friends. But instead of this, his face
wore a most solemn expression, and he seemed to find it
hard even to look at me. “ What now ?” thought I;
“ what have I been doing ?” After a minute or two of
suspense, I was relieved by his lifting his eyes pleas
antly and saying: “ I am doing up Dr. Furness,” or
words to that effect. I instantly remonstrated, say
ing it would spoil every man’s speech who goes to
Philadelphia, for they are all doing just what you are.
They are all searching the volumes of the Christian
Register and Christian Examiner, and other newspapers
and periodicals to find out all they can in relation to the
man and the ordination fifty years ago. But he was in
flexible, saying that - he didn’t mean that the Christian
Register should be behind any of them.” So he went on,
and the result was the excellent notice of our friend which
appeared last Saturday.
However, he did not give quite all the facts that link
themselves in my mind with the ordination of Dr. Fur
ness. It was a very remarkable year of ordinations in
our Unitarian body, remarkable as to the number of
them, and as to the character and future eminence of the
men ordained, and the reputation of the ministers who
ordained them. Let me refer to a few of them. Six
months before the ordination here, June 30th, 1824, our
beloved Brother Gannett had been ordained as the col
league of Dr. Channing; and, on the same day, his lifelong
friend in the closest intimacy, the Rev. Calvin Lincoln,
was ordained at Fitchburg. Then came this ordination ;
and in just a week after, January 19th, followed that of
the Rev. Alexander Young, over the New South Church
�64
in Boston. Such highly distinguished ministers as Pier
pont, Palfrey, Ware Sr., Channing, Upham, and Harris,
took the several parts. Of these, two only survive, Dr.
Palfrey, whom several of us here remember as our teacher
in the Theological School, and, remembering, have be
fore us the image of a man as remarkable for method,
industry, learning, and accuracy as a teacher, as he was
for a conscientious fidelity in the discharge of every duty,
the least as well as the greatest; and Charles W. Upham,
who had been ordained but a month before, over the First
Church in Salem. Mr. Upham, after twenty years in the
ministry, retired and became for a time a servant of the
country in the National House of Representatives. In
his advanced age he has pursued his favorite historical
studies, and has, as you know, recently published a Life
of Timothy Pickering in four volumes, which has been
received with great favor by the public.
The week following the ordination of Dr. Young, came
that of the Rev. Edmund Q. Sewall, at Amherst, New
Hampshire, a man of rare abilities and virtues; no longer
living. At this ordination we find our friend Palfrey
taking part with Pierpont, Lowell, and Thayer of
Lancaster. This was followed the next week, February
2d, by the ordination of Rev. John Flagg, of West
Roxbury, in the exercises of which we find the names of
Palfrey again, the lately deceased Dr. Walker, and Drs.
Pierce, Lowell, Gray, and Lamson, all well known by
those of us who are far advanced in the journey of life,
and all, but the first, now gone on out of sight but not
beyond the reach of our affections. The week following
Mr. Flagg’s, came the ordination of that true man and
faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Rev.
Samuel Barrett over the Chambers Street Church in
Boston; a man of clear, strong mind, devoted to his
work, exercising his ministry in great patience, in great
I
�65
cheerfulness, with great joy in God and great love for the
brotherhood. Then followed in the very next week,
February 16th, the installation of the Rev. Henry Cole
man in the Barton Square Church, of Salem, at which,
among others, Messrs. Frothingham, Pierpont, and Brazer
officiated. I ought to mention that at the beginning of
the same year, 1825, if not a little earlier, our eminent
brother, the Rev. E. B. Hall, a particular friend of Dr.
Furness, received a call to the then new parish in North
hampton, which the state of his health did not permit
him at once to accept. But tima parish would not give
him up; and in the August ensuing, his health being
partially restored, he became their minister; the venerable
Dr. Ware preaching the sermon, and Pierpont! Willard,
Lincoln, and Brazer, assisting in otl^P exercises.
Said I not truly that the year which gave Dr. Fur
ness to Philadelphia, was memorablafor its*rdinations
in our denomination ? Certainly no other has been so
fruitful. And all these eminent brothers ordained, with
two or three exceptions, were the coevals and intimate
personal friends of him whom we have come here to
night to honor with the outpourings of our respect,
gratitude, and affection.
Now there is one other event relating to our good
friend, which I hope it will not seem improper for me to
refer to, having been for twenty-seven years of my life a
minister in the city where it occurred ; a very important
event in the history of his singularly happy life. It
occurred in the year following his ordination; and it has
probably had quite as much to do with his comfort and
happiness here as your unfailing kindness and sympathy.
The event was of so much importance that it was chron
icled in the Salem Gazette in this wise:
“ In Salem, August 29th, 1825, by Rev. Mr. Emerson,
Rev. William Henry Furness, Philadelphia, to Miss
9
�66
Annis Pulling Jenks, daughter of the late Mr. John
Jenks.”
I don’t dare to tell all I have heard about the bride,
though I think from what you now see, you would find
no difficulty in believing it. I refer to the event because
of its influence and its long-continued charm ; and I hope
the few lines from Rogers’ “ Human Life,” with which I
close, if I can join them to what I have been saying, will
not inappropriately relieve your attention.
“ Across the threshold led,
And every tear kissed off as soon as shed,
His house she enters there to he a light
Shining within when all without is night;
A guardian angel o’er his life presiding,
Doubling his pleasures and his cares dividing;
Winning him back when mingling with the throng,
Back from a world we love, alas, too long,
To fireside happiness, to hours of ease,
Blest with that charm—the certainty to please.”
I am requested to introduce our Brother Chadwick, of
Brooklyn.
Rev. John W. Chadwick, of Brooklyn, N. Y., spoke
as follows:
Dear Friends : It seems to be the order of the
evening for each speaker to justify in some way his
presence on this sacred and beautiful occasion, and I,
knowing that my turn was coming, have been not a little
troubled as to what I should say for myself. But Dr.
Thompson has helped me out. In the accounts of
various ordinations which he has read to you, you
must have noticed how few old men had anything to do
with them, from which it would appear that, whether
there is or is not less respect for age now than formerly,
there was formerly much more respect for young men
than at present. Nowadays we never take up with any
�67
young men at ordinations and such times, till there are
no more old men to be had. I suspect, therefore, that I
have been invited to speak here this evening as a sign
that respect for young men has not entirely died out.
Dear friends, I saw this occasion while it was yet a
great way off. When Robert Collyer said to me up at
Saratoga last September, “John, we must all go to
Philadelphia next January,” I answered, I have been
meaning to this three years.” After your invitation
came, thinking it might possibly mean that I should say
something, I began to think what I would say, and all at
once I found my thought was going to a sort of tune. I
couldn’t account for it except by the fancy that my
thought was sympathizing with the music of Dr. Furness’
life, which has been a sort of symphony—a “Pastoral
Symphony ”—for has not the thought of the Good Shep
herd been the central thought and inspiration of it all
from the beginning until now ?
Here is what came to me.
W. H. F.
January 12th, 1825. January \2th, 1875.
Standing upon the summit of thy years,
Dear elder brother, what dost thou behold,
Along the way thy tireless feet have come
From that far day, when young and fresh and bold,
Hearing a voice that called thee from on high,
Thou answeredst, quickly, “ Father, here am I.”
Fain would we see all that thine eyes behold,
And yet not all, for there is secret store
Of joy and sorrow in each private heart,
To which no stranger openeth the door.
But thou can st speak of many things beside,
While we a little space with thee abide.
�68
Tell us of those who fifty years ago
Started thee forth upon thy sacred quest,
Who all have gone before thee, each alone,
To seek and find the Islands of the Blest.
To-day, methinks that there as well as here
Is kept all-tenderly thy golden year.
Tell us, for thou didst know and love him well,
Of Channing’s face,—of those dilating eyes
That seemed to^eatch, while he was with us here,
Glimpses of things beyond the upper skies.
Tell us of th®t weak voice, which was so strong
To cleave asunder every form of wrong.
Thou hast had good companions on thy way ;
Gannett was ®rith thee in his ardent prime,
And with thee still when outward feebleness
But made his spirit seem the more sublime,
Till, like another prophetj&mmoned higher,
He found, like him, a chariot of fire.
And that beloved disciple was thy friend,
Whose heart was blither than the name he bore,
Who yet could hide the tenderness of May,
And bleaker than December, downward pour
The tempest of his’Wrath on slavery’s lie,
And all that takes from man’s humanity.
And thou hast walked with our Saint Theodore,
Our warrior-saint, well-named the gift of God,
Whose manful hate of every hateful thing,
Blossomed with pity, e’en as Aaron’s rod,
And lips that cursed the priest and Pharisee
Gathered more honey than the wilding bee.
All these are gone, and Sumner’s heart beneath
Should make more pure the yet untainted snow ;
Our one great statesman of these latter days,
Happy wert thou his other side to know,
To call him friend, whom ages yet unborn
Shall love tenfold for every breath of scorn.
�69
All these are gone, but one is with us still,
So frail that half we deem she will not die,
But slow exhale her earthly part away,
And wear e’en here the vesture of the sky.
Lucretia, blessed among women she,
Dear friend of Truth, and Peace, and Liberty.
And one, whose form is as the Son of man,
Has been with thee through all these busy years,
Holden our eyes, and He to us has seemed
As one seen dimly through a mist of tears Bl
But thou hast seen him clearly face to face,
And told us of his sweetness and his grace.
Standing upon the summit of thy years,
Dear elder brother, tbou canst see the day
When slavery’s curse had sway in all the land,
And thou art here, and that has passed away.
We give thee joy that in its hour of pride,
Thy voice and hand were on the weak® side.
But from thy clear and lofty eminence
Let not thine eyes be ever backward turned,
For thou canst see before as cannot we
Who have'^ot yet thy point of ’vantage earned.
Tell us of what thou seest in the years
That look so strange, seen through our hopes and fears.
Nothing we know to shake thy steadfast mind
Nothing to quench thy heart with doubt or fear ;
But higher truth and holier love revealed,
And justice growing to man’s heart more dear.
And everywhere beneath high heaven’®3ope,
A deeper trust, a larger, better hope.
There are some here that shall not taste of death
Till they have seen the kingdom come, with power.
O brave forerunner, wheresoe’®| thou art,
Thou wilt be glad with us in that glad hour.
Farewell! Until we somewhere meet again.
We know in whom we have believed. Amen.
�70
Rev. Mr. Chadwick, in turn, introduced the Rev.
R. R. Shippen, of Boston, Mass., who said:
My dear Friends : Amid these memorials of your
Christmas rejoicing, and these fresh flowers and ever
greens of tropical luxuriance with which you would
symbolize the fragrance of the memories that cluster
round this aniversary, and your desire to keep them
green, it is my pleasant privilege to speak for the
Unitarian Association a word of greeting, giving you
congratulations on this your golden wedding, with best
wishes for the coming years. Yet as I speak for the
Association, I remember that some of our noblest and
best, from Channing through the list, have been some
what fearful of ecclesiastical entanglements, and of
hard, dry machinery, and have deemed the truest and
best work in life that wrought by character and personal
influence; even as Jesus himself did his work, not by
organizations, but by his own personality. Permit me
then to touch two or three lines of personal influence
flowing forth from this pulpit, that are but representatives
of many more. Let me speak for one in your city, now
in her ninety-third year, kept from this meeting only by
the feebleness of old age, who this afternoon told me of
her fresh remembrance of the occasion of fifty years ago,
vivid as if but yesterday, who has been a lifelong friend
of our cause, a generous worker in this church and bene
factor of the Meadville Church and. Theological School,
who recognizes this pulpit as the source of some of the
choicest inspirations of her life. Shall I speak for one
who in a large home-circle of many brothers has been a
loving, sisterly influence of sweetness and light ? who in
her youth was here a worshiper, and caught the inspira
tion of this place, and in her greeting sent me to-day
writes that she is with us here in spirit to-night; that no
one present can join in these services with a more deep
�71
and tender gratitude, and no human thought can fully
know what her life owes to the ministry we now com
memorate ? Shall I speak for another, a younger
brother, the brightest of the seven, whose youth and
early manhood were spent in this city in study and
practice of law ? who Sunday by Sunday learned here
that blessed faith that, when in the full promise of his
manly prime his last hour came, enabled him to go
bravely to death full of a cheerful hope of immortality ?
As to-night he makes heaven more real and more attrac
tive to my thought, in his name I-pay the tribute of
thanks for the inspirations of this pulpit. Shall I speak
for myself ? In my early home I remember your pastor’s
familiar volume of “Family Prayer” as a household
word. At the outset of my ministryf at the Portland
Convention, just twenty-five years ago, I first heard the
genial, charming, gracious word of your minister in his
prime. And as in Boston one may, day by day, correct
his own timepiece by Cambridge observations of the sky,
whose electric communications give us every passing hour
the celestial time true to the second, so in my young
ministry at Chicago,—a lonelier frontier post then than
now,—when the barbarous Fugitive Slave Law passed
through Congress, and the Northwest Territories were
opened for slavery, and the dark days came upon the
nation, if, as I tried, I bore any worthy testimony for
freedom, I rejoice that I was aided in setting my con
science true to the celestial time by this observatory in
Philadelphia. The blessed influences of your pulpit have
run their lines through our land and through the world.
And, friends, what does our Association seek but to
extend and multiply these lines of personal influence, to
enable Boston and Philadelphia to join hands in the
same noble work ? When I asked your pastor for the
last book of Whittier, that I might quote a forgotten
�72
line, he replied, “ All good books have feet and wings
and will find their way at last.” But our Association
only desires to quicken their speed, and by the people’s
generosity to enlarge their wings; that as we are now
sending Channing through the land, we should gladly
send the noble words of Dewey and Furness flying on
the wings of the wind.
And what do our Association and Conferences stand
for but for fellowship ? for the good-will and helpfulness
of brotherly greetings ? Pennsylvanian as I am by birth
and ancestry, with you I rejoice that these Boston
brethren have been brought to Philadelphia. It will do
us all good to know more of each other. This meeting
to-night is just like our Conferences, where our hearts
are warmed by words of brotherly kindness. As I recall
your minister’s inspiring word at the Portland Conven
tion, it has been one of the regrets of my life that we have
not heard him oftener among us. But it is never too late
to mend. On behalf of the Association and the Confer
ence I invite our Brother Furness and all of you to at
tend our meetings henceforth every time.
And now, my friends, when Brother Mumford wrote
that editorial last week, I said, “You are a generous
fellow; why didn’tl^ou keep that to make a speech
from ?” I am sure I don’t know what he is going to say.
I am requested to ask him to speak.
Rev. Thomas J. Mumford. Dear Friends: On account
of the lateness of the hour I will only say that that was
my speech. The next speaker will be Brother White,
and when I say Brother White, I mean brother just as
much as they did in the days of Henry Ware.
Rev. William O. White, of Keene, N. H., then ad
dressed the meeting as follows:
�73
There is one comfort, dear friends, as I thank you at
this late hour, for giving me the pleasure of being with
you, and that is, that Philadelphia time is a little more
generous than the time which I carry in my pocket; but
I will not abuse even Philadelphia time. The word that
Brother Mumford just mentioned brings up very dear
and tender associations with men so closely united in my
memory with our friend and brother, Dr. Furness. But
I will not carry out the thought that comes to me. I
would gladly help along one or two strains that vibrate
in our hearts, as the words are spoken, that “the time
will come when we shall take a last farewell of death,”
and that other word of a younger speaker who almost
felt, and almost knew that one of the long-departed
friends of our Brother Furness was here./'
I am glad to feel that I am here, just as some of my
younger friends were, because I am the son of a friend
of Dr. Furness, a layman whose tastes led him to the
study of theology, and who, I think, was more attached
to the studies of the ministry than many of us ministers
are. I say this, because as soon as I saw Dr. Furness
this morning I was greeted as my father’s son.
And I would not hava spoken here at all at this late
hour, but to try to fasten to those one Im two sweet
thoughts that have been uttered to-night, to which I
have alluded, a line of the poet-sculptor “Michael
Angelo.’^ He is contemplating theyvasting block of
marble upon which he is working; the block lessens ;
lessens, lessens, continually in size; and so the years of
our friend’s sweet, earnest ministry here, are fast pass
ing away before our eyes. But the great lesson that I
have found, as I go back to the time when I remember
to have heard Dr. Furness’ voice in my father’s house,
and in the old pulpit in Salem, and as I remember the
week that I spent with him more than a score of years
10
�74
ago, and as I recall the tenderness of his voice, in his
supplications and his preaching, only last October, the
great lesson I have taken with me about him fastens
itself to the line which I am now to quote of “ Michael
Angelo.” As the poet and sculptor contemplated the
wasting marble, he said:
“ The more the marble wastes, the more the statue grows.”
So, with our friend, the years are passing away ; pass
ing away, soon they must be gone; but the statue grows
with tenderness of heart deeper than ever; that sweet
voice, rich with varied experience of the joys and sorrows
of those friends of his in his flock, year after year, has
acquired an added tenderness; and we feel
“The more the marble wastes, the more the statue grows,”
and we can welcome the time when he, or any of us, who
try to live in a like spirit of devotion to the Master, shall
“take an everlasting farewell of death.”
I am requested to call on our friend Brother Putnam,
of Brooklyn, New York.
Rev. Dr. A. P. Putnam made the following address:
My dear Friends : I think it must have been for a
larger number of years than Brother Chadwick said for
himself, that I have been looking forward to this occasion,
meaning to be here not with a set speech, as you will very
soon see, but because I wished to come and to say from
my heart, I thank you, Dr. Furness.
I remember when I was a bookkeeper in Boston, how
my elder brother, who was in the divinity school at that
time, used to bring me the volumes of Channing, Buck
minster, and Ware, and also various pamphlet sermons of
Dr. Furness. I recollect well the delight with which I read
Dr. Furness’ pages, and the gospel of liberty they taught
me, and the new revelation they seemed to give me of
�75
the Christ. I have been a disciple following far off. Yet
I know I have not lost during all these years the strong
conviction I had then. It has deepened and deepened
from that time until now. I have gathered his pamphlets
wherever I could find them, and with not a little zeal
I have searched for all his books, many of which are out
of print and are not easily to be found, until, some years
ago, I completed the whole list, and I cherish them as
among the most precious treasures in my library. The
argument which he draws from the naturalness, the
simplicity and artlessness of the gospel records for their
truth, and the uplifting of the curtain so that the Christ
may be seen in his higher spiritual beauty! what a
debt do we owe him for that. Does he know ? can he
know ? can we tell him how much the members of our
churches feel of gratitude and love to him for all that
he has done for us in this way ? Perhaps in some far off
time he may know it more fully; but it is right, dear
friends, that we should come together thus and say these
words which are uttered here to-night, and before he
has gone away tell him how much we do love and
honor him, and why it is we do love and honor him, and
why it is that yve shall always revere and bless him.
When I have thought what words have gone forth from
that desk in behalf of liberty and right in this land, I
have wished that the church might remain just as it is
to-night, and that pulpit just as it is for years and
generations to come. It speaks a lesson for all; those
words abide with us still; they have come home to our
hearts, and kindled in our souls new zeal for the truth
as it is in Jesus. How many chains they have broken,
and oh ! what a welcome, in comparison with which these
congratulations of the hour are small indeed, is reserved
for our venerable father and friend, from the spirits of
�76
the ransomed freedmen who have ascended to heaven,
and who will greet him there.
Let me say that forty years ago it was, that Dr.
Furness preached the installation sermon of the first
minister of the church which I represent here ; the first
society of our faith in Brooklyn. It seems a long, long
while indeed. I have been over ten years there myself.
Dr. Farley preceded me, and he was there twenty years
or more. Mr. Holland was there several years before
him; Mr. Barlow several years before Mr. Holland. Dr.
Furness preached the installation sermon of Rev. Mr.
Barlow, who was the first minister of our faith in
Brooklyn, forty years ago the 17th of last September.
Of the ministersjwho took part in the services of that
occasion, all except your pastor and my immediate pre
decessor, who was then of Providence, R. I., have passed
away,—William Ware, John Pierpont, Caleb Stetson,
E. B. Hall, and others^ Nearly ten years later, Dr.
Furness was present at a| convention held there at the
time of the dedication of our church, and preached the
closing communion sermon. His is a familiar name with
my people, who are all with you here in the spirit, and
would join me, I know, in heartily saying, “God bless
him and you, and the cause of humanity and righteous
ness, which is so dear to you.”
I am requested to call upon Rev. Mr. Ames to address
you.
Rev. C. G. Ames, of Germantown, Pa., said:
As I am one of the younger brethren, and very much
at home, I feel that I should deny myself, and take up
my cross, and introduce a brother from a distance, espe
cially as you have met to hear from these patriarchal
ministers who can offer things which I cannot. But I
may boast one advantage; they cannot see Dr. Furness
�77
every day. Nor can I speak freely of what I feel; it is
too much like being one of the family. I live too near,
and can easily be excused. My voice is very frequently
heard in this house. With a heart brimming full, I
have the painful pleasure, therefore, of holding it down,
knowing it will keep.
I will introduce Rev. Dr. Bellows, of New York.
Rev. Dr. Bellows made the following remarks:
I am sure both modesty and discretion would suggest
the wisdom of my being taught by my junior and friend,
and in releasing you from any further attendance on this
interesting service. As for myself, I feel tired as a child
with the pleasures of the evening; and I can conceive that
you all must be so tired that you would welcome as your best
friend him who would permit you to go home and think
over all the kind things you have heard here. And yet
I think it is a kind of duty to say 1 word in behalf of my
own people and city, and all that great community which
I am privileged to represent here. New York speaks
to Philadelphia; and to a good many of us in New York,
Brother Furness is more than half of Philadelphia.
When we think of Philadelphia we think rather of him
than of anything else, and it is not for anything he has done
either; not for all that great service to freedom, not for
all that valuable contribution to theological speculation
or criticism, but for being what he cannot possibly help,
and that is, himself. It is so much more to be than to
say, or even to do, that I have not always a great deal
of praise for the bright things he does, or the bright
things he says,—only because he is what he is and can’t
help it, and deserves very little thanks for it; for God is
the being we must thank, not him. It is, therefore, that
I am by force compelled to thank God for him, and not
thank him.
�78
Good fellow! he has had it all himself. God gave
him all his precious gifts; he gave him his broad and
generous humanity; made him a harp for all the winds
of heaven and earth to play on, not a fife, to be stopped ;
gave him that benignant smile which he doesn’t know
anything about himself; and gave him that delicious
voice which is in itself a harmony of all his sweetest
powers, an expression of the depth and clearness of his
spirit.
Poor fellow! he cannot help it; he has carried it with
him all these seventy-two years. And, surely, the first
time I ever saw him his voice was the thing that spoke
to me. I didn’t care what it said; there it was, and I
have often thought if a soft voice be an excellent thing
in woman, such a voice as his is, is one of the most
magnificent and significant gifts that God ever gives to
man. Well, let us thank God for him, and then let us
thank him for using those talents so well. Now let me
thank you in behalf of the denomination, dear brethren,
for not being able to be otherwise than so generous, so
kind and faithful to a man who, for all I know, never
used one particle of machinery to keep you together, has
taken no particular pains to keep you together, but just
stood like a kind of magnet, and drawn you to his
heart. We don’t understand it all, but God does; and
we see how with a witchery he has done more than most
of us are able to do by getting every sort of instru
mentality at work that we can possibly use to supple
ment the defects of our natural constitution. I wish I
could work just as Dr. Furness does, and have that same
influence and power, without seeking any. If I could
stand up in naked simplicity and majesty, and then win
the people without using all this painful labor, this
fatiguing desperately drudging machinery, I should be
very glad indeed ; but for most of us poor fellows, it is a
�79
necessity to resort to these matters, to supplement the
defects of our natural constitution and faculties; but I
think Brother Furness can do without it. One thing
further I will say of Dr. Furness. It is a subject of
special congratulation that he has been always himself;
that no theological or critical studies have given an
ecclesiastical tinge or twist to his character, or prevented
the people from seeing him in his native outline. He
has been a preacher and minister, but still more, a man,
and although no man less deserves, in the depreciating
sense, the name of a man of the world, yet in a noble
sense he has been a man of the world; for he has made
the world tributary to his growth; drawn in its widest
culture, enjoyed its largest freedom, entered into its every
day feelings and joys, and made it his own by his great
enjoyment of it, and insight into its meaning. Neither
ecclesiasticism nor dogmatism has been able to quench
his native originality, and that is one of his chief charms
to-day.
Dear brethren, let me congratulate you at the close of
this half century of your minister’s labors, upon what we
n ow behold in the magnificent development of th e theologi
cal ideas and religious temper for which our branch of the
church has meanwhile stood. We expected great things,
but we have seen larger ones, although of a different
kind. We looked for a multiplication of our churches,
which we have not seen, but how vast has been the spread
of our ideas and principles? We expected to be the
chief instruments in the work of liberalizing Christian
thought and feeling, but Divine providence took up the
work with larger methods and new agencies, and made
us rather sharers than leaders in theological reform. We
happened to be the first wave of what turned out to be
an incoming tide, which has swept the whole church on.
I think Luther did not see in his day a greater, a more
�80
important reformation in theological ideas than we have
realized in the last half century.
Whether there be one Unitarian church in Phila
delphia or more, or whether our churches in New York
and Brooklyn, Baltimore and Washington, New Eng
land and the West have multiplied as fast as we hoped or
not, there is more liberal Christianity preached in this
country to-day, than the boldest prophets could have
foreseen when our enterprise started. It has advanced,
and it has triumphed, by whatever way. God has taken
it up, and brought the aid of a broad science, a broad
philosophy, a broad reformatory influence in society,
during all these last years, to bear powerfully upon it.
We have seen results which may cause many of us to
say, “Mine eyes have seen thy salvation; let now thy
servant depart in peace.” I feel no further anxiety
about the spread of liberal Christianity. It now spreads
by a necessity. It is a glorious privilege to work in it
and for it. But the business is essentially done. The
leaven is at work, and it is working everywhere, just as
much in the orthodox churches, so-called, as in our own.
And very little free thinking is done in our denomination
which is not just as fully represented in the old ortho
doxy. We are no longer the sole officers in that great
army. I thank God that the business of fighting is
pretty much over’, and that we are now beginning to
think more of cultivating religiously the area which has
been left for us specially to take care of. Let us now
look to it, as churches and ministers and parishes, and
see that we produce workmen, and, finally, spiritual
fruit, in the particular area over which we are set as
husbandmen and gardeners. That you may succeed
in cultivating your own soil, and in making the vine
yard a nobler and grander one, and in bringing forth
more clusters of grapes of the particular vine from which
�81
you are set, is my earnest prayer. And that we may all
return from these services bearing your blessings and
Brother Furness’ blessing with us into our own several
fields of labor, and that we may be abler and nobler and
more careful shepherds, and more faithful husbandmen,
is the best thing I can ask, that we may be permitted to
carry away from this hour and this blessed assembly of
Unitarian Christians and friends.
Music.
Duet for Two Sopranos and Chorus,
.
. Mendelssohn.
“I waited for the Lord,” from “Hymn of Praise.”
Chorus, .
..........................................................Spohr.
“ Happy who in Thy House Reside.”
Dr. Furness then addressed the meeting.
Dear Friends : While I am very glad to meet here
my brothers in the ministry, and am not at all insensible
to their kind words, I call you all to witness that they
are not here by my invitation. I never invited them
to come here and talk about me. But as long as they
have done so, I congratulate you all, and all who are in
terested in the success of the good cause. It is, you see,
in the hands of young men. Although some of your
guests here show gray on their heads, they are very
young men evidently, fond, especially brother Bellows,
of romancing. I use the words that Dr. Bancroft used
at my ordination: “ It was a comfort to him to feel that
as he was going away the cause would be left in hands
that would carry it on a great deal better than he could.”
Some of my friends told me I had better not come here
to-night; but brother Bellows intimated to me that by
staying away I might seem to be bidding for praise. So
I thought I would come and see whether some restraint
11
�82
could not be put upon the speakers by my presence. But
I don’t think I have availed much.
The day that I was ordained—but I am not going to
tire you with old time stories,—when an old minister
begins telling his experiences we never know when he
will stop—we were all invited,—the gentlemen of the
clergy, and the delegates from Boston and New York,—
to dine at Mr. Thomas Astley’s, who lived at the corner
of Ninth and Walnut Streets, a wealthy Englishman of
our persuasion. While we were sitting waiting for dinnoy,
the report came that the kitchen chimney was on fire!
One of the gentlemen suggested that the fire could be
put out very readily by putting a blanket before the
chimney, and throwing some sulphur into the fire-place.
After dinner, when the wine was passed around and the
toasts were given, one of the gentlemen proposed “ the
Furnace that had been kindled in Philadelphia.” And
another added, “May it never be put out with brim
stone.”
The meeting was closed by a benediction pronounced
by Dr. FurnessJfc
�*
LETTERS.
�THE FOLLOWING LETTERS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE COMMITTEE FROM PERSONS WHO
WERE UNABLE TO BE PRESENT.
�Sheffield, January 4th, 1875.
To the Committee of the First Congregational Society
of Unitarians.
Gentlemen : I am obliged and gratified by the invitation.
I wish that I could comply with it. It would have been a
great pleasure to me, to join the friends of your honored pastor,
in commemorating a ministry, not only so long, but otherwise
equally remarkable. I should like to be in your church on
that interesting evening of the 12th, to hear the pleasant things
that will be said, and to say some, perhaps, myself.
But I cannot, that is, I cannot take so long a winter journey.
I am not sure enough of my health and strength to venture
upon it. Will you give my love to Dr. Furness and his family,
and accept for yourselves and the society, the congratulations
with which I am,
Very truly yours,
Orville Dewey.
Hazelwood, Cambridge, January 6th, 1875.
Gentlemen : I feel very much honored and gratified by
your invitation to be present at the commemoration of Dr.
Furness’ settlement in the ministry in Philadelphia, but the
state of my health forbids me to accept the invitation. My
interest in your society dates from a still earlier period.
I have listened in your old Octagon Church to the preaching
of Mr. Taylor, and I believe of Mr. Vaughan, as well as
preached there repeatedly myself. For more than fifty years
I have been your pastor’s admirer and warm friend.
I heartily wish him future happy years of earthly life, and I
pray God that after his retirement from your service another
pastor may serve you with an ability and zeal not too inferior
to his.
I am, gentlemen,
Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
John G. Palfrey.
�86
Cambridge, January 1st, 1875.
Gentlemen : I regret very sincerely that college duties
render it impossible for me to accept your invitation. Regard
ing your pastor with equal reverence and affection, I should
deem it a great privilege to he present at the commemorative
services, from which imperative necessity alone would detain
me.
I am, gentlemen,
Very truly yours,
A. P. Peabody.
Hingham, January 4th, 1875.
Gentlemen : I thank my dear friend, Dr. Furness, and the
committee for thinking of me at this time. I should he so very
happy to be with you, and join in all the expressions of respect
and love for one whose long and faithful ministry has earned
the esteem and confidence of all who know him. Beside this,
Dr. Furness and I alone continue in the ministry, of those who
were classmates in th® Divinity School and, I think, in College.
Give my love to your pastor. I need not wish him a happy
old age. That blessing is assured to him by his fidelity to his
convictions of truth and duty through life.
Very respectfully,
Calvin Lincoln.
Cambridge, January 5th, 1875.
Gentlemen : I received your invitation to be present at the
observance of •the fiftieth anniversary of the settlement of your
pastor, Dr. Furness* It would give me great pleasure to attend.
But I do not feel at liberty to be absent from my regular duty
so long as would be required.
No occasion of the kind so significant has occurred for many
years. For fifty years Dr. Furness has stood at his post, and
manfully defended the cause of what he deemed Divine Truth
and Divine Right. He has never failed to hold up the highest
standard of private and public duty. He has made no abate
ment from the truth in his utterance of it, nor deformed it by
an immoral spirit. For fifty years he has been an untiring
student of the life of Jesus Christ in the four gospels, seeking
�87
to bring to light the reality of that life, the internal evidence
of the truthfulness of the original record of it, and the moral
grandeur and spiritual beauty of the life itself. He has followed
in no servile spirit, but with original force of thought, his great
teacher, Mr. Norton, from whom, differing in many things, he
caught the impulse to this line of inquiry, this work of love, in
which his merit has been unique, his service one never to be
forgotten. To this it may be added, with Bini versal consent,
that his living example has been in harmony with the great
subject of his studies, and has done as much as that of any
minister to show the worth of the officwaf spiritual instructor
to a generation too ready to distrust those whoMbxercise it.
Though not many years younger, I have the habit of looking
up to him, and he is one of tho^ntjrgn whom inspiration and
strength have flowed into my soul
needed.
I am, brethren, yours in Christian fellowships with thanks
for your kind invitation, and MilEannatMbwith you in all
that belongs to a most memorable occasion.
Oliver Stearns.
Roxbur^j Mass., January 7th, 1875.
Dear Sirs : I very much regret that the state of my health
forbids my being pres e® at the commemoration, not of the
close, thank God! but of the close of the first fifty years of the
ministry of Dr. Durness. I regret it not only on account of my
personal affection for the minister, but because it has been a
ministry eminently after my own heart, one th®I admire ex
ceedingly. What I know of it is derived onlv from glimpses
and intuitions, and will be filled out and corrected by the fuller
face-to-face knowledge of the
It has looked to me
at this distance as a ministry of a mild and quiet type, as of one
that doth not strive nor cry, neither doth any man hear his
voice in the streets. Other ministries have been more effective
as the multitude measures efficiency, dealing with larger crowds,
using more complex agencies, and touching society at more
numerous points of interest and with intenser action; but within
its own sphere St has dealt with a profoundness, and fidelity not
elsewhere surpassed with the soul’s greatest interests, uncom
promising in its absolute loyalty to truth and right, always
taking the highest ground, always elevated and elevating,
�88
always searching, quickening, soothing, sanctifying to heart
and conscience, a lifelong dispensary of Sermons from the
Mount.
The specialty of this ministry, it seems to me, has been the
unfolding of the personality and character of Jesus of Nazareth.
I do not believe there is a pulpit in Christendom that has done
so much to penetrate the heart and life of the Master to its
inmost depths, and open its riches to the sympathies and ac
ceptance of men, as that Philadelphia pulpit for the last fifty'
years. Every shade and turn of thought, every gleam of
emotion heavenward and earthward, all the sweet humanity
and grand divinity of that wonderful soul, have been discerned
and delineated there as never elsewhere, I think, and dwelt on
with all the earnest zeal and affectionate faith of a disciple, and
all the enthusiastic appreciation of an artist—dwelt on almost
too exclusively one might think, were it not done by one who
knew how to draw all living waters from that one well, and
bring up all the gold and gems of the moral and spiritual uni
verse from that one mine. I have no doubt this has been done
in this case, so far as any single mind can be comprehensive
and all-sided enough to do it.
The ministry which you commemorate has been singularly
self-conta^ed, that is, has been carried on apart from all official
and organic connection with other ministries, without denomina
tional bonds, with no outside ties except those of a fraternal and
genial spirit. I sympathize with the characteristics of Dr.
Furness’ ministry; my own has been conducted on a similar
plan, though I fear with less fixedness of principle, and less
consistency»©f action. Most of our brethren will call this our
fault, our limitation. Well, they are the majority, and must
decide that point; only I am sure they will have the charity to
own that we, being such as we are, could do no otherwise.
You of Philadelphia do not need reminding; but I want to
express my own appreciation of the manner in which the ministry
you celebrate has all along been adorned, refined, deepened, and
broadened by literary studies and artistic taste and culture,
bringing to that ministry contributions, or rather an aroma
and innumerable subtle and sweet influences from all realms of
spiritual beauty and fragrance and sunshine.
Shall I dare in such a letter as this to make allusion to the
way that looks to me so felicitous, in which the church in the
�89
sanctuary has been supplemented by “the church in the house?”
To my eye and my remembrance the home in Pine Street, and
the church on Locust and Tenth, in the hospitable, genial, cheer
ful, affectionate, and ever gracious spirit that pervaded them
both, were always the counterparts and archetypes of one an
other, each reflecting what was best and brightest and holiest
in the other.
Though this long ministry has been characteristically so quiet
and even and suave, it has had epochs and aspects, or one at
least, of the kind, in presence of which the earth is shaken, and
principalities and powers are prostrated. We may have doubted
the wisdom and necessity of the course taken by our brother;
but we cannot fail to recognize the sublime moral grandeur of
clear and strong conviction® adhered to and acted on, with im
movable persistence, at all risks and at all cost, and though the
heavens fall. We should be blind B>t to discern there the stuff
of which martyrs were made, and the spirit that bore the meek
and gentle Jesus to his cross.
Perhaps my mind has dwelt more on the jubilee from the
fact that if all had gone well with me, I should have been the
next among the liberal ministers, so far as I know, to have been
entitled to such an occasion for myself. I have had my nine
lustra, and if the tenth fail why should I complain ? I can still
rejoice with all my heart in the well-earned honors and happi
ness of my well-beloved friend and brother in Philadelphia.
Very truly yours,
George Putnam.
106 Marlborough Street,
Boston, January 4th, 1875.
Dear Sirs : I am deeply indebted to you for the very kind
invitation to be present at the fiftieth anniversary of Dr. Fur
ness’ settlement. I regret to say that I cannot leave my work
at that time.
I am sure that you have reason to thank God and take courage
as you look back upon the half century. Dr. Furness has served
nobly both in Church and State, and has done much to show
that the two are indeed one.^ My warmest wishes accompany
him as he enters upon his green old age, which surely lacks
nothing that should go along with it. May he have the out12
�90
ward strength, as he is sure to have the inward desire, to speak
to you and for you these many years.
Gratefully and sincerely yours,
Rufus Ellis.
Portland, Maine, January 4th, 1875.
It is with great regret that I find myself unable to accept
your kind invitation to be present at the fiftieth anniversary of
the settlement of the Rev. Dr. Furness.
During the whole of that fifty years, and it embraces all my
life excepting the seven years of infancy, I have had near rela
tions and friends among the parishioners and lovers of Dr. Fur
ness, so that my interest in the occasion is almost personal.
But I am obliged to be in Philadelphia a fortnight later, and
cannot possibly spare the time for both journeys.
With the most cordial congratulations for both pastor and
people, and the hope of many happy returns of the season, I
remain,
Very respectfully and truly yours,
Thomas Hill.
Cambridge, Mass., January 2d, 1875.
Gentlemen : I am very sorry that I cannot accept your kind
invitation to be present at the fiftieth anniversary of the settle
ment of Dr. Furness as your minister.
The fact of so long a pastorship is itself noteworthy in these
days of change; but, in this case, we have all a special right to
be sharers in your joy, since we have received our part in the
fruit of your minister’s labors during these fifty years. Dr.
Furness has set an example, rare in these days of divided and
superficial work, not only by his devotion to a single parish
during so long a period, but also by his consecration to one
chosen line of thought. He selected the noblest theme and
gave his life to it, and made us all his debtors. With thanks
for your kind invitation, and congratulations for minister and
people,
I am, yours very truly,
C. C. Everett.
�91
Boston, January 9th, 1875.
Gentlemen : Since I heard that your jubilee was proposed I
have hoped to be able to be present, but I am, at the last moment,
disappointed. I think our friends in Philadelphia must under
stand that they are only a very small part of the multitude of
people who are grateful to Dr. Furness for the labors and the
love of his wonderful life. So soon as we who were then
youngsters found out how he preached, we used to say we would
walk fifty miles barefoot to hear him, if there were no other
way to enjoy that privilege. But even more than the preaching,
it was the reading of the books, and the living picture which
they gave us of the Saviour’s life, that set us on a track of
preaching and of thought wholly new.
Let me congratulate the congregation on his health and
strength, and pray express for a multitude of us our love and
gratitude to him.
' Truly yours,
Edward E. Hale.
Dorchester, Mass., January 10th, 1875.
Gentlemen : I have delayed replying to your letter of in
vitation to be present with you on the 12th instant, because,
while my very earnest desire was to accept it, and my heart
spontaneously said “yes,” there were circumstances making it
questionable whether I could. Those circumstances, I am sorry
to have now to say, have decided for me that I must deny my
self the hoped-for pleasure.
I can do no less, gentlemen, than express to you, and those
for whom you act, my sincere thanks for this thought of me in
such connection, and for including me among the friends of
your minister who were considered worthy to be gathered
around him on such an occasion.
Though I can hardly believe that my presence would add
anything to the enjoyment of it, I think no one will enter more
heartily than I should into all that belongs to it for memory
and sentiment and affection and benediction.
Your minister seems very near to me as he is very dear. My
acquaintance with him dates back to his boyhood. He is most
intimately associated in memory, as he was in fact, with those
nearest to me of my early home, whose love for him I shared;
�92
a love joined with admiration for his dispositions and gifts.
They are all gone to whom I allude; and the more tenderly for
that does my heart, as if hearing their love with its own, em
brace him and this occasion.
And the feelings inspired by those earlier memories towards
him whom in this occasion you so deservedly honor have been,
I hardly need say, continually deepening, as I have followed
him through his life since, and seen the promise our hearts
cherished in him unfold towards a-fulfilment so beautiful and
rich.
Most heartily do I congratulate the members of his society in
the privilege they have enjoyed in him whose very presence has
been a benediction, and whose life, in its simplicity and sanctity
and humble heroism and self-devoting fidelity, has given such
empowerment to his words, and won for them such place in
many hearts beyond those who have been the immediate re
cipients of them.
Much more is in my heart to say; less I could not, in justice
to myself, and as a fitting response (the most so in my power to
make) to your very kind invitation.
If I may be allowed to add what is so wholly personal to my
self, I would say that the memories which connect myself with
your church as being the first I ever preached in, forty-one
years ago, and the memories of those of it who so kindly re
ceived me (so many of whom have passed away), have deepened
my desire towards an occasion of such varied and touching
interest. With the prayer that heaven’s blessing may rest upon
minister and people,
I am, respectfully yours,
Nathaniel Hall.
Baltimore, Md., January 5th, 1875.
Very many thanks for your kind invitation. I havea wedding
on the night of January 12th, which I fear, as I have not, so far,
been able to postpone or advance, will prevent my going to Phila
delphia. I have not given up all hope yet. I wish to assure
you of the great pleasure I would take in witnessing the celebra
tion of an event, so marked in our common history, and so full
of inspiration to a young man like myself, and I hope that
beautiful life which has so blessed you through these years,
�93
may be spared to repeat, in your midst, that old story, which
he has made so living, of God’s great mercy and love made real
in the divine life on earth. With greetings and congratulations,
I am most truly,
C. R. Weld.
St. Louis, January 4th, 1875.
Dear Sirs : Your kind invitation to be present at the com
memoration of the fiftieth anniversary of Dr. Furness’ settle
ment in Philadelphia was to-day received, and I wish for my
own sake that I could accept it. But my engagements here
are such as to make it impossible for me to leave St. Louis, and
I must be content to stay at home. Dr. Furness was one of my
earliest friends and guides, to whom I have always looked up
with sincere affection and respect. He officiated at my mar
riage with the best woman that ever lived, and I associate him
with all the purest happiness and success of my own life.
William Henry Furness : For fifty years of faithful service,
the brave and consistent advocate, in good report and evil re
port, of Freedom, Truth, and Righteousness : May his last days
still be his best days.
I remain, very truly yours,
W. G. Eliot.
Chicago, January 26th, 1875.
Gentlemen : When you sent me an invitation to be present
at the fiftieth anniversary of the settlement of my dear friend
and yours, I felt sure I should be able to come. My youngest
boy had been sick then for some weeks, so that I could only
leave him a few hours at a time, and for the most imperious
reasons. But on the Saturday he was so much worse that I
had to telegraph I feared I could not leave him at that time.
There can be but few reasons in a man’s whole lifetime so
strong as mine was then for coming to Philadelphia, but the
poor little fellow begged I would be with him through a very
dangerous operation the surgeons had to perform on the day I
should have been with you, from which we were not sure he
could rally.
Pardon me for touching with this private sorrow your ex
�94
ceeding joy, and accept this for my reason why I have not
written sooner.
I did not want to intrude these things at all even into the
blessed after-taste of your festival. But as it seems to me no
man on the earth could be so strongly drawn to that festival as
I was, from any distance, I cannot say another word until you
know the whole reason why I was not with you.
For my debt of gratitude to Dr. Furness takes precedence of
my love for him asone of the truest friends a man ever had,
and as my peerless preacher of “ the truth as it is in Jesus,”
some years before I emigrated to America, my soul clove to
him as I sat one day in a little thatched cottage in the heart of
Yorkshire and read “ The Journal of a Poor Vicar.”
I never expected to see him in the flesh then, but I remember
how I cherished that exquisite little thing among my choicest
treasures ; read it over and over again; spoke of it to other lads
of a like mind with my own, and got a worth out of it I had
not then begun to get out of sermons.
I knew also, when I got to Philadelphia, that I could hear
my man preach if I wanted to, and made out where the church
was; but I had been taught from my childhood to give such
churches a wide berth, and had not the sense to see that the
well, out of which I had drawn such sweet waters in England,
must still be flowing with some such blessing in America. So
that mighty movement that ended in breaking the fetters from
the slave, had to break mine, and then it was not very long before
I stole into theltdjhurch one dismal Sunday night, when being
good Unitarians, all but about a dozen of you, you had your
feet in slippers on the fender.
It was not a sermon, but a talk about Jesus; and how he
washed their feet, and what they saw, and what he said, and
how it all came home to the preacher; but as I went home I
thought, as so many have done time and time again, if that is
Unitarianism I am a Unitarian.
When again I met my author and preacher at the house of my
friend, Edward M. Davis, it did not take long for my gratitude
to grow into love. He was positively the first minister of the
sort we call “ ministers in good standing,” except Mrs. Lu
cretia Mott, who had not tried to patronize me, and put up the
bars of a superior social station.
If I had been his younger brother, he could not have been
�95
more frank and tender and free of heart and hand. I suppose
he never thought of it for an instant, and that was where he
had me, or I should have put up my bars. For, in those days,
I guess I was about as proud as Lucifer. So, it was a great
pride and joy in 1857, to be invited to preach in his pulpit,
while he went off to marry another son in the faith, Moncure
D. Conway, to be the guest, for that day, of your minister’s
family, to have Mrs. Furness and the children treat me like
a prince and a preacher all in one, and to have a glorious good
time altogether, as any man ever had in this world.
Being good Unitarians again in those days, at least half of
you ran off to hear Brother Chapin in the morning, who was
preaching somewhere round the corner, just as my people run
now to hear Brother Swing when I am away, and have to sup
ply with some man they never heard of. I have never quite
forgiven Chapin for preaching there that Sunday.
But Annie Morrison was there, and the very elect, who are
always there, and on the next Sunday, when I preached again,
the rest were there, and the glory of the Lord seemed to me to
fill the house, and so your church is to me one of the most
precious places on earth. I came to it as the men of Israel
went to Zion, and all these years have but deepened and purified
my love for the good old place. Where I first heard the truth
which met at once my reason and my faith, and where, within
a church, for the first time I felt I was perfectly free.
And so it is, that I dare not write down the sum of my love
for my friend and his family, as 1 could not have told it if I
had come down. I feel I am under bonds not to do it; I can
only hint at it.
He got used to blame in the old sad days, when he could not
count such hosts of lovers and friends outside his own church
as he can now, but he will never get used to praise. Some men
don’t. I must say, however, that I do not see how I should
ever have made my way into our blessed faith, had he not opened
the door for me; or found my way to Chicago but for his faith
that I was the man they wanted here ; or done anything I have
ever been able to do half so well, but for his generous encour
agement, or found my life at all so full of sunshine, as it has
been so many years, had he not given me of his store.
Now and then, the ways of God do visibly strike great har
monies in life and history, and this perfecting of the circle of
�96
fifty years in the ministry of my dear friend, is one of the har
monies of life. He has seen the travail of his soul for the slave,
and is satisfied.
He has lived through the days when the majority of Uni
tarians were content with being not very unlike the Orthodox,
into the days when the Orthodox are not content, if they are
not very like Unitarians, and he has done one of the heaviest
strokes of work in bringing this resolution about.
And he has lived to prove to those of us who may wonder
sometimes, what is coming when we have preached to our
people a few more years; and it gets to be an old story, how a
man may preach right along, just as long as he can stand, and
then sit down to it as Jesus did on the Mount; grow better all
the time; win a wider and truer hearing at the end of fifty
years than he has at the end of twenty-five ; and then, when he
is “ quite worn out with age,” may cry, “ Lord, now lettest thy
servant depart in peace according to thy word, for mine eyes
have seen thy salvation.”
Surely yours,
Robert Collyer.
�97
The following extracts are taken from the Liberal
Christian and Christian Register :
“ On Tuesday of next week, January 12th, there will be a
very simple celebration of a deeply interesting occasion. It
will then be fifty years since Rev. Dr. Furness was installed as
pastor of the First Congregational Unitarian Church in Phila
delphia. Next Sunday the venerable pastor will deliver an
appropriate discourse. Tuesday he will receive callers at his
house, and in the evening therecwill be a meeting at the church.
Brief addresses are expected from friends, whose homes are in
Missouri, Illinois, Maryland, NeiB, Yor^j, and New England.
“ At the installation^^; the 12th of January, 1825, Rev. Wil
liam Ware, of New Yo^, aged tflfent^fevayyears, offered the
introductory prayer and read from the Scriptures ; Rev. Henry
Ware, Jr., of Boston, aged thirty years, prfegghed the sermon,
mostofwhich we intend torepringpext week; Rev. Dr. Bancroft,
of Worcester, in his seventieth year, offered the ordaining prayer
and gave the charge ; and Rev^Ezra’jj'. Gannett, aged twentythree years, gave the fellowship of the chUBches and offered the
concluding prayer. Dr. Furness himself wasBisiffigaty-two years
old, having been graduated at Harvard College when he was
only eighteen. None of those who took the prominent parts in
the service are now living pH^Kirth. Dr. Gannett and the
Wares, though then in all the strength and promise of their
early manhood, have followed good old Dr. Bancroft to the
heavenly home.
“ Dr. Furness was installed a few weeks before the ordinations
of Rev. Drs. Alexander Young and Samuel Barrett. Th<aservices were reported in the first numb^ of thdjpecond volume of
the Christian Examiner, and in the fourth volume of the Chris
tian Register. It was four months before the organization of
the American Unitarian Association. James Monroe was Pres
ident of the United States. Boston had been a city only three
years, and had about fifty thousand inhabitants ; New York had
about a hundred and sixty thousand, and Philadelphia about a
hundred and forty thousand. It was the same year in which
the first public railway in England was opened, the passengers
being drawn by horse-power, although locomotives were soon
introduced. It was five years before Dr. Putnam’s settlement
13
�98
in Roxbury, nine years before Dr. Lothropwas called to Brattle
Square, ten years before Rev. N. Hall became junior pastor of
the Dorchester First Parish, and twelve years before Dr. Bartol
became Dr. Lowell’s colleague. Dr. Bellows, aged ten years,
and James Beeman Clarke, fourteen, were school-boys. Rev.
E. E. Hale was scarcely old enough to go to school, and Prof.
C. C. Everett had not been born. It was less than half a century
since the battles Lexington and Concord, and Thomas Jeffer
son and John Adams did not die until eighteen months after
wards. President Grant was then two years old.
“ During the whole of the last half century Dr. Furness has
remained faithfully at his lonely post. He has had no colleague
and no very long vacation, we believe. In addition to his pul
pit work he has written some admirable books, besides trans
lating others. Great changes have occurred in public opinion.
Eight years after the beginning of his ministry in Philadelphia
the American Antislavery Society was formed in that city.
He did not join it immediately, but before long he enlisted in
the ranks of the abolitionists, and neither blandishments nor
threats ever caused him to desert from the forlorn hope of free
dom. For many years, when almost every other pulpit of that
great town., so near the borders of Slave States, was dumb
concerning the national sin, Dr. Furness’ silver trumpet gave
no uncertain sound. Whoever might come, and whoever might
go, he was resolved to be |aithful to the slave. The despised
and rejected champion®of liberty were always sure of his sup
port. When Charles Sumner, struck down by the bludgeon of
the slave power, needed rest and healing, he sought them in the
neighborhood and society of Dr. Furness. Together they visited
the hill country, and mingled their congenial spirits in high
discourse of truth and righteousness. We are glad that at last,
with grateful ears, our venerated brother heard liberty pro
claimed throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof.
To know that he contributed to this blessed result must be the
grand satisfaction of his life, more precious than any pride of
authorship or professional success. His whole soul must respond
to Whittier’s declaration that he set a higher value to his name
as appended to an early antislavery declaration than on the
title-page of any book. ‘ I cannot be sufficiently thankful to
the Divine Providence which turned me so early away from
�99
what Roger Williams calls “ the world’s great trinity, pleasure,
profit and honor,” to take side with the poor and oppressed.
Looking over a life marked by many errors and shortcomings,
I rejoice that
“ ‘ My voice, though not the loudest, has been heard
Wherever Freedom raised her cry of pain?
“ But while Dr. Furness must look back with profoundest
gratitude upon the great triumph of justice which he helped to
secure, he cannot be indifferent to the theological progress which
has led to wide and cordial acceptance of many of his dearest
opinions. Once he was one of a small number of Humanitarians
associated with a great majority of Arians. Now the Arians
are nearly extinct, and the divine humanity of Jesus is almost
orthodox Unitarianism. No other individual has done more
to bring this about than the Philadelphia pastor who has made
it the study of his life to understand the spirit and to portray,
in glowing yet truthful tints, the matchless character of the Son
of man. He has been well entitled ‘the Fifth Evangelist.’
None of the ancient narrators ever lingered so fondly over
every trait of him who was touched with a feeling of our in
firmities, and made perfect through suffering. He has rendered
the sympathy of Christ so actual and available that it is a
familiar help to thousands of tried and lonely human souls, to
whom traditional dogmas could give no comfort or strength.
“ We have heard that Dr. Furness is about to retire from the
professional responsibilities which he has borne so long and so
well. It will be a richly earned repose, and yet we cannot
endure the thought that he is to desist wholly from preaching
while his eye is undimmed and his natural vigor scarcely
abated. We heard him last summer with rare satisfaction and
delight, and we wish he could be induced to speak oftener at
our general gatherings. We have thought a great many times,
and perhaps we have said so before, in these columns, that,
owing largely to force of circumstances, Dr. Furness has borne
too close a resemblance to Wordsworth’s Milton whose ‘soul
was like a star, and dwelt apart.’ It is too late now for him
to be in the slightest danger of becoming too social or gregarious.
We wish, most heartily, that he would sometimes meet with
the thousands of our laymen and the hundreds of our ministers
�100
to whom he is personally a stranger, never seen, and never
heard, and yet they regard him with affectionate gratitude and
veneration which it would do them good to express, and not
harm him in the least to receive. Let us fondly hope, then, that
at the semi-centennial celebration of the American Unitarian
Association, or at the next National Conference, we may hear
from this beloved father in our Israel some of those words of
wisdom, truth, and beauty which it is still his mission to speak.”
—Christian Register.
'
“ Philadelphia, January 12th, 1875.
“ It is safe to predict that not even the powerful attractions
of the National Centennial Exposition will call to this city as
many of our UnitaSwn clergy as gathered here to-night to cele
brate the semi-centennial of the settlement of Dr. William H.
Furness. It is an went to which for some time past many of
his absent friends have looked eagerly forward in anticipation
of its peculiar interestA«gnifi<^nce. Pastorates of fifty years
can never be common, and have rarely furnished the necessary materials for the heartiest and sincerest sort of congratulation.
But here was an occasion of which the anticipations were all of
the pleasantest and most unclouded kind, where everybody felt
that it would be a personal privilege to say a congratulatory
Amen with everybody else, and to say it heartily and sincerely.
Dr. Furness' quiet but intensely individual ministry in
this city of Brotherly Love is too widely known among Uni
tarians to m®ke any merq mention of the fact at all necessary,
but to speak of
and justly would be to write a vol
ume; ample materials Hr which, however, are, we are glad to
say, not wanting. But our word must be only of the event of
to-day.
“ The celebration began, we hear, early in the morning at the
pastor’s house, where he^g® delightwlly surprised by the sweet
carols of children’s voices. In the afternoon a large concourse
of friends went to greet him at his home, where beautiful flow
ers scented the air and smiling faces vied with each other in the
expression of sincere respect and love.
“ This evening the old church is beautifully and richly dressed
with evergreens. Below the pulpit is a solid mass of rare trop
ical plants most tastefully arranged, the whole surmounted by
�101
baskets of the choicest flowers. The most conspicuous features
of the decorations are the significant numbers 1825-1875, worked
in small white flowers on either side of the pulpit.
“The old church is full of the Doctor’s parishioners and
friends, the front seats beingpccupied by the invited guests from
abroad. Among the clergy present we Noticed Drs. Lothrop,
Morison, Clarke, Bartol, Bellows, Thompson, A. P. Putnam,
and Rev. Messrs. White, E. H. Hall, Shippen, Ware, Ames,
Israel, Mumford, Gannett, Chadwick, a®t’.®®s®ral others.
“ Dr. Furness had protested against hispersfljnal participation
in this elaborate and deliberate feasit of Prai,s^,. bisfrl the timely
suggestion that his absence might be^|nterprS$ed as a quiet ‘ bid ’
for unlimited adulation proved too atiMSging lferthe equanimity
of even his modesty, so he came and occupied a retired seat near
the door.
“The proceedings were of the^^^^>lesit'^ttd most informal
kind—a genuine love-feast, with more fullness of heart than of
utterance. Yet there was nrf ladfflaf pleasant, hearty words.
After an anthem, with soloi by the accomplished ^hoir, which
seemed to have been augmented and specially drilled for the
occasion, the Chairman of the C®amittee of Arrangements wel
comed the guests and assembled company, and asked Dr. Mor
ison to offer prayer. After a sopfafto solo, the first speech of
the evening was made by Rev. J. F. W. Ware|(whose father,
Henry Ware, had preached Dr. Fu3FBessM®rdination Sermon.
Dr. Furness then came forward^ bearing two communion cups
which had just been recededasa token .^•'remembrance from
our church in Baltimore. He expressed his pleasure at this
expression of affectionate sym|fet'hy, psfetring, incidentally, to
the peculiar method of celebrating the communioffifin his church,
bread and wine not being partaken of, but being placed on the
table only as symbols of the preci«0&things they stand for.
“ William Gannett, whose father gave the right hand of fel
lowship at Dr. Furness’ ordination, said that this was the
principal reason for his presence here to-night. His modest,
cordial words were followed by others, from Rev. E. H. Hall
and Dr. Lothrop. Dr. J. F. Clarfe thqnWead an original
poem, in which, in strong and eloquent words, he commended
Dr. Furness’ earnest and persistent efforts to present more
clearly to the world the living Jesus as distinguished from the
�102
theological or sentimental Christ. Dr. Bartol and Dr. Thomp
son then added their cordial testimony of appreciation. Mr.
Chadwick read a lovely original poem, full of appreciative
references to some of Dr. Durness’ more distinguished cotem
poraries. Messrs. Shippen, Mumford, White, and Ames, each
said a few words, and Dr. Bellows finished the sweet symphony
of praise with a genial portraiture of Dr. Furness, thanking
the Lord that no amount of culture had in any respect weak
ened the vigorous manhood of his friend, and that God made
him just what he is.
“ After music, and a benediction by Dr. Furness, the large
company separated, evidently deeply pleased by the many
hearty testimonies of the evening.”—Liberal Christian.
“Yesterday morning, at seven o’clock, the pupils of Madame
Seiler, an accomplished teacher of music, and author of several
excellent text-books '(gave a serenade to Dr. Furness and his
household. It must have been a delightful surprise to the
awakened family when the sweet sounds began to ascend from
the hall below, where the singers, according to the RwWe&n,
stood 1 candle in hand,’ and paid this delicate and welcome
complimenMin the good old German style. Between the hours
of twelve and six, hundreds of parishioners and friends called
to congratulate the honored pastor upon the successful comple
tion of his half century of service. Most of the time the rooms
were thronged, and such an array of bright and happy faces is
seldom seen. Anfc®fi?he guests who were present during our
brief stay we noticed the Doctor’s children and grandchildren,
Prof. Goodwin, of Harvard University, and Mrs. Eustis,
daughter of Rev. Dr. W. E. Channing.
“ Last evening there was a driving storm of sleet and rain, hut
the church was packed again. The floral display was equal to
that of Sunday. Among the changes we observed that the
large figures ‘1825’ and ‘1875,’ above the pulpit, were made
of pure white flowers instead of white and red as before. After
prayer by Rev. Dr. Morison, Mr. Henry Winsor, Chairman of
the Committee of Arrangements, made a felicitous welcoming
and introductory speech.
“The first clerical speaker was Rev. J. F. W. Ware, son and
nephew of the young Wares who, fifty years before, had taken
�103
prominent parts at the installation service. His remarks were
full of the warmest affection for Dr. Furness, and the tenderest
allusions to the love cherished for his Philadelphia ‘ brother ’
by Henry Ware, Jr. Agreeably to the request of the com
mittee, Mr. Ware asked Rev. W. C. Gannett to follow him.
Mr. Gannett’s father gave Dr. Furness the right hand of fellow
ship, and Mr. Gannett had just been reading the manuscript
copy of that earnest address, on his way to Philadelphia in the
'cars. His speech was eminently appropriate and impressive.
He was followed by Rev. E. H. Hallflof Worcester, suc
cessor of Rev. Dr. Bancroft, who gave the charge at the in
stallation half a century before, and son of Rev. Dr. E. B. Hall,
who was Dr. Furness’ townsman friend, classmate, and room
mate. After most appreciative mention of the noble labors of
our fathers, Mr. Hall spoke eloquently*<of the peculiar work
which each generation has to do for ’jtSelf and the world. Rev.
Drs. Lothrop, Clarke, Bartolj Thompson, A. P. Putnam, and
Bellows, and Messrs. ChaAwick, ShippenMWhite, Mumford,
and Ames were called upon, and the most of them responded;
but we have no space w*tl®H remarks this week. Next week
wTe hope to find rooni for a report, but now we must content
ourselves with copying from the Bulletin the poems which
were read.
“ Before quoting them, however, we must not forget to say
that Dr. Furness spoke twice in the course of the evening, the
first time acknowledging the gift ®f some communion cups
from the church in Baltimore to the church in Philadelphia.
It was hard to believe that thif graceful and happy speaker,
with as fresh a voice as that of the youngest man heard that
evening, and saying the brightest and merriest things of the
hour, could be the venerMfflpastog whose semi-centennial we
were celebrating ; but we presume that there is not the slightest
doubt of the fact. And we must also remember to state that
among the gifts from parishioners and friends were some elegant
mantel ornaments, and the complete and original manuscript
of Charles Lamb’s 1 Dissertation on Roast Pig.* The Bulletin
says that this unique and interesting present was ‘ secured as a
Christmas gift at a recent sale in London, and handsomely
mounted and bound in large folio form.’
Christian Register.
�104
W. H. F.
“ THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY.”
BY WM. C. GANNETT.
Fifty times the years have turned
Since the heart within him burned,
With its wistfulness to be
An apostle sent of Thee.
Closely in his Master’s tread
Still to follow, till he read,
Tone of voice and look of face,
Print of wound and sign of grace.
Beading there for fifty years,
Pressing after, till the tears
And the smiles would come and go
At the self-same joy and woe-^
Sharing with him shouts of Mad ! ”
When the bold front to the bad
Bent to pluck the “ little ones ”
From the feet of fellow-sons—
Sharing in his inner peace,
But not sharing the release,
He is with us while thglchimes
Ring his “ Well done” fifty times.
Listening boys across the field
Pledge a hope they may not yield :
Are they listening from the air —
Boys who started with him there ?
�REV. DR. FURNESS’ RESIGNATION.
14
�On Thursday, January. 14th, 1875, Dr. Furness sent the fol
lowing letter/<to the Society, resigning the charge of the pulpit
into their hands—
�107
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE FIRST CONGREGA
TIONAL CHURCH.
My very dear Friends : While the measure of health and
strength still granted me demands my most thankful acknowl
edgments, and while I ^jgaMinexpressib wwat.efnl for the re
cent manifestations of your affectionate regMkll
admon
ished by the ending of fifty years of service as your minister,
and by the time of life that I have
only a little
while remains to me at the longest. I am moved, therefore,
to resign the charge of the pulpit into your hands. How could
I have borne it Mog bwM|r your fetjj^^^ManidBsteadfast
friendship ? I recogniz® a salutary discipline in the necessity
which I have been^nde® al 1 EgSaSpars of ^^MjmBIpsaat.ion
for the Sunday sHg|age. It is good, as I have learned, for a
man to bear the yoJke in
and even in middle age ;
but now, when only a fragment of lim^remafes.^jte^^pyould
fain be released from thl^fe Jwhwi neither timp^or custom
has rendered any ligMbdpnan Mm v
With the surrender of the pulpit you will understand of
course that I decline all farther pecuniary support. I beg leave
respectfully to suggest thatjiMsome time«ome the pulpit be
supplied by settled ministers, so that nothing shall be done
hastily in the matter of deciding upon my successor. More
over, for all other pastoral offices, I shall be at your service,
remaining always your devoted friend, and in undying affec
tion,
Your pastor, :
W. H. ^Furness.
January 14th, 1875.
�108
At a meeting of the Society held in the church Saturday
evening®January 23dSjl871Wt was voted that the following
letter should be sent to Dr. Furness, accepting his resignation,
andiffigBthe Trustees should sign the same oh behalf of the
Society.
�109
FIRST CONGREGATIONAL UNITARIAN CHURCH.
Philadelphia, January 25th, 1875.
Dear Dr. Furness : The members of this Society have re
ceived with sorrow your letter of the 14th inst., in which you
resign the charge of the pulpit which you have filled so long,
with so much ability and so much to their satisfaction.
Although we deeply regret the existence of the circumstances,
which in your opinion have made the step necessary, we ac
knowledge the justice of permitting you to judge freely of the
force of the reasons in its favor, which have governed you in
coming to your decision; and though we feel it would be a
great privilege to us to have the pastoral relation continued
through the coming years, during which we fondly hope you
may be spared to us, yet we acquiesce in the propriety of promptly
acceding to the wish for relief which you have so decidedly ex
pressed both in your letter and verbally to the committee ap
pointed at our meeting on the 19th inst., to ask you to recon
sider your action and to withdraw your resignation. It would
he ungrateful for us to do otherwise, and would show on our
part a want of proper appreciation of the value of your longcontinued labors thus to make what must be to you in itself a
painful act still more painful.
We cannot fully express in words our thankfulness that the
relation between us has remained unbroken through so many
years, and that, though the formal tie may now be severed,
we are yet permitted to see you face to face, to hear your voice,
to press your hand, and to know that you are among us.
For the reasons which you have presented, and because you
so earnestly desire it, because it is our wish to do, at whatever
loss to ourselves, that which will bo most grateful to you, and
thus to manifest in the strongest way wo can our appreciation
of our privileges in the past, and with the hope that for years
�110
to come you may be with us and of us, we regretfully accept
your resignation, and remain, on behalf of the Society,
Your affectionate friends,
Henry Winsor,
Lucius H. Warren,
Dawes E. Furness,
Joseph E. Raymond,
John Sellers, Jr.,
Enoch Lewis,
Charles H. Coxe,
Trustees.
This letter was read at the meeting of the congregation, held
on Saturday evening, January 23d, 1875, was approved, and
the Trustees were instructed to sign it on behalf of the Society
and forward it to Dr. Furness.
Charles H. Coxe,
Secretary.
�INDEX.
PAGE
Preliminary Meetings, .
Dr. Furness’ Fiftieth Anniversary Discourse,
Extract from Forty-ninth Anniversary Discourse,
Commemorative Meeting,....................................... .
Prayer of Rev. John H. Morison, D.D.,
Remarks of Rev. J. F. W. WarM
“
“ Rev. W. C. Gannett,
.
“ Rev. E. H. Hall, flHH
“
“ Rev. S. K. Lothrop, D.D.,
“
“ Rev. J. F. Charlie, D.D.,
“
“ Rev. C. A. Bartol, D.D.,
“
“ Rev. J. F. Thompson, D.D.,
“
“ Rev. J. W. Chadwick, .
“
“ Rev. R. R. Shippen,
.
“
“ Rev. T. J. Mumfor^^JI
“
“ Rev. W. O. Whitey .
“
11 Rev. A. P. Putnam, D.D.,
“ Rev. C. G. Ames, .
.
“
“ Rev. H. W. Bellows, D.D.I
“
“ Rev. W. H. Furness, D.D.,
Letters,
Extracts from the “ Liberal Christian ”
“ Christian Register,” .
.
Poem, by W. C. Gannett,
Resignation of Rev. W. H. Furness, D.D.,
Letter of the Trustees,
,
3
9
28
41
42
44
48
49
51
55
57
61
66
70
72
72
74
76
77
81
83
AND
97
104
105
109
�I
�
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
Exercises at the meeting of the First Congregational Unitarian Society, January 12,1875, together with the discourse delivered by Rev. W.H. Furness, Sunday, Jan. 10, 1875 on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of his ordination, January 12, 1825
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Furness, W.H.
First Congregational Society of Unitarian Christians in the City of Philadelphia
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Philadelphia
Collation: 110, [1] p. : ill. (with tissue guards) ; 23 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Contains index. Includes poem by W.C. Gannett and resignation of Rev. W.H. Furness.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Sherman & Co., printers
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5366
Subject
The topic of the resource
Unitarianism
Sermons
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Exercises at the meeting of the First Congregational Unitarian Society, January 12,1875, together with the discourse delivered by Rev. W.H. Furness, Sunday, Jan. 10, 1875 on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of his ordination, January 12, 1825), 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
Conway Tracts
First Congregational Society of Unitarian Christians in the City of Philadelphia
Sermons
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b321981cec15d8d473d6096971c4a3e2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Asp%7EXDox-Qmk9mlO-%7EHlD1Z4Sgokz5WUiRxwbcixvD8DdAsQhr-r%7ExFwqV07b7drH4xX0Kr11SDoUtv5trFgsLTYGNwuQEIJmjOmtRxcADsRm-GNKb1kTx4Vhot11bMx0gExrrudX%7EGLfDELFB3bF7K85eFFFdFQfM8wixA28ip%7ELoXC-GpyVB9K6zmCNu6T3mqTyfPn-UTnK7VG4-tBA5GKufOAS%7E5rOGQtHHRUrcM597XhAJrqQCATC6xHuTwxk2YikeDwhzbD8YqHoSUzgaU04wkEed88%7E7OOsV3LZmEqEqwlF-z8VSkbO29gMWSp5-oqGmPYujMVDTpNghpTlw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e6473fe14090a97be9623c00c2851226
PDF Text
Text
�����������������������
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
Fire-burial among our German forefathers: a record of the poetry and history of Teutonic cremation
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Blind, Karl
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed in double columns. Printed by Spottiswoode and Co., New Street Square and Parliament Street, London. Includes bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Longmans, Green, and Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5170
CT39
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Fire-burial among our German forefathers: a record of the poetry and history of Teutonic cremation), 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
Burial
Conway Tracts
Cremation
Death
Germany
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f2c33aefd2454e5510fe5938bb5980ba.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=U%7EMfzJE4%7EVAvuOQTn6nDoDxjCx50Mo6csurKLRIWFfyUDAcn9c4bTqYQXkjJz4O2M0jjz6JTN0IWhwpE4BBX0iOcMRugBnqfxq-zv%7EocL28oZPURaF7okWAs9sdS2EvyCl657eFtR9-8RdDGi4ORASt21SwRV6-JFxRvu3F1JQWfLv0betrZS%7EFwY2FufYCIzQ7n3OibCvVJJTAALTXjYcXg2zhd%7EVX%7EFOwrYFni15jwBAYwd1PE5SuExOVE%7EH1IAHOmErMixmY8ROeWqjLdM4E4FifIFb7y1UccXkf11j2iATXXKE0faQUGdnhR59gFO9B2FL4EA3X9JTjXR-UE4g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
03a1cd649534a6bea4df207c4329729e
PDF Text
Text
FREE THOUGHT
IN
RELIGION:
A LECTURE,
Delivered at GEORGE’S MEETING, EXETER,
March 1st, 1875,
J3y JRobe^t JRodolph JSuffield,
Member of the Free Christian Church, Wellesley Road, Croydon ; formerly
Apostolic Missionary and Prefect of the “Guard of Honour.”
DEVON
WEEKLY
TIMES,”
1875.
exeteB.
��THE REV. RODOLPH SUFFIELD ON
"FREE THOUGHT IN RELIGION.”
The Rev. Rodolph Suffield, now Unitarian Minister at
Croydon, but formerly a Roman Catholic Priest, paid a visit
to Exeter in the latter part of February. His transition from
the oldest form of orthodoxy to the newest phase of free
thought in religion was in itself a circumstance sufficient to
create much interest in him ; and the announcement that he
was to preach at George’s Chapel, therefore, attracted large
congregations. Those who heard the reverend gentleman were
much struck by his eloquence and power of argument. On the
following Monday evening (March 1st) a social gathering was
held in the schoolroom, for the purpose of giving the members
of the congregation an opportunity of making a more intimate
acquaintance with their visitor. Lady Bowring, whose guest
Mr. Suffield was daring his stay in Exeter, was among
those present. At half-past seven the company adjourned to
the chapel, for the purpose of listening to an address from the
reverend gentleman. The chair was taken by Mr. Henry
Norrington, J.P., and among those present were the Rev.
Rodolph Suffield, Rev. T. W. Chignell (minister at George’s
Chapel), Mr. W. Mortimer, J.P., Mr. Mears, &c. The chapel
was well filled.
Mr. Suffield, who on rising was very warmly received, said
it had been a great pleasure to him to visit this ancient city.
He had visited it on former occasions, and examined some of
the antiquities in the neighbourhood. He now visited Exeter
under other circumstances, and found himself amongst a band
of sincere and ardent men and women, who were not exactly,
perhaps, disciples of antiquity. They were the disciples rather
of progress than of antiquity, and yet he thought he might
claim for them that they were also disciples of antiquity in the
one high, great, and true sense. (Hear.) But of that
presently. Let him first thank them for their personal kind
ness. Perhaps he might also be permitted to pay a passing
tribute of affectionate reverence, which seemed trebly due, in
�4
coming to Exeter, to the memory of his and their honoured
friend, Sir John Bowring. (Cheers.) It was with almost
pathetic interest that he found himself the guest of his widow
at a time when he came to visit the place where Sir John last
resided. He remembered that the very last communication he
had from him was written from Exeter, and sadly it was'that
he went to fill up the gap left void by his death—if anyone
could be supposed to fill it up—at a place where they were
ardently longing to see him, but were disappointed, the hand of
Divine Providence having directed him to another and an
unknown land. Thus in different ways he felt as if there was
to him a kind of pathetic interest in thus being interwoven
with them, and with his memory, and the memory of the
intercourse with those whom he left behind. But to pass from
subjects of a personal character, he asked himself what exactly
it was which he ought to say on an occasion when nothing very
express had been laid out. It seemed a kind of presumption,
especially after having addressed them in the ordinary sacred
services of religion, again to address them upon those subjects
unless he had been somewhat directly asked to do so. He
hoped, however, that they would regard any words which he
might utter as simply the expression of thoughts, not indeed
in any way prepared, except in so far that they had been the
result of very strong, deep, and long-continued previous
thoughts, though not directly with a view to that evening.
Perhaps he should best carry out their wishes by answering a
question which was very often put to persons in their position.
When anyone heard discourses such as frequently might be
heard in the places of worship belonging to Religious Free
Thought, persons accustomed to the Orthodox views frequently
would observe :—“ You obviously don’t believe in the miraculous
authority of any Church, of any book, or of any man. Con
sidering what you ‘have rejected, tell us what remains.”
He certainly felt additional diffidence in even attempting to
propound an answer, however imperfect, to that question ; for
there was a voice much more familiar to them than his, which
was continually addressing them in that place. When they had
in the midst of them a man of the richest culture and deepest
thought, and the most ardent devotion to a great cause, they
hardly needed the voice of any stranger, and in fact a*ny other
voice must be feeble in comparison with that. It was a proud
thing for Exeter that they possessed in the midst of them a
man like Mr. Chignell—(cheers)—and it would be a proud thing
for the assemblies of Religious Free Thought in London if they
were able to number him amongst their ranks. (Hear, hear.) Thus,
he could only say from his own line of thought and stand-point
�5
something of the kind of reply that occurred to his own mind.
Doubtless the subject was one of stupendous importance. They
stood amidst the remnants of magnificent systems. He could
hardly conceive any man of thought, deep feeling, and high
culture, who could possibly look without emotion on the great
Churches surrounding them. There was the venerable Church
of Rome, with its stately history, its gorgeous traditions, its
rich fund of sanctity, its realms of poetry and beauty, and
with everything almost that could mark what was past in stately
grandeur, and in so much of grace and excellence the perfectness
of the spiritual life. He should be sorry indeed to fling a
stone of scorn at the Roman Catholic Church, so venerable in
its august traditions, so vast in its former influence upon the
world, frequently for good. Again, there was the illustrious
Church of England, interwoven with the religious liberties of
the nation, and with her highest culture. There was hardly a
single epoch of modern English history, there was hardly an
illustrious name, but what was in some way interwoven either
with the Protestant Church of England or with those illustrious
Nonconformist bodies (he spoke of the Orthodox Nonconformist
bodies) which had been the bulwarks of religion, and to a great
degree of religious free thought, at least in the seeds they had
been sowing. (Applause.) Indeed, that man must be in
different to whatever was grand in human thought and history
who could not look with respect, nay affection, upon each one in
succession of these grand organisations. He confessed that to
his own mind the sensation of scorn or hatred seemed simply an
impossibility. (Cheers.) Each one of these great organisations
seemed to him io represent something which the human mind
had coveted, some great principle which the human heart had had
to uphold. (Cheers.) Then what was the fatal flaw belonging to
them all ? It was simply this, that they rested on a foundation
of mist; they were beautiful edifices, built on a golden cloud,
and the only question was whether, having discovered this, they
were to carry on the illusion simply because they thought it
might do good, or whether, trusting to God, and to Divine
truth, they were distinctly to say, “These things are not true.”
There was in them much of beauty and grandeur; they had
done much in their day ; but all such things might have been said
of Paganism, and yet it rested on a mist. Paganism was a grand
religion, parent of almost everything that was glorious in poetry
and in art. Everything of the majestic in human history was to
be found in Greek Paganism. They wandered amid the relics
of its grandeur, and they felt as if they could almost bow down
and worship before those magnificent creations of the human
intellect, some of them almost bordering on the Divine. And
�6
yet it was not right to maintain that stately old Pagan
ism, when it was found out that it rested on what was
not true. (Hear, hear.) And so with other systems since.
Then, again, it could not be right to say, “ Such a system is
very vast; and on account of the hold it possesses over so many
millions of people, therefore you ought not in any way to point
out the error; rather you ought to submit to it, and accept it
as true for the sake of the millions who hold to it.” He need
not remind them that there was a religion, most ancient and
most vast, which embraced a third of the human race;
more ancient than the most ancient forms of Christianity
—a religion before whose august traditions and organiza
tions much in Christendom must pale away into insignifi
cance—the vast and wonderful religion of Buddha. That
religion sprang from, and was itself a reform of, another
religion still more ancient, viz., the Brahminical religion,
with its Incarnate Deities. That carried them back to a period
when they were absolutely lost in the very depths of a history
so ancient, so vast that they could hardly fathom it at all. Were
they to submit to this, if they lived in the East, because it had
done so much good and contained so many beautiful things, as
the Buddhist religion undoubtedly did ? The great precepts
of Charity, which formed the glory of Christianity, would be
found—and no man knew it better than their venerable friend,
Sir John Bowring—existing in the most perfect beauty in the
sacred books of Buddha. The most delicate exercises of the '
precepts of Charity were therein pointed out; even that exercise
of Charity which consisted in erecting fountains, not merely for
man, but for the beasts of the field, so that it was even said, if
you would be the favoured child of the Most Holy One,
erect watering troughs in the most sequestered roads, where the
traveller’s horse may be satiated in the midst of the burning
heat, and no one shall know whence the mercy to that beast has
come. Surely a religion which was able to utter such precepts
as that ages before the dawn of Christianity, was not a religion
that could be treated as if it were nothing. (Hear, hear.) They
could not, however, admit for a moment the principle that a
religion was to be treated as true, simply because it contained
beautiful, true, sublime, and spiritual precepts. The fact was,
there was no religion in the world which did not contain that
which was of the essence of religion. Then, were they to accept
the particular form of error of the country in which they were
born—Buddhism and Brahminism in Hindustan, Roman
Catholicism in Italy, Protestantism in England, and the religion
of Mahomet in Turkey—upon the ground that they all accepted
and taught the fundamental principles of all religion ? The
�7
reply to that was that religion was one thing and morality
another. There was one great principle of morality entirely
essential for human life and the formation of character, viz., the
principle of individual truthfulness. It was not possible for
any man of ordinary intelligence and diffidence to say that he
had got the truth and all who disagreed with him were wrong.
All he could say was that such and such were his convictions of
the truth, and of course he should change them if he saw
reasons for doing so. They might differ in their convictions,
but they would all agree that each man must be true to his
own convictions. This was the fatal obstacle which stood in
the way of any person professing to conform to any of the
Orthodox religions. He could not do so and at the same time
observe perfect and entire truthfulness—he was obliged to keep
something back. For instance, a clergyman who had studied
the works of that great geologist, who on Saturday was interred
in Westminster Abbey, or had studied something of geology
for himself, knew that the world had been in existence for ages,
and that the Creation was not sudden, but a gradual and con
tinual evolution. Yet he had to say every Sunday that God
created the earth and the heavens in six days and rested on the
seventh, which was in dead contradiction to everything taught
by the Revelation of the Rocks. Every person who read that
commandment about the Sabbath day had to deny distinctly
the Revelation of God, contained, not in one single book, but in
every rock. A schoolboy, if he had the moral courage, might
stand up and say, “ If you please, reverend sir, that is not
true—God did no such thing, and I know better.” (Hear.)
It struck him that for a person to be in the position that he had
to be the docile recipient of a single untruth which he knew to
be untrue, was absolutely bad for the moral character. (Hear.)
Of course, there were many persons who did not know these
things to be untrue, and then it was all right. If a person
really believed a thing, however untrue in fact it might be, there
was no lowering of the moral character. What he protested was
this—that as soon as ever a person recognised that there was
that in Orthodoxy which was not true, he could not profess to
recognise it as true without a distinct lowering of the
moral character. That was the cause of their position.
That was the cause of their uniting together and saying—We
will be quite free ; we will place ourselves in the hands of Divine
Providence ; we will not fetter ourselves or our minister in any
manner ; whatever science teaches, let it teach, let history un
ravel what it may. Whatever there is grand and beautiful in
any religion, tell us all—it does not belong to that religion, it
belongs to humanity and God ; and that is the reason we can
�speak well of the Roman Catholic, the Mahomedan, the Brahmin,
the Buddhist, the Anglican, and the Wesleyan Churches.
Excuse the putting of these together; some were very
great and some very small, some very new and some
very ancient, but they all represented different phases
of humanity ; and those who were in the position of
Religious Free Thought could say, “ You are all our brothers
and sisters, for you all make a portion of that great humanity to
which we ourselves belong.” (Hear, hear.) He hoped that if
there were any Orthodox friends present, they would do him
the kindness to understand that while he was bound to say out
what he thought, he did not mean it as the expression of con
tempt in any shape or form. That he said with perfect sincerity;
and, having said that, they would kindly permit him to speak as
things occurred to his own mind, because, if one spoke under the
perpetual feeling that he might give persons pain, one could not
say out what he thought. (Hear, hear.) They would perceive,
then, that the position he took was that all the different religions
were untrue, being all without exception interwoven with super
stition. There were legends and incarnations in most of them.
The Pagan gods had children by human mothers ; and hundreds
of years before Christ there was the Indian legend of Chrisna,
bom of a virgin, with God as his father, who had to fly to a
foreign country, was reared among peasants, and was worshipped
by shepherds. The legends were very similar in the different
religions. There were miracles, too, in all of them ; equally
false and equally true. There were miracles going on now just
as in former times, and he could quite understand how they
grew up without any intention to deceive on the part of those
who promulgated them. These legends and miracles were all
based upon truth ; they were simply exaggerations. Human
credulity had coloured little incidents of truth, and had kept
looking at them until they were magnified and multiplied
immensely. The difficulty of getting at human evidence was
extraordinary, as was exemplified in the late Tichbome trial—
if they would pardon the allusion. Take any miracle, or any
statement of any religion in the world, and let an English
jury and counsel sit upon it, and where would it be ? He
(Mr. Suffield) felt that in rejecting one mythological sys
tem, he rejected them all. It was with great pain and regret
that he did so, but he could not place himself in the position of
rejecting one system, with which he was interwoven by many
tender and reverent memories, and which had given him no
cause to sever himself from it, except the one great fact, that
he was profoundly convinced it was not true—he felt it
impossible that he could reject one mythological system, and
�9
then embrace another and fancy it true. He felt himself amid
the ruins of many stately, poetic, and beautiful mythologies,
relics of an age that had passed away, and the question he had
to put to himself was this—“ If I rise out of this, what will be
my spiritual position ? On what can I form my life ? What
can I present to others as the mode of forming their lives ?”
Here he might say—and he had never mentioned it in public
before—that when he was on the point of leaving the Roman
Catholic Church, a deeply loved and honoured friend, with
whom he had spent years of intimate and tender friendship,
wrote to him and signified that he and some others had
determined to present him with an income of above .£200 a
year, to enable him to retire into literary ease, without
doing anything contrary to his conscience, and be thus
free from anxiety and care. It was done in a way which
signified every gentle and tender feeling ; but he felt bound to
decline the offer. He knew the alternative which presented
itself, but he determined that if he left the Roman Catholic
Church, thopgh he had no intention of attacking it, he would
publicly maintain the position which he deemed to be the right
and truthful position for every human being; and he could not
do so if he accepted that offer. (Hear, hear.) Thus they
perceived that what he was saying represented something which
had been deeply and profoundly before his own mind. “ Then,”
he asked himself, “What is the position before me?” and the
answer was simply this : “ I fall back upon the intuitions of
my own soul, and upon my own reason as the guide presiding
over those intuitions.” Would they bear with him while he
explained a little more fully what he meant ? What was it
which a person, any person whatever, instantly appealed to
when called upon to any action? Suppose they belonged to
any of the Churches of Christendom, and suppose some
temptation suddenly presented itself to them. He would
suppose it was a temptation to commit a fraud—a fraud upon a
benefactor. What was it that immediately made a man say,
‘ ‘ No, I will not do that ?” Was it the teaching of any creed ?
Was it a precept contained in any sacred book ? No. Before
they had thought of any written precept, or remembered the
utterance of any Church, there was that inner voice, that sense
of right and wrong, which instantly made a man say to himself,
if he was good or wishing to be good, “ I will not do it—I
cannot do it—it is not right.” Now, it was a platitude of
platitudes to say that; and yet it was the most important
principle of their philosophy to point it out, because what he
affirmed was this—that if in the great incidents of human life,
just the very occurrences when they needed a guide, if then
�10
the guide they went to was within them, then was it not true
that in reality nothing higher was needed ? And then a person
might say, “ Ah, that is Very true, but we meet it by this
objection. There would be many cases in which you would not
know how to act; and therefore you must go to the Bible to
learn how to act.” His reply to that was that the person who
took the Bible as his infallible guide—if he was what they
called a common-sense person, leading an ordinary life of
goodness and common-sense—that person invariably inter
preted the Bible by the principle of conscience. For instance,
they knew the beautiful Sermon on the Mount. Suppose a
clergyman had solemnly read in Church the words about giving
the coat to him who would take the cloak. Suppose you went
out of doors after hearing this solemnly read ; and suppose a
beggar came up and asked for something. You were a very
orthodox lady perhaps ; but you would immediately say, “ I
don’t give to beggars in the street.” (Laughter.) “ But,”
says the beggar, “please, your ladyship, it says in the Gospel
that you are to give to whoever asksand then he asks a
gentleman standing by for his coat, and he gets it, and the coat
too. Immediately the man pawns the things, and spends the
money in making himself drunk. They would say immediately,
“ That isn’t rational, it isn’t right.” How did they know it
was not rational ? The voice within said so. And every
rational person, leading any ordinary life, when he took the
Bible as his infallible guide, was invariably guided by this
higher principle within—the principle of conscience. (Hear.)
Then, he held that there was a moral guide within man, and
that was the first and most important principle. He was perfectly
aware that he should be met by the observation again and
again, “ But this varies—there are a great number of different
views regarding it.” So there were. Amongst people who
took infallible authorities there were a great many different
views; but the essential principles of right were the same.
What he claimed was that every man had this gift of dis
cerning right from wrong within him. There might be distorted
cases, just as there were persons born without eyes or nose;
or a man might possibly destroy the gift, as he might poke
out his eyes. But still the fact remained, that, ordinarily
speaking, every person had within him the sense of right and
wrong. They hardly ever found it get out of the character.
He had intimately known prisoners of all sorts, some of them
belonging to the most degraded criminal classes, and he must
say he could not call to mind one single instance of any human
being having totally lost all moral sense. He had known
persons in a sophistical state of mind who had argued against
�11
what he said, but as soon as they were not arguing they had
got it like other people. (A laugh.) He had not known one
single instance of a human being who had not within him that
sense of what they called right and wrong, a sense of duty
to be done; and duty implied duty to Someone—it was duty
to a Mind that was above man. That, he held, was universal,
and the few exceptions only proved the universality of the rule.
Thus they had got in that principle of right and wrong, every
thing that was needed for the practical purposes of life, if the
principle were developed and not crushed. Roman Catholic
friends would pardon his remarking that one of the most fatal
things in their Church was the tendency, which had been
growing upon it in late years, to crush the sense of the
individual conscience before the will of another man. That was
a very perilous experiment. (Hear.) What he said, therefore,
was this—that there exists in every human being the sense of
right and wrong ; that thus they had a practical guide for all
the purposes of life, and that thus they had the means presented
them of considering how to live themselves and of teaching
others how to live. Let them apply the test of the bringing up
of children, which was the great test of whether or no any
religious or moral system was correct. Now what was the
highest mode of bringing up a child 1 Surely it was not that
which would crush his intelligence, his sense of right and wrong,
and train it all into the practice of one single feature, which
might be a virtue and often might not be—simple submission
to another person, or submission to a dead book. Orthodox
Protestants had no right to triumph over Roman Catholics for
their belief in'the Pope’s infallibility ; because he must be
allowed to say that, between the two infallibilities, he hardly
knew which was the more absurd. The religious Rationalist, in
bringing up his children, assumed that there existed within
them the sense of right and wrong and the principle of
reason. He did not crush these, but developed them,
instructing them with the knowledge he had himself
received, so that the child of the nineteenth century
was bom and brought forward into the world with the
advantages of all the ages that had preceded him. He could
conceive of nothing so cruel as a religious free thinker, a
Unitarian, allowing his children to grow up anyhow, so that they
might be utterly uninfluenced in their choice. The principle of
conscience compelled him to give to his child the highest
advantages, the highest stand-point, which he had painfully
conquered for himself. (Hear, hear.) He would present to his
child the highest experience of the moral conscience around
him j he would train the child so that he would grow up with a
�12
strong sense of the duty he owed to the Universe of which he
was a part. That was something they could teach to the
youngest child. He took this line of putting it, because it
tested at once whether it was the true position or not. Take
the youngest child, then ; and how easy it was for them to
present to him the idea of God ! Ah, far easier than for any
person fettered by the Churches. What a dismal, painful, and
difficult thing it was for them to have to teach a child about the
Orthodox God. The Orthodox person had to tell his child that
there was a time when the God of the Universe could sit at
supper and eat with Abraham and his wife ; that He could ask
Abraham’s opinion as to what He should do with the cities of
the Plain, and then, not satisfied with Abraham’s judgment in
the matter, could send out two angels to examine the place and
sit down to supper until they returned. How could they
consistently make children reverent about the great God of the
Universe when they had to make them understand this was He?
Then the Orthodox parent had to teach his child the doctrine of
the Trinity, and to assure him that if he did not believe that
entirely he would be consigned to everlasting fire, and that he
would find the greatest portion of the world there.
And yet
the God who did this was a Being full of benevolence and love,
and the child must love him with all his heart and soul. What
a monstrous collection of contradictions! The Orthodox parent
had also to teach his child to believe in a Saviour. “ A Saviour !
to save me from what 1 ” the child would naturally ask. “ Oh,
to save you from God, to s.ave you from your Heavenly Father 1”
The Free Thinker had risen to a higher platform than that. He
said, “I don’t want a Saviour to save me from God. God is my
Saviour. God is my everlasting refuge, my everlasting hope. I
want no Saviour to save me out of the hands of the omnipotent,
eternal, and all-beautiful God.” Then, having dismissed these
mythological fables, how easy his task was. If the child asked
any question about God—what He is like> where He is—he at
once said : “I don’t know, I can’t explain anything. I don’t
understand it at all. I cannot tell you what that is within you
which thinks and feels, and which you call mind. I cannot
even tell you what my own mind is—I don’t know its essence,
or its form ; I don’t know where it is, whether diffused over
my body or dwelling in a particular place. I don’t know any
thing at all about it. I simply know there is something called
the mind, something which makes the ‘ I,’ something which is
subject to all these thoughts and feelings and emotions, and I
call it my soul. My child (he would say), the great Universe
is not dead ; the great and beautiful Universe, it also has a
Soul. You are not superior to the Universe. You have a soul
�13
capable of emotion; the little body of yours is tenanted by that
soul. This glorious and magnificent universe, too, this also has
a Soul. Such as your soul is to your body, such is the Soul of
the great and wonderful Universe to the Universe itself. The
Soul of the Universe, my child, we call it ‘ God,’—the beautiful,
the all-good, the all-just, the all-wonderful God. More than
that, my child, I cannot tell you. But I can tell you, He is good,
because you feel, and know yourself, that it is not badness and
folly that are ruling this world. That Soul of the world, which
we call God, you feel and know He must be wisdom and good
ness.” He ventured to say that everybody present was con
vinced that any child in the world, addressed in such words, had
that within him whereby he would be able to recognise this
truth from his earliest age ; and the recognition would intensify
more and more the longer he lived. Their religion, then, was
very simple. He would ask them to bear with him a moment.
There was one other great truth which he should be sorry to
have forgotten. He must confess that if he stopped where he
had just brought them, the world would still be a dismal world.
The most dismal of all dismal things would be the state
of a man in this Universe without the sense of God.
That would be terrible and sad indeed. It would seem
to him as if the whole world were like a lonesome
desert. Having presented to the mind of the child
this first great thought— God, the Soul of the Universe,
they then had to teach him that there was a relationship be
tween that Soul of the Universe and the soul of man. And this
could be taught without the assistance of the Churches and
Scriptures. It could be taught by the aid of the book which
God himself had planted in the soul. He did not believe the
soul was created corrupt and loathsome, and he did not believe
any Orthodox parent believed it in bis heart. What was it that
made life beautiful but sympathy between soul and soul—that
consciousness of the reciprocation of sympathy which they called
the communion of souls ? This was one of the glories, one of
the beauties, of Humanity. It could not be taken away—it was
engrafted in the great heart of mankind. As soon as a child
recognised that, he recognised also that there must be a com
munion between the great Soul of the Universe and the souls
of men. Was that great Soul, which had flung itself forth into
all the forms of beauty, gentleness, majesty, and tenderness—
was that Soul alone without human sympathy ? Was that Soul
alone incapable of communion ? They had to annihilate their
very nature before they could think it. (Applause.) Thus the
next religious lesson was this. They easily pointed out to a
child, not by complicated texts, but by appealing to that which
�was purest and best within him—that there must be communion
between his soul and God, because it was exactly that which
was the beauty and life of all souls everywhere ; and what the
child felt towards any good man, what they felt towards one
another, that in an infinite extent the great Mind of the
Universe must feel towards them. (Applause.) He had said
thus much in order to show the simplicity and solidity of their
religious position. The Orthodox might urge that it was
insecure, inasmuch as it rested, after all, upon the intuitions of
the individual. But what did anything in orthodox religion
rest upon, in the case of an intelligent person who had thought
out his religion for himself ? He was not so presumptuous as to
suppose that no intelligent man would reason himself into a
belief in one of the Orthodox religions. Having done so, he
said, “ I have a solid rock ; you have not. You rest upon
conscience and intelligence, but I rest upon the infallible
authority of my Bible or my Church.” After all, that was an
error ; because his infallibility rested purely and simply upon a
whole collection of arguments. And here was the marvellous
power of their position, not as a controversial position, which he
cared nothing for, but its marvellous power for the future of the
human race. The intelligent and thoughtful Orthodox person
rested his whole spiritual life on a collection of the most com
plicated arguments—he ought to go through centuries of history
and examine the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures, though
unfortunately there were no originals. The Orthodox parent
ought to go into all this, and then launch his child forth into
life, fortified with the complication of proofs. That was why
Orthodox people were so anxious about dogmatic education,
and so afraid of science. Strong as the Orthodox imagined his
position to be, he was always in danger of finding an additional
argument which would undermine the fabric, and then the
whole thing passed away, carrying with it the whole moral and
spiritual life, unless, indeed, it had been built up on other
principles after all. He wished he could make them realise the
intense importance of this, and the miserable and terrible risk
there was in trusting the whole moral and spiritual life to an
infallibility resting upon such a complication of proofs. He
would frankly tell them one of the reasons why, though so out
spoken to them, he felt cautious regarding what was called
shaking the opinions of Orthodox persons—it was his knowledge
how tremendous was the danger on account of the fatal error
of Orthodox education. Therefore they saw what a vast
advantage they possessed, who, in the place of resting their
religion and morality upon complicated systems, were able to
take simply what came from God—Humanity, the Bible of God
�15
within and around them. (Hear, hear.) He had now almost
come to a close. He thanked them for the kindness with
which they had listened to what he felt were only the veriest
platitudes, but platitudes on which the whole of the human life
rested, It might, however, do some good to hear those
platitudes from other lips than those to which they had been \
accustomed ; for it was some testimony, at least, of the belief
of another mind in the vastly important position they main
tained. He must confess he did believe their position to be one
of vast importance. He looked with fear and trembling upon
the future of a country without religion, without the thought of
God, without trust, without hope in God. Such was the future
which Orthodoxy was preparing for them. He was intimate
with some persons in political life, defenders of the Established
Church, regular attendants at the services of that Church ; and
he found amongst them an entire shaking of all religious belief.
Since these persons had become cognisant of the progress of the
truths of Science, he had noticed that whenever they were in
circumstances in which they thought they could speak openly,
they admitted that it was utterly impossible to recognise as
true any of the dogmas of Orthodox Christianity. And yet such
persons were frequenters of the Church of England, and when
residing in the country built churches and attended Sacrament,
regularly. He knew many such persons. They had entirely
lost all sense of belief in God. Everything had passed away.
Not only had they lost their belief in God, but what, if he were
to make the comparison, was almost worse—their belief in man.
The two generally went together. When a man lost his sense
of a belief in God, very often there passed away also that
beautiful stay of humanity—belief in man. (Hear, hear.) , The
two were interwoven. It rested with such as those he was
addressing to save the future of their country. Orthodoxy
could not save it. The old Roman Catholicism could not save
it. The days of Roman Catholicism were numbered, though
they might be long. It had had a gre'at history, but it must
rest on its past. It must either alter effectually, or die like the
great religions of old. It would leave behind it a great
memory, but, like other great things of old, it must perish.
All existing superstitions must pass away. Science was getting
stronger than all, and must eventually destroy all mythologies. .
And then it would be a question whether men and women—
earnest, moral, religious, spiritual—should have been the means
of keeping alive within the country the beginning of better and
higher influences ; whether the religious life, the spiritual life,
the sense of conscious communion between the soul and God,
the recognition of supreme intelligent law and a supreme Law
�16
giver, should have been fostered and kept alive among the
people. Oh, my friends, (the rev. gentleman exclaimed) it is
your great destiny, small in number as you may be, to strive to
keep alive these great principles, and foster them for the time
to come. It is a noble and a righteous undertaking, as I
ventured to say to you yesterday, to rival the faith of the men
of old, and to rival it. on the principles of intelligence and
human conscience. In different places and in different ways
may we labour for that great cause. It is surrounded with
difficulties, it is surrounded with misjudgment, it is embarrassed
with numerous complications, but it is a glorious cause. It is
the cause of the progress of human conscience and intelligence,
the communion of the soul of man with the Soul of the Universe
—a cause boundless as the Universe, a religion of no sect or
denomination, but embracing all and everywhere, a religion
planted in the soul and planted in the Universe. (Applause.)
Such was, I conceive, the idea which animated the heart of the
life of Jesus, that noble-hearted son of Joseph and Mary. His
lofty spiritual nature, his profoundly religious genius, soaring
above the narrow superstitions of His age, and of many ages,
beheld a religion varying in form, opinion, and mode, but in
its essence as universal as humanity. May we in our several
vocations and localities, perchance seldom meeting, combine in
sympathy, as we strive during the brief remnant of our life, to
build up and to develope that supreme idea. We, like Jesus,
would commend our soul to the Supreme Goodness; this
present life, and the life beyond the grave, we trust to Him,
the Eternal and the Wonderful God 1
God—onr God—whose works surroupd us,
Preaches in the summer wind,
In the tempest of the ocean,
In the silence of the mind,
In the sparkle of the planets,
In the splendour of the sun,
In the voice of all creation—
“ God is Love, and God is One.”
�
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
Free thought in religion: a lecture delivered at George's Meeting, Exeter, March 1st 1875
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Suffield, Robert Rodolph
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Exeter
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Devon Weekly Times
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4865
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Free thought in religion: a lecture delivered at George's Meeting, Exeter, March 1st 1875), 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
Free Thought
Morris Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9ca37caaf7ed628007f9c582ddf84b0a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XxvZkv3UzxmzBiOJRY7N9jH5N2fa54KOFGZRjB8WEL5kNCgkOWT0jgw3cK%7E%7E3YWpEF0nBU2B5aEsKQtvoG0bJTsTtv7CMKgxPmfdTtLg1Y%7EOObJRojQU7XWWdSPjXiqakk3Ly9CapwJ0-zU70Hn4UVX6CawOnd-uqfoL%7E4d9WvxBAGVjnWJHR7DS50dEloFi97vwRvNhgi2cMVfIhAGiHjcnOStEwFqGLguwvJ2xnNZv-LOrchITcoMVZbC2zW1UoG4VlB3zbYkpQwDhZS3wHhOKLqT-4LH0jfOvuVuuwoSk1YWn2-meqD7rmpst8aMsFU2ozCFis2ayreoUxAO6Jw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8ea93bd60cd6c5b679b19d59f0d1b1c9
PDF Text
Text
NS2^>
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
INDIVIDUAL, FAMILY
AND
NATIONAL POVERTY.
REASONS WHY IN EVERY FAMILY THE NUMBER SHOULD
BE REGULATED; THE METHODS THAT HAVE BEEN
PROPOSED, EXTENSIVELY ADOPTED, AND FOUND
TO ANSWER FOR DOING IT; TOGETHER
WITH A FEW VALUABLE HINTS
FOR THE YOUNG.
BY
JNO.
HY.
PALMER.
“ One would imagine that children were rained down upon married people, direct
from heaven, without their being art or part in the matter; that it was really, as the
common phrases have it, God's will, and not their own, which decided the numbers
of their offspring." “ No one would guess from the language of either (rich or poor)
that man had any voice or choice in the matter. So complete is the confusion of
ideas on the whole subject, owing in a great degree to the mystery in which it is
shrouded by a spurious delicacy, which prefers that right and wrong should be
mismeasured and confounded on one of tlie subjects most momentous to human
welfare, rather than that the subjects should be freely spoken of and discussed.
People are little aware of the cost to mankind of this scrupulosity of speech."
John Stuart Mill.
LONDON:
E. TRUELOVE, PUBLISHER, 256, HIGH HOLBORN.
1875.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
�After penning the following pamphlet it seemed to the writer, that
to ensure the complete success of his effort, some little preface wa3
needed to be addressed to those who from various circumstances
are unable to regulate families of their own. Although the subject
applies definitely to persons in the reproductive age of life, yet it
must not therefore be supposed that none others are interested in it.
By a careful consideration of the law and its precept endeavoured to
be set forth on pages 8 to 13, I think it will appear that the matter
is of immense importance to everyone. Many are of opinion that
apart from the practice here recommenced there is no effective
remedy for the wide spread poverty, and with it the vice, crime,
and misery that prevail. For strong language in support of this
I would refer the reader to Book II, chapter 13, of John Stuart Mill s
“Principles of Political Economy,’’..(People’s Edition) in which he
treats on the Remedies for Low Wages; also to “ Poverty, its only
Cause and only Cure,” in “Elements of Social Science.” These
authors especially desire the formation of a sound, healthy public
opinion in favour of small families. To assist the growth of that
opinion by stating some important reasons why it should everywhere
obtain, and how it may be complied with, has been the object of
the present writer.
On pages 14 to 17 will be found a little advice, which, had it been
known, and perseveringly followed by many persons when young,
would have saved them from a deal of expense, shame, and misery.
�REASONS WHY IN EVERY FAMILY THE
NUMBER SHOULD BE REGULATED.
As its title indicates, the object of this little pamphlet is to state as
briefly as possible some important reasons why the number in every
family should be regulated, to point out the various methods that
have been proposed, extensively adopted, and found to answer for
doing it. The ideas here put forth are not new, they are most of
them to be found fully developed and demonstrated in the books
mentioned in the preface, and from which they have been taken.
The present writer desires only to give such a condensation as he
thinks will be useful for general distribution by all, even the poorest
who should feel an interest in the subject. I say by the poorest, for
although the reasons apply with great force to all, yet they refer
especially to, and their importance will be seen the clearest by working
men, the toilers and the bread-winners, who with their wives and
children make up the vast majority of the nation.
By regulating the number in a family I mean that the parents,
having brought forih as many children as circumstances warrant
them in having, they shall thereupon cease to beget any more. If
people have this power, and I shall presently show that they have,
then it follows, that they also possess some control over the times
when such increase shall take place. The author of the “ Elements
of Social Science,” and Mr. R. D. Owen, in his “ Moral Physiology,”
deal only with the subject of controlling the number of children to be
born; Mr. Combe, in his book on the “ Constitution of Man,” treats
of the kind of children they will be I wish to urge that parents
should regulate with reference both to the number and the kind of
child)en they desire.
The first part of my task will be to demonstrate the existence and
illustrate the working of a great law in nature, a knowledge of which
is of the utmost importance; for unless it be understood there can be
no regulation in aiiy proper sense of the term. And the law is that
children’s characters are entirely the result of circumstances, which
circumstances are to be considered as to whether they were previous
to or after birth. Circumstances previous to birth may be called
constitutional; those after birth educational.
Taking first the constitutional circumstances, I need only direct
attention to the unvarying continuance of national peculiarities as a
sufficient proof that the qualities of children are determined first of
all by the stock from which they are born. Thus from white races
will be born white children, from black races black children, from
tall races tall children, from short races short children. Similarly
from brave races come brave children, from intelligent races come
�4
intelligent children, and vice versa. And as races are made up of
individuals it is further seen that children are as their parents
are, whether white or black, tall or short, strong or weak, healthy
or sickly, intelligent or otherwise. Mr. Geo. Combe states that
“Physiologists, in general, are agreed, that a vigorous and healthy
constitution of body in the parents, communicates existence in
the most perfect state to the offspring, and vice versa. The
transmission of various diseases from parent to children is a
matter of universal notoriety: thus consumption, gout, scrofula,
hydrocephalus, rheumatism, and insanity, are well known as maladies
which descend from generation to generation. “ Strictly speaking,
it is not disease which is transmitted, but organs of such imperfect
structure that they are unable to perform their functions properly,
and so weak as to be easily put into a morbid condition by causes
which sound organs are able to resist.” Not that this transmission
compels the offspring of consumptive parents to be consumptive too.
but it “renders them so weak as to be easily put into a morbid
condition.” If the rules of health are thoroughly known and rigidly
practised, the tendency may be diminished, or even effectually
warded off. Therefore I would solemnly warn all who are afflicted
with any hereditary disease, never, on any account to beget children
until they have thoroughly investigated the laws of health, and
determined to enforce them on themselves and their children. *
A clear and uudeniable proof of the transmission of qualities, and
also that the characters are derived from both parents, is to be
found in the progeny of marriages between moral and intelligent
Europeans and native Americans who are inferior. “All authors
agree,” says Mr. Combe, “ and report the circumstance as singularly
striking, that the children of such unions are decidedly superior iu
mental and moral qualities to the native, while they are still inferior
to the European parent.”
But there is a most important modification of the law, namely that
the qualities of a child are determined not only by the constitution of the
stock from which it is derived, but also by the faculties which are strongest
in power and activity in the parents at the particular time when the
organic existence of that child commences. In proof of this Mr. Combe
relates a case in which at the time of impregnation both parents were
utterly insensible through drinking, the result being the birth of an
idiot. Another case of a parent addicted to drinking who transmitted
the same tendency to several of his children, but children born to him
after he had formed more correct habits were not so inclined. When
two parties marry very young the eldest of their children is generally
less intelligent than those born to them in more mature age. So too
“ It is rare for the descendants of men far advanced in years to be
distinguished for high qualities of either body or mind.” Anything
* Hereditary Descent, it* Laws and Facts applied to Human Improvement, by
0. S. Fowler.
�which causes the mother to be frightened, excited, irritated, over
anxious, or depressed in spirits, has an injurious effect on the future
being, and should therefore be avoided. Persons desirous of becoming
parents ought well to consider these things ; if they can they should
obtain the books in which they are fully and distinctly expounded,
live up to the characters they would desire their children to possess,
and then select that period in their lives most favourable to the
production of strong, healthy, good-natured and intelligent children.
Having thus dealt with the constitutional circumstances, my next
duty is to point out that whatever may be the inborn qualities of a
child, yet as an adult its character will be very greatly influenced by
the circumstances atttending its early life. Its physical health will
depend upon its supply of food, clothing, lodging, personal cleanliness,
and exercise. A child with insufficient food or clothing cannot grow
up strong. Large and well ventilated bedrooms are as necessary to
health as plenty of food. Wide airy streets are better for health
than narrow close courts and lanes. Daily washing of the body, and a
frequent change of underclothing are also indispensable. And exercise
should not be such as to overtax the worker. For children to ripen
into strong and healthy men and women all these matters require
careful and constant attention. The Government inspection of food
in the market, “ Local Boards of Health,” “ Half Time Acts ” to prevent
children from being gradually killed by exhaustive labour, show to
what extent these principles are already recognized by the State.
So too the intellectual and moral welfare of children has been partly
taken in hand by the Government, compulsory attendance at school
for a number of years being already adopted by many of the School
Boards. But the parent who desires the wellbeing of his children
will not be content with the education enforced by the State, he will
endeavour to supply them with good books, and during their youth pay
for their admission to evening classes and lectures, or in other ways
provide them with instructors, and thus train out their intellectual
powers to the fullest extent. And children cannot be thus employed
in useful studies without being morally the better for it. Only
develop in them a taste for good and useful pursuits, and they will
of themselves avoid what is degrading. Then too with regard to a
start in life, it is not right that a parent should turn his boy or
girl out into the first place that offers the means of gaining a sixpence.
A good start in life is half the battle, and parents should endeavour
to give sut> to their children. This brings me direct to the point
of numbers, tor a man who has a family of six or eight children and
only a moderate income cannot help himself. The constant cry of
parents is that they do not know what to do with their children.
They cannot afford to keep them in idleness waiting for something
better to turn up. Nor have they the cash to apprentice them to
a trade, or to put them in the way of getting a little business of
their own. The children must therefore take the first chance of
employment th^t comes in their way, even though it give little or
�6
no prospect of rising to a higher position. Now suppose a man
has had two children born to him, and he and his wife are in good
health, such as would ensure che production of a strong and healthy
child, I urge that if he happen to desire another, he ought first to
consider seriously whether he is able to do for it all that its wellbeing
requires, and that too without injustice to the children already born,
without injustice to his wife, and without injury to himself. If he
cannot do this, then I say he should refrain himself. In other words
a man should beget no more children than he and his wife can bring
into the world strong and healthy; no more than they can perfectly
nourish with wholesome food, comfortably clothe, and healthily and
decently lodge in their homes; no more than the wife can properly
attend to without becoming a drudge, no more tlian the husband can
have well educated, well supplied with good books, and fairly started
in life; in short no more than he can do whole justice with. If a
man be in a high position, receiving a good income, and can comply
with these conditions, there is still one more,—while bringing up to
maturity and sending into the world a large family, can he at the
same time be doing justice to the children of his neighbour? This
last consideration is a national one, which is gradually receiving the
attention it deserves. I am myself of opinion that in the present
state of England no man should beget more than three children,
while the circumstances of many warrant them in having but one
or two. And the reasons for this I will endeavour to make plain by
showing how the four parties affected are severally interested in the
regulation of numbers, namely the children, the mother, the father,
and the nation
In reference to the children let me remind my reader that I urge for
regulation first as to the kind of children, that they may be strong,
healthy, good-natured, and intelligent, four qualifications of inestimable
value to their possessors ; and next that the parents should beget no
more children than they can bring up strong, healthy, good-natured,
and intelligent. If a man only possess these qualities we need have
little fear of his doing well. By enjoying a healthy constitution he is
free from bodily suffering, having strength he is able to perform with
comfort to himself the labour of life. A man of good nature may have
a few enemies, but will certainly get more friends; and if in addition to
this he possess a strong and active intelligence to guide him through
life happy is he. The same holds good in their early years; for
whether they be born of high family or low, of a prince or a peasant,
who so happy as strong, healthy, good-natured, intelligent children!
Contrast with such the puny, the delicate, and the dull children
often met with. One is weak in the lower limbs and cannot run,
another from consumptive parents is soon put out of breath when
playing, a third is sickly and bilious and often ill, a fourth has a
watery brain, a fifth, a cross irritable spiteful disposition, a sixth
being unintelligent is dull and lazy with his lessons, and stupid at
anything given him to do. When these maladies and a multitude
�of others are considered, and it is laoicn that fur the most part they
might have been avoided, I think it will be at once admitted that it
would be beneficial for the parents to regulate towards the health,
strength, good nature, and intelligence of their children. As to
numbers, need 1 say that children in small families can have more
comforts than those in large ones? A man with only two children
can do better for them than if he had with the same money to provide
for six others besides. He can give them better food, and in a possible
sickness a few dainties if needed, stronger and better clothes, including
plenty of underlinen, better ventilated and more comfortable bedrooms,
{deasanter living rooms, can lodge them in nicer streets, keep them
onger at school, buy a few books for them, and take more care of their
starting in life. Is it desirable that he should be able to do this?
Would it have the effect of sending into the world stronger, healthier,
wiser, and better men ? If sc then 1 hold that in the interest of his
children a man should regulate their number.
Next the mother’s reasons:—The late John Stuart Mill in his
“Principles of Political Economy” says, “It is seldom by the choice
of the wife that families are so numerous; on her devolves (along with
all the physical suffering, and at least a full share of the privations) the
whole of the intolerable drudgery resulting from excess. To be relieved,
of it w’ould be held as a blessing by multitudes of women who now never
venture to urge such a claim, but who would urge it if supported by
the moral feelings of the community.” I, as one of the community am
endeavouring to support the above remarks, and to urge her claim on
man’s consideration. First, think of the “physical suffering” a woman
has to undergo when bringing forth a child, even if she be herself strong
and healthy. When she is not strong the suffering is intensified, even
to the risk of her life. Many a mother is ruined in health and strength,
many more are lulled outright, by bearing children so quickly one after
another. Would she not be happier bv avoiding this suffering and risk
of life? If so then regulate the time of her childbearing. The mother
too has to endure her full share of the poverty resulting from a large
family, and the whole of the intolerable drudgery. She must have poor
clothes that the children may be supplied, and poor fare that they may
be fed, and that too sometimes when having two lives to sustain she
needs the most nourishment of all. As to her work it is never done ;
what with meals getting, house cleaning, washing, clothes making and
mending, a baby to tend, and it sometimes a poorly one, where is
her rest or peace of mind? Among the poorest her home too is so
■hoerless that her husband often will not stay7 in it, but goes away to
the publichouse, where, in the company of his mates, and with the
aid of drink, he strives to forget his poverty.
Oftentimes the husband dies w’hile the family is still very young,
and leaves nothing for the poor mother but increased slavery and the
permitted beggary of asking for parish relief. Think of the difference
if the wife had only one or two children, strong, healthy, good-natured,
and intelligent, and with them the assurance from her husband that
�8
she is to bear no more. How her toil is saved ! With what care sne
can nourish her children 1 How daintily tend the home ! How well
preserve her own health and beauty !
And think too _ how much better for the husband ! For in social
affairs whoever gives real happiness to another increases thereby his
own. Is it not bettei for the man to have two children well nourished
well dressed, well lodged, well educated, and well started in life, than
to have six or eight children so badly provided for that he is almost
ashamed to own them ? And what husband does not feel pleased when
his wife looks fresh and happy ? Who can take a pleasure in seeing the
lines of care come early on her face ? I say then that a man for his
own sake should regulate the number of his children. For, by taking
care of his wife, that she does not conceive while in delicate health,
that she be spared the pains of bearing a large family, and the slavery
of tending it afterwards, he will draw towards himself a double portion
of her love and kindly offices; when, returning from his day’s toil, a
welcome smile is ready for him, along with his well kept and comfortable
home. With a large family a father is never free from the harassing
care of providing the means of living, but with a small one he is relieved
of such trouble, and in its stead may lay by a little store for his
own and his wife’s old age. It is surely pleasant to feel that you have
something in the bank ready for a “rainy day,” that you will not
become a burden to your children. Let me, therefore, urge on my
readers the desirability of regulating in favour of strong, healthy,
good-natured, intelligent children, and for such a number as the parents
can do whole justice with, both to the children and to themselves.
And also such a number as by having them the parents do no
injustice to their neighbours. This may seem a new doctrine to my
readers, but it is by no means new to the thoughtful men of the a»e.
A doctrine that has been before the world for seventy-five years, and
accepted by the ablest of the political economists who have lived during
that time, cannot be called new. It may be unknown to the masses,
or ignored by those who should obey it, but that does not remove
the suffering caused by violating it. The precept is founded on what is
called the Law of Population, which was first discovered by the Rev.
Thomas Robert Malthus, and published by him in 1798. If the remarks
which I shall make on this subject are not convincing to my readers let
me earnestly request the perusal of the chapters on Poverty, its only
Cause and only Cure, page 331; the Law of Population, page 457 ;
the Laws of Exercise, Fecundity, and Agricultural Industry, page 485,’
and the Opinions of English and Foreign writers on the Law of
Population, in the “ Elements of Social Science.” See also a few
chapters in J. S. Mill’s “Principles of Political Economy,” namely
Bk. I, chapters 9, 12, 13 ; Bk. II, chapters 11, 12, 13 ; these and many
observations in other parts of his great work derive their force from
being based on the Law of Population.
Which law may be briefly stated thus :—1. It is not only possible
but natural for population to continue doubling itself every twenty-five
�9
years. 2. In old countries it is not possible for it in the same time,
and from the same soil, to continue doubling its supply of the necessaries
of life. 3. If therefore the births continue at such a rate as to double
the population in twenty-five years, then those that cannot maintain
themselves in their native place must either emigrate, be supplied with
food from other countries, or die a premature death from poverty.
4. If the population of any place is not doubling itself every twenty-five
years then it must be either from premature deaths, emigration, or
limitation of the number of births. 6. Wholly to avoid premature
deaths, and the necessity of emigration or importation of food, the
number of births must be limited to the number that can be nourished
in their native place. 6. Wherever poverty of resources and therefore
the necessity of emigration exists, there has been too great a number
of births. These rules apply to every village, town, county, or country
in the world.
To enforce the first statement I need only to quote from Mill’s
“Political Economy,” people’s edition, page 97, where, in treating of
man’s multiplying power he states, “ It never is exercised to the
utmost, and yet in the most favourable circumstances known to exist,
which are those of a fertile region colonized from an industrious and
civilized community, population has continued for several generations,
independently of fresh immigration, to double itself in not much more
than twenty years. That the capacity of multiplication in the human
species exceeds even this is evident if we consider how great is the
ordinary number of children to a family where the climate is good,
and early marriages usual; and how small a proportion of them die
before the age of maturity, in the present state of hygienic knowledge,
where the locality is healthy, and the family adequately provided with
the means of living.” In the “Elements of Social Science,” page 451,
quoting from M’Culloch, the eminent statistical authority, we find’
“It has been established beyond all question that the population of
some of the States of North America, after making d re allowance for
immigration has continued to double for a century past in so short
a period as twenty, or at most twenty-five years.” For the figures
and calculations see “Elements of Social Science,” page 277. If the
population of the British Isles could increase at the same rate, it
would in seventy-five years amount to no less than 240,000,000, or
nearly as many as the present population of all Europe. And by
continuing the process another fifty years the number of 960,000,000
would be reached, a number nearly equal to the estimated present
population of the whole world. On the second head Mr. Mill says,
“After a certain and not very advanced stage in the progress of
agriculture it is a law of production from land that in any given state
of agricultural skill and knowledge, by increasing the labour, the
produce is not increased in an equal degree ; doubling the labour’ does
not double the produce.” This law of agricultural industry is the
most important proposition in political economy. The produce may
be increased by whatever adds to the skill of the labour applied;
*
�12
e-
position in which people live the better are 11 icy able to secure
good positions for their children in their native country. And they
generally do it, leaving those of the poorer classes to shift for
themselves as best they may, either by emigration, the workhouse,
or semi-starvation, and death by the first severe illness that comes
upon them. We may see this illustrated every day in the middle
ranks. A head clerk in a firm or the foreman in a factory has the
first chance of places for his family of boys; the mechanics come
next in the order of their qualities, and so on to the lowest. Not
that the particular ones chosen will do more to increase the prosperity
of the business, but their fathers being in good positions are able
to provide for their sons in their native district. The same takes
place with business men in towns and villages; the best off are able
to secure occupations for their children, and leave to others to go
elsewhere. But with a family of two children a man thrusts no one
out. He merely brings into existence two beings to take the place of
himself and his wife when departed. To bring into existence and
keep in their native place such a number of beings as causes others to
be compelled to remain unmarried, to be half starved, or thrust out,
is an injustice. Let me, therefore, repeat and urge on my readers the
desirability of every couple regulating in favour of strong, healthy,
good-natured, and intelligent children, and for such a number as full
justice can be done with, justice to the children themselves, to their
mother, the father, and to their neighbours.
A thorough knowledge of this Law of Population is of immense
importance to every class in the country, except the highest. For
though there are possibilities in trade, yet every one is liable to be
pressed down by someone else above him who may be endeavouring to
provide for a larger number of children than is his due. So that a man
who has only a small family is better off than with a large one; but
if small families were the rule, his position would be improved still
more. With an industrious people, following to the full the course
here recommended, the workhouses will in time be closed for want
of paupers, the hospitals almost empty for want of patients, gaols
almost, if not quite, unused for want of criminals. Ignorance with
poverty are the most fruitful sources of crime. Remove then the
ignorance and the poverty. Moderate competition in trade is good
for all parties, but a grinding, harassing competition, a struggle to keep
head above water invariably brings a crop of frauds of all kinds. People
must live, and, whether by fair means or foul, the strongest in mind
and body maintain life the longest. For myself I like the old maxim,
“Prevention is better than cure.” Don’t have weak, unhealthy,
cross-natured, stupid children, don’t have more than can be well and
honestly nourished. Without this prevention, all schemes for social
improvement are valueless. Let the reader think of them, one and
all, and he will find none that can exist along with the crushing
influence of over-population, not one that, apart from limiting the
number of births, has had any permanent influence in increasing the
�13
happiness of mankind. Without this they can do no more than
change the misery from one form to another. See to it then, make
yourself thoroughly acquainted with the laws by which qualities are
transmitted from parent to children, the laws for rearing those children
into strong, healthy, honest, and intelligent men and women; and lastly
the great Law of Population as it is at present operating in your own
country. And having yourself gained the knowledge of these things,
you will further see that for your own individual good you ought to
do all in your power to make every one else to understand and obey
the precepts founded on them. One means of doing so would be by
distributing copies of this pamphlet. I can ask you to do this, as
I am interested in its getting well abroad just as much as you are,
and not more.
——♦——
THE METHODS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED,
EXTENSIVELY ADOPTED, AND FOUND SUCCESS
FUL IN REGULATING
THE
NUMBER
IN A
FAMILY, TOGETHER WITH HINTS FOR THE
YOUNG.
Having thus dealt with the principal reasons why in every family the
number should be regulated, my remaining task is to state the methods
that have been proposed, extensively adopted, and always found success
ful in doing it, leaving my readers to choose which they please, or to
select any other that happens to come to their knowledge. And in their
selection they will be guided by the answers they give to the following
questions: Is the moderate exercise of the generative organs conducive
to health or to bodily and mental weakness ? If their moderate
exercise does not cause weakness, then the pleasure derived from their
instinctive use, independent of, and totally distinct from, its ultimate
object, the reproduction of our race, is it good, proper, worth securing
and enjoying ? Or in other words, is it desirable that the instinct
should never be gratified without an increase of population ? The
author of “ Elements of Social Science,” on pages 492 to 505 of his
important work, deals with the Law of Exercise, and endeavours to
show that a moderate indulgence of the sexual instinct is absolutely
necessary to long continued health. Two extracts will indicate the
position he takes : “ The Law of Exercise is that the health of the
reproductive organs and emotions depend on their having a sufficient
amount of normal exercise ; and that a want of this tends powerfully
to produce misery and disease in both man and woman.” “ It is stated
aB a law by Mr. Paget, Dr. Carpenter, and other eminent authorities,
that ‘each organ, by the very fact of nourishing itself acts as an
excretory organ to the rest of the body.’ That is, every organ selects
from the blood the proper materials for its own nutrition, and in so
�doing it renders the blood more fit to nourish the others. This ia
especially true of secreting organs, such as the ovaries and testicles,
which produce fluids that are intended to be cast out of the body, and
are more or less noxious if retained. Hence whenever any important
organs are not duly engaged in their own special function not only is
their own vigour impaired, but that of the others also. The ideal of
health indeed cannot be Btated otherwise than as consisting in the due
performance of all the bodily functions.” The author quotes from
numerous medical writers supporting this view, and describes the
various diseases which they say arise from repressing the sexual desire.
In the same chapter are also given the arguments on the opposite view,
that the. Law of Exercise, while applying to other organs, has nothing
to do with the organs of generation. I will just caution the reader
that the matter should be decided by facts alone. For an examination
of the second question, and an emphatic answer in the affirmative I
refer the reader to the little book entitled “ Moral Physiology,” by
Robert Dale Owen. * As a matter of fact all who while not desiring
an addition to their families yet continue to indulge in sexual embraces
show by their actions that they either think it necessary for health,
the pleasure good, proper, worth securing and enjoying, or that their
instinct gets the better of theii judgment. The same is the condition
with those who will not marry, 'yet risk the awful danger, and accept
the moral degradation, of a prostitute’s embraces. (On these last points
see “Elements of Social Science,” pages 112 to 156.) If after testing
these principles the reader is of opinion that the arguments for what
is called the Law of Exercise, are so much bosh, and that the pleasure
of the act is not good, not desirable, not worth having, then all he has
to do is to select the most favourable periods for conception to take
place, and perform the sexual functions so many times according to the
number of children circumstances warrant him in having. And if at
any other time he happens to feel a desire for sexual embraces he must
treat it as a disease in his system, and doctor himself accordingly.
For if he allows this or any other passion to get the better of°his
judgment, either he, his wife, his children, or his neighbour, and
perhaps all parties will assuredly suffer in consequence.
For myself I frankly confess that I believe in the Law of Exercise,
but do not think it desirable that a child should be the result of every
sexual embrace. I am of opinion that voluptuous, or as they are
sometimes termed, wet dreams are nature’s temporary substitute for
the sexual act, and, like it, when only seldom, say once or twice a
month, are not a source of mischief. But should they become frequent,
as they tend to do, the persons are made weak, and, if ignorant of their
cause, are generally in good condition to be fooled by the first crafty
doctor that finds them. To prevent their injurious effects let those
who have them be sparing in their diet, take no stimulants, never use
tobacco, sleep cool, rise early, bathe or wash the whole body daily,
Published by E. Truelove, 256. High Holborn, London.
�z
15
rubbing with a towel till in a glow, splash cold or almost cold water on
the parts, (ladies to use the vagina syringe) take plenty of exercise in
the open air, and avoid exciting the organs by rubbing. Whoever has
been guilty of this latter practice, and injured their health, let them
immediately stop it, follow the course here marked out, and keep
clear of advertising quack doctors.
To prevent conception let the husband so steadily manage the
sexual act as to give full enjoyment to his wife, and then immediately
before the emission of the semen, withdraw the penis completely.
For an account of the extensive use to which this plan has been
put in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, I refer the reader to
R. D. Owen’s “ Moral Physiology,” two quotations from which I will
make. “It may be objected that the practice requires a mental effort,
and a partial sacrifice. But I reply that in France, where men consider
this (as it ought ever to be considered, when the interests of the
other sex requires it) a paint of honour, all young men learn to make
the necessary effort, and custom renders it easy and a matter of course.”
“A Frenchman belonging to the cultivated classes would as soon bear
to be called a coward as to be accused of causing the pregnancy of a
woman who did not desire it. Such an imputation, if substantiated,
would shut him out from all decent society ; and most properly
so. It is a perfect barbarity, and ought to be treated as such.”
Some will say that the practice is injurious, but the most extensive
experience proves to the contrary. It is simple, satisfying to the
passion, and perfectly harmless. The evil of sexual excess, or over
indulgence is another matter. For a clear statement of what in various
constitutions would be excess, see “ Elements of Social Science,” p. 84.
The second method is for the man during the embrace to wear over
the penis a baudruche, or French letter as it is sometimes termed.
Accidents in its use cause it to be somewhat unsafe, and it is in every
way inconvenient.
A third method has been thus described: “ If before sexual intercourse
the female introduces into her vagina a piece of fine sponge as large as
can be pleasantly introduced (perhaps from the size of a walnut to that
of an egg) having previously attached a bobbin, or a piece of narrow
ribbon to withdraw it, (or, without this it may be withdrawn with the
fingers) it will be found a preventive to conception, while it neither
lessens the pleasure of the female, nor injures her health. When
convenient the sponge should be dipped in cold water, or in warm water
rather than none. The practice is common with the females of the
more refined parts of the continent of Europe, and with those of the
aristocracy in England.” To make this method more certain it should
be followed by the immediate syringing of the vagina with cold or
tepid water.
A fourth method is that recommended by Dr. Knowlton, rwho in his
“ Fruits of Philosophy” gives a full account of the physiological reasons
on which it is based, together with other very useful and interesting
information. He advises that a lump of either sulphate of zinc or
�X
16
alum of the size of a cheenut be dissolved in a pint of water, making
the solution weaker or stronger as it may be borne without producing
any irritation of the parts to which it is applied. This solution, which
would not lose its virtue by age, should be injected into the vagina by
means of a female syringe immediately after connexion. Two or three
*
careful and thorough applications of the syringe should be made to
ensure safety. Even quite cold water would be sufficient if thoroughly
used. The doctor gives several weighty reasons in favour of this
method, one of them being that “ it is conducive to cleanliness, and
preserves the parts from relaxation and disease.” “ Those who have
tried it affirm that they would be at the trouble of using injections
merely for the purpose of health and cleanliness.” Its only drawback
is that it generally causes a feeling of sickness in the female.
A fifth method is founded on the fact that women are most likely to
conceive within two or three days before, and twelve or fourteen days
after the menstruating period. Therefore select the least likely period.
But, as Dr. Knowlton shows by a case in point, it is very unsafe, besides
being at such a time as women least enjoy their husbands’ embraces.
For myself I think every man should prefer the withdrawal, experience
having taught that it is the only certain, and therefore the best method.
If at any time the husband in the passion of the moment, loses his
self control, it is then in the power of the wife to use injections either
with or without alum. And should the husband often forget himself,
the sponge and injections following had better be adopted. But no
strong minded, affectionate, honourable husband would give needless
trouble to his wife. But let not the wife in the freedom which her
husband gives her, seek for too many of his embraces ; temperate
enjoyment and satisfaction of the instinct is all that nature allows.
Remember that less injury results from abstinence than from excess.
It should never be indulged in when either husband or wife is tired ;
never in the morning just before getting up, but always so as to have
several hours sleep after it. If the passion of either husband or wife
is greatly in excess, measures should be taken gently and calmly to
reduce it, such as those I have indicated for voluptuous dreams, wearing
W’et bandages over the parts, sleeping in separate beds, and engaging in
diverting studies. The same course will be found beneficial to the
unmarried who may happen to have strong amative inclinations. And
whether they have or not, no better book can be in their hands than
that by Mr. George Combe, on the “ Constitution of Man.” A careful
study of its pages will enable the reader to avoid many’ of the dangers
of life, and especially aid him or her in the choice of a fit partner in
marriage. Young man, learn well the precepts enjoined by Mr. Combe;
shun a prostitute as you would a beautiful but deadly serpent; marry’
as soon as your circumstances will admit, and then act up to the
guidance you have received. My young lady reader, remember the
old proverb, “Whatever is easily gained is lightly valued.” If your
*
embraces are so cheap as to be had for the asking, do not expect your
lover to pay any higher price. The only price worth your having is
�IT
the legal safety of a marriage certificate, coupled with at least a
moderately comfortable home in which to bring forth and rear such
children as may possibly come in spite of your endeavours to the contrary.
Tiie man who strives for your embraces at a lower cost than this
would make you a slave to his lust. If he cannot for the time of
courtship be content with what I have termed nature’s temporary
substitute for the sexual act, and refrain himself before marriage,
neither will he do it afterwards when it may be absolutely necessary.
On this part of my subject I would specially commend to your attention
the following note from Mr. Combe's book: “He who loves from
amativeness alone is sensual, faithless, negligent of the happiness of
its object. He who combines with love springing from this propensity,
benevolence, veneration, justice, and intellect, will disinterestedly
promote the real happiness of the object of his affection.” From
Mr. Combe learn how to distinguish such a man, and trust him
accordingly.
TUB END
�APPENDIX.
THE CONSTITUTION OF MAN, considered in Relation to
External objects. By George Combe. Price 2s.
Extracts from the preface.—“ The great object of the following Treatise is to
exhibit several of the most important natural laws, and their relations and consequences,
with a view to the improvement of education and the regulation of individual and
national conduct.” “ I have endeavoured to avoid religious controversy. ‘ The object
of Moral Philosophy,’ says Mr. Stewart, ‘is to ascertain the general rules of a wise
and virtuous conduct in life, in so far as these rules may be discovered by the unassisted
light of nature; that is, by an examination of the principles of the human constitution,
and of the circumstances in which man is placed.’ The present Treatise Is a humble
attempt to pursue the same plan. I confine my observations exclusively to Man as he
exists in the present world, and beg that, in perusing the subsequent pages, this
explanation may be constantly kept in view. In conseqence of forgetting it, my
language has occasionally beon misapprehended, and my objects misrepresented.
When I speak of man's highest interest, for example, I uniformly refer to man as be
exists in this world; but as the same God presides over both the temporal and eternal
Interests of the human race, it seems to me demonstrably certain, that what is
conducive to the one, will in no instance impede the other, but will in general be
favourable to it also.”
ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ; or Physical, Sexual, and
Natural Religion. An Exposition of the True Cause and only
Cure of the Three Primary Social Evils:—Poverty, Prostitution,
and Celibacy. By A Doctor of Medicine. 600 pages, 2s. 6d.,
or in cloth 3s., post free.
“This book is the Bible of the Body. It is the founder of a great moral reform.
It is the pioneer of health, peace, and virtue. It should be a household Lar in every
home. Read it, study it, husbands and wives. Ilad you, had your parents read a
book like this, a diseased, dwarfed, deteriorated race would not now be wasting away
in our country. By reading this wonderful book every young man may preserve hi,
health and his virtue. Some will say the disclosures are exciting or indelicate—not
so; they are true, and the noblest guide to virtue and honour. That book must be
read, that subject must be understood, before the population can be raised from its
present degraded, diseased, unnatural, and immoral state. We really know not
how to speak sufficiently highly of this extraordinary work; we can only say,
conscientiously and emphatically, it is a blessing to the human race."—People's
Paper. By Ernest Jones, Barrister.
“ Though quite out of the province of our journal, we can.' -efrain from stating
that this work is unquestionably the most remarkable one in u._ .* respects we have
ever met with. The anonymous author is a physician, who has ..•ought his special
knowledge to bear on some of the most intricate problems of social life. He lays bare
to the public, and probes with an unsparing hand, the sores of society, caused by
anomalies in the relation of the sexes. Though we differ toto do from the author
in his views of religion and morality, and hold some of his remedies to tend rather
to a dissolution than a reconstruction of society, yet we are bound to admit tlie
benevolence and philanthropy of his motives. The scope of the work is nothing
lees than the whole field of political economy.”—The British Journal of Homoeopathy,
January, i860. (Published Quarterly. Price 5r.)
*
�MORAL PHYSIOLOGY; a Brief and Plain Treatise on the
Population Question, or how to regulate the numbers in a family.
By Robert Dale Owen, author of Footfalls on the Boundary
of another World. A new Edition, with Frontispiece. Price Gcf.
FRUITS OF PHILOSOPHY; or, the Private Companion of Young
Married People. By Dr. Knowlton. Price Gd.
THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS RELATING TO MARRIAGE.
A Paper read before the Dialectical Society. By Richard Harte.
With an Appendix. 94 pages. Price Is.
LOGIC AND UTILITY; the Tests of Truth and Falsehood, and
of Right and Wrong. 134 pages. Price GJ.
ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF NATURAL RELIGION
on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind. By Philip Beauchamp
(a pseudonym adopted by G. Grote, the Historian of Greece).
123 pp., D. GJ., in cloth boards, 2s.
THE JESUS CHRIST OF J. S. MILL.
By Antichrist. 90 pp. Is
“ He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son, and confesseth not that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."—John, ii. 22, iv. 2, 3, and John, 7.
VOLTAIRE’S PHILOSOPHICAL TALES, ROMANCES, AND
SATIRES, containing:—Candide; or, the Optimist. Zadig; or, Fate.
The World as it Goes; or, the Vision of Babouc. Mieromegas, a
Comic Romance. The Huron; or, Pupil of Nature. Johnny; or,
the Sage and the Atheist. The Man of Forty Crowns. The
Princess of Babylon. Memnon, the Philosopher. The White Bull.
Plato’s Dream. Bababec. A Conversation with a Chinese. The
Black and the White.
The Ignorant Philosopher.
Indian
Adventure. Lord Chesterfield’s Ears. The Origin of Trades.
Price 2s. GJ., stiff boards, 31G pages, double columns.
NEW RELIGIOUS THOUGHTS. By Douglas Campbeit. Second
Edition, revised. 430 pp., cloth boards. This heretical work was
published by Williams and Norgate at 5s.; E. Truelove having
purchased a large remainder, offers it, neatly bound, for 2$. Gd.
REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FESTIVAL IN
COMMEMORATION OF THE CENTENARY BIRTHDAY OF
ROBERT OWEN, the Philanthropist, at Freemasons’ Hall, May
16th, 1871; with a full report of the speeches of the Chairman,
W. Pare, Esq., F.S.S.; Lloyd Jones; Mrs. Ernestine Le Rose,
of New York; G. J. Ilolyoake; Henry Jeffrey; Dr. Travis;
Moncure D. Conway; James Watson; and J. B. Langley. LL.D.;
to which is added Robert Owen’s “Outline of the Rational
System of Society.” 40 pp. Gd,
�The Immortality of the Soul Philosophi
cally considered.
Seven Lectures by Robert Cooper.
Price Is.
The Laws and Customs relating to Mar
riage. A Paper read before the “ Dialectical Society.” By
Richard Harte. With an Appendix. 94 pages. Price Is.
Revealed Religion: its Claims on the
Intellect and on the Heart, impartially discussed in a series of
letters from a Father to his Son. By a Wrangler and ex-member
of the University of Cambridge. Price C>d.
False Divinities; or, Moses, Christ, and
Mahomet, and other Religious Deceptions.
logist. Price Is.
By a Foreign Theo-
Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary. The
edition in six, reprinted in two thick volumes.
a Memoir. Price 8s.
Two Portraits and
Thomas Paine’s Complete Theological
Works, including “ The Age of Reason.” Miscellaneous and
Poetical Works, Last Will and Testament, and a Portrait of the
Author. Price, in Wrapper, 2s.; Cloth, 3s.; “ Age of Reason,”
with Portrait, Is.
Mirabaud’s System of Nature. Price 2s.;
in Cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Elements of Social Science, or Physi
cal, Sexual, and Natural Religion. An Exposition of the True
Cause and only Cure of the Three Primary Social Evils—Poverty,
Prostitution, and Celibacy. By a Graduate of Medicine, 600
pages, 2s. 6d.; or in Cloth, 3s., post free.
“A very valuable book. This is, we believe, the only book that has fully,
honestly, and in a philosophical spirit recognised all the elements in the problem ;
—IIow are mankind to triumph over poverty, with its train of attendant evils?—
and featlessly endeavoured to find apractical solution.”—The Examiner, Jan., 1873.
An Edition of the “ Elements of Social Science ” may be had in
French, German, and Italian. 3s. each.
Orders to the amount of One Shilling or upwards sent Post Free.
E. TRUELOVE, BOOKSELLER, 256, HIGH HOLBORN, LONDON.
�256, HIGH HOLBORN,
('Nearly opposite Day <fc Martin's, and the Royal Amphitheatre.)
Instituted 1852, for the publication of Freethought in Politics and
Religion, New and Second-hand.
OLTAIRE’S PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY. Reprinted verbatim
V from the Six vol. edition, sold at 50s. The work is embellished with
two Engravings, a Medallion Portrait, and a full length likeness of the cele
brated author, in elegant cloth binding. Two volumes, containing nearly
1,300 pages, price 8s., post free. May be had of all booksellers.
Opinion or the “ Dispatch.”
*
• Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary.—This is a translation, in two volumes, of that magnificent
work which must hand the name of Voltaire down to the latest posterity. We have compared it
with the French edition in three volumes, and find that the English version is a most faithful one,
fully preserving the spirit of the original, and in no way abridged. The work is, of course, a very
valuable one, and should have a place on the shelves of all persons who accumulate useful books.
It is printed in a clear, legible type, and in a manner to be easy of reference. The publisher has
done very wisely to compress the entire contents of this encyclopaedia into two volumes of con
venient size, inasmuch as he places an admirable work within the reach of those persons whose
means would not permit them to procure a larger and more expensive edition. It is impossible to
contemplate this ‘Dictionary’ without being struck by the Grandeur and comprehensiveness of
that intellect which, alone and unassisted, could produce a work embracing so many and such varied
subjects. Ingenious theories, exposures of historical or popular fallacies, philosophical essays,
physics, metaphysics, in a word, all branches of learning, science and art, are the topics which
evoked the brilliant wit, or tested the profound wisdom of France’s greatest philosopher. Although
much of the philosophy of that school to which Voltaire belonged has been since exploded;
although many of his theories have been displaced by others which have been supported by
arguments or proved by experiments of which he never dreamt; although, in fine, much ot his
reasoning on physics is now pointless, yet on the whole, and taken as a whole, the * Philosophical
Dictionary ’ is most valuable and most useful, not only as the recordof a great man’s opinions, but
also in those very many departments where his comments and observations do really apply to tho
affairs or circumstances of the present day. We are glad to find that an English publisher has
dared to do justice to a man who is much calumniated by our English saints and hypocrites, and
we cordially recommend this edition of the ‘ Philosophical Dictionary ’ to our readers.”
Paine’s Theological Works; including the “Age of Reason” and all
his miscellaneous pieces and poetical works ; his last will and tes
tament, and a Steel Portrait. To prevent disappointment, ask
for Truelove’s Edition. In Wrappers, 2s. Cloth Boards...........
The Age of Reason; complete, including ;.n essay on his Life and
Genius, with Portrait .................................................................................
A Large Portrait of Paine, 12 inches by 9. Sharp’s Line Engraving
from Romney. Post free.............................................................................
3
0
1
0
1
0
“ It is a very superior engraving, and the best likeness of the great politician extant.—Reasoner.
Paine’s Common Sense ......................................................................................
Paine’s Rights of Man. A reply to Burke on the French Revolution
Political Wives ; a satire, by a Fantastical Fellow. An argument for
Woman’s enfranchisement. Just published .....................................
0
1
3
0
0
4
John Stuart Mill on Liberty.................
-------------------------- On Representative Government ..........................
--------- :--------------- Principles of Political Economy...............
On the Subjection of Women .....................................
----------- -------------- On England and Ireland ................................................
Renan-’s Life of Jesus. Unabridged ......................................................
Renan on the Apostles. Just published ................................
Mirabaud’s System of Nature, 2s.; or in cloth boards........................
Valse Divinities: or Moses, Christ, and Mahomet. 84 p-'p., 8 vo
1 4
2 0
5... 0
5 0
2 0
1.... 6
7 6
2 6
1 0
�JUST PUBLISHED, Price 2s. 6d.,
A GERMAN translation of the elements of social science,
*
..
ENTITLED
DIE GllUNDZUGE DEE GESELLSCHAFTSWISSENSCIIAFT;
Oder, Physisclie, Gesclilcctliche und Natiirliehe Religion. By a
Doctor of Medicine. London: E. Truelove, 256, High Holborn.
Berlin : Elwin Staude, 23, Schumannstrasse.
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
“ The motto of the work: ‘ The diseases of society can, no more than corporeal
maladies, be prevented or cured, without being spoken about in plain language,’
(John Stuart Mill) and its dedication to the poor and the suffering are sufficient to
show the tendency of the author. He uses indeed, a directness of expression, an out
spokenness, which is seldom met with in our times, and will probably in most circles
of so-called refined society bo styled very shocking if not cynical, though in reality it
is not so. The author only calls by their names things which we medical men also
have to discuss openly among ourselves md with patients, but which are treated
by polite society according to the Parisian proverb, ‘ ca se fait, mais ca ne se dit
pas.’ The author, as appears from the title and from his professional knowledge,
is a medical practitioner. He merits therefore the attention of his colleagues, the
more so because, io the first place, they would scarcely guess from the title that this
is a book for medical men—and secondl', because his medical colleagues alone
possess the education which permits them to estimate without prejudice the aims
and efforts of the author, to try the truth of the facts which he lays down as pre
mises, and, after due consideration, cither to accept, or reject, or to limit, and amend
his conclusions and proposals. . . The author’s remarks on the social question s
in general, are among the best and most deeply-felt we have ever read.”
Medizinische Jalirbilcher,
Bd. 152, Hft. 1.
" One must first accustom himself to the openness with which the author treats
his themes ; but the work is unquestionably most instructive and interesting, and
is written with great knowledge of the subject.”
u
Hessischc Morgenzeitung.
Dec. 24th 1871.
“ No one, who has turned his thoughts to the solution of the most burning of all
questions of the day, the social question, and who wishes to devote to it his mental
and practical energies, will be able to leave unread this book, whose anonymous
author, basing himself on the Malthusian essay ‘ on the Principle of Population,’
deduces from it with keen logic a peculiar and most striking theory on the cure of
the three primary social evils—poverty, prostitution, and celibacy . . . Whatever maybe said against this fearless laying bare of the most intimate relations of
social life and against his whole theory, purely and undisguisedly materialistic as
it is—even the opponent of the daring socialist will be unable to deny him the merit
of scientific closeness of reasoning, and what is quite as important, of warm and
zealous philanthropy; he will rather honour the moral courage and mental
energy which the author must have had to work his way out of the bewildering
maze of hitherto unsolved problems and conflicts, to a conviction so logically con
sistent, so luminous, and yet so opposed to established institutions and to the moral
sentiments in which men have been brought up.”
Konigsberge Hartungsche Zeitung. Dec. 4th 1S71.
“Many of the author’s views are diametrically opposed to our own, but we cannot
refrain from describing the book as in very truth an epoch-making one, whose
perusal must interest in the highest degree, both the professional man and the
educated general reader. The questions treated by the author are infinitely import
ant and pressing, and the purest benevolence breathes in every line . . . No
thing is gained by a prudish avoidance of the subjects treated in the work ; they
must be discussed, and mankind might congratulate themselves if this were always
done in so candid and disinterested a manner as by the author of ‘ The Elements of
Social Science.’ ”
Hanoversche Anzeigen und Morgenzeitung,
Nov. 14tli 1871.
“ The work embraces the whole field of political economy, and any one who has
ever reflected on these subjects, nay, who has only gone out on the market of life
with open eyes, must admit that humanimisery exists to an immense extent, and that
the contrasts are so frightful and abrupt, that there must come a levelling or an
overthrow. The proposals of the author, who seems as well versed in the pathology
of the human body as in that of society generally—for the prevention of the evil,
are often in direct opposition to our own views of morality; but we must acknow
ledge that the most dangerous paths are indicated with pure intent, the most daring
proposals made in a benevolent spirit. . . . We confess that, in our opinion
too, the courage to give open instruction on the innermost questions is a require
ment of the time, for here it is not knowledge, but error, which is death."
Schlcsische Zeitung.
Dec. ~th 1871.
�A DISCOVERY
OF TUF.
ORIGIN, EVIDENCES, AND EARLY HISTORY
OF
OvtWamiiL
NEVER YET BEFORE OR ELSEWHERE SO FULLY AND
FAITHFULLY SET FORTH.
ev
THE Rev. R. TAYLOR, A.B. & M.R.C.S.
QiXurftav St rw p.iu xxrx (frvinv, u Sx/riXtv, tvcuvi xcu xtrrx^ou- rnv St
SioxXuruu iixtTMVTXv raeatrou.—■ Euphrates Ehilosopfi ad Vespasian. imp
qiK'd Apollonii Tvan<g Mi: acuta: citante Lardnera, Vol. IV'. p, 261.
THIRD EDITION.
LONDON?
PUBLISHED BY E. TRUELOVE,
�Price Fourpence.
THE
IGNORANT PHILOSOPHER,
LORD CHESTERFIELD’S EARS,
A TRUE STORY,
AND
OTHER HUMOUROUS
PIECES,
TRANSLATED FROM THE FRFNJH
OF
M. DE VOLTAIRE,
LONDON:
E.
TRUELOVE,
256,
HIGH
HOLBORN,
W.C.
�
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
Individual, family and national poverty : reasons why in every family the number should be regulated; the methods that have been proposed, extensively adopted, and found to answer for doing it; together with a few valuable hints for the young
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Palmer, John Henry
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 17, [4] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
E. Truelove
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N529
Subject
The topic of the resource
Birth control
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Individual, family and national poverty : reasons why in every family the number should be regulated; the methods that have been proposed, extensively adopted, and found to answer for doing it; together with a few valuable hints for the young), 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
Birth Control
NSS
Population Increase
Poverty-Great Britain
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/145695dfcc6174a4e9f01c3a7a90e728.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nGsbv7Vtgy7CV6UZPjLC7hlklhINDSsv5KMvG2db-V62cG8wykI%7EWyg8XcBT5mzZnSm22dqV9F14XnU1P2m2gMHVDsaRRZpX261K2bKIM-Rc9ic%7EyYGy1MTct8RJIZ5aeVwmldxgn%7EJ4o%7EOizjfSDPWqWbDQ1aWMr%7E75wn%7EHbAPtAcAA-MFqur7gvmf9GW%7Eje2IiRKPhupsvBzZuAUdSg56Hbws3VMh58aRZE7I0WY4kK7shQIp-lf3EL8culHASxJncDT1EEg-yBvRzKxY8lz35M-g-h%7EeFPZ4qF2IF-jzSzbTrwpPeBs1D2qh3rAJmIPKzhsFOM6KKbNQUS2hu9g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
04b742b4bfa23ca7ec4e9718c0c83c46
PDF Text
Text
CATH-OLICISME LIBERAL
AUTREFOIS & AWOURD’HUI
LE
comte
JDocteur
en
jAvOCAT,
GOBLET D’ALVIELLA
sciences administrateVES & POLITIQUE!
^CoNSEILLER PROVINCIAL DU JJpABANT
BRUXELLES
LIBRAIRIE C. MUQUARDT
^MERZBACH
f'ALK
LIBRAIRES DE LA COUR
M&ME MAISON A LEIPZIG
����LE CATHOLICISME LIBERAL
AUTREFOIS ET AUIOURDTIUI
�1MPR1MRUR M ROI
�LE
CATHOLICISME LIBERAL
AUTREFOIS & AUJOURD’HUI
PAR
LE
comte
•OCTEUR
EN
jAvocat,
GOBLET D'ALVIELLA
SCIENCES ADMINISTRATIVES & POLtTIQUES
‘Uonseiller
provincial du jBrabant
Nemo potest duobus dominis servire.
(Pie IX, bref du 6 mars 1873.)
EXTRAIT
DE
LA
REVUE
DE
BELGIQUE
BRUXELLES
LIBRAIRIE C. MUQUARDT
yVlERZBACH
f'ALK
LIBRAIRES DE LA COUR
Mta MAISON A LEIPZIG
1875
�luhi GXtXKUA-
/’< H J
. «
H/’t
• «■■■ ■>•.• ««.•!;
• ' <4 -»
t
..
■ .» I"- ■■
4.',,..
1
«I ,/J -
.
l/JA
�LE CATHOLICISMS LIBERAL
AUTREFOIS ET AUJOURD’HUI *
L’ECOLE DE LAMENNAIS ET DE MONTALEMBERT
Peu de temps apres la chute du second empire, un visiteur
du chateau nagukre occupd par le comte de Montalembert au
village de la Boche-en-Brenil d6couvrit, sur les murs de la
chapelle, une inscription latine, qui ne tarda pas & soulever
toutes les colures de la presse ultramontaine. En voici la
traduction :
Dans cette chapelle, Fdlix, ev$que d’Orleans, a distribu^ le pain
de la parole et le pain de vie a un petit troupeau d'amis chritiens,
qui, habituds a combattre depuis longtemps pour VEglise libre dans
le Pays libre, ont renouveU le pacte de consacrer le reste de leur vie a
Dieu et a la Liberty. Ce XIII Octobre MDCCCLXII. Etaient Id
Alfred, comte de Falloux; Thdophile Foisset; Auguste Cochin;
Charles, comte de Montalembert. Absent de corps, mais present
d'esprit: A Ibert, prince de Broglie.
L’inscription a survecu aux engagements qu’elle formulait,
et cette pierre votive n’est plus aujourd’hui qu’une pierre tom
bale. Ses auteurs pensaient tracer sur le marbre la devise
de l’avenir; ils ne firent que r6diger l’6pitaphe anticip6e de
leur dcole.
Aujourd’hui, en Belgique comme en France, nous avons
des catholiques fanatiques et intransigeants, des catholiques
moderes et transactionnaires, des catholiques par habitude,
�par genre et par interet, voire des catholiques constitution
nels; mais nous n’avons plus de catholiques libdraux, parce
qu’il nest plus possible d’etre catholique en religion et
liberal en politique.
Si nous nous m^prenions, s’il existait encore parmi nous
des esprits qui n’ont pas renie les traditions de l’ecole rappelee par l’inscription de la Roche-en-Brenil, eh bien,
qu’ils se Invent pour imiter ces quelques catholiques anglais
qui, sur l’appel de M. Gladstone, ont courageusement place
leurs devoirs envers leur patrie au dessus de leur obeissance
envers Rome ! Qu’ils se levent pour proclamer, avec certains
deputes allemands, que le Pape n’a pas le droit d’intervenir,
h titre d’autorite spirituelle, dans le r&glement des questions
politiques, ni, & plus forte raison, d’invalider la force obligatoire des lois r6guli£rement decretees! Qu’ils se Invent au
moins pour rep&er, mdme avec les reserves dont elle s’entoure, cette declaration ins6ree par M. P. de Haulleville,
dans sa brochure de 1863 sur les Catlioliques et les libertes
constitutionnelles: « Comme chef de l’Eglise, le Pape na
« pas le droit d’imposer aux catholiques des decisions obli« gatoires portant sur des sujets purement politiques : de
« telles decisions pourraient avoir une grande et mdme une
« supreme valeur intrinseque, mais elles ne lieraient aucune
« &me, car la distinction de l’^glise et de l’Etat est de
« l’essence meme de la doctrine catholique ! »
Toutefois, entendons-nous bien : il ne suffit pas de pro
tester que le Pape n’intervient pas ou qu’il n’entend pas
intervenir, ou qu’il n’est jamais intervenu pour dieter, de
par son autorite spirituelle, la conduite politique des catho
liques beiges. Ce que nous sommes autorises h redamer,
c est une declaration explicite que le Pape n’a pas le droit de
leur imposer ses decisions dans les affaires publiques et que,
sil en manifestait la pretention, ils lui refuseraient l’obeissance.
Qu un groupe de catholiques, si peu nombreux qu’il soit,
vienne nous faire cette declaration, veritable fondement du
catholicisme liberal, et nous reconnaitrons volontiers que
�nous nous sommes trompE. Mais nous ne regretterons pas
notre erreur, car elle aura du moins contribuE a faire luire
un rayon de soleil parmi les sombres nuEes que le souffle
grandissant du papisme entasse sur l’horizon politique de
notre pays.
I
Ce n’est pas sans un certain respect que nous abordons
l’Etude du catholicisme liberal, non seulement parce que
cette Ecole appartient aujourd’hui h l’histoire, mais encore
parce qu’elle a eu ses jours d’inspiration, de grandeur et
m6me de fEconditE. Comme mouvement religieux, il offre
l’image d’un dernier effort pour arracher l’Eglise romaine
au dEpErissement fatal de tous les organismes, physiques ou
sociaux, qui ne peuvent point se plier aux Evolutions de leurs
milieux. Comme mouvement politique, il reprEsente une
suprEme tentative pour rendre la paix de lAme aux natures
religieuses que la nEcessitE de choisir entre les exigences de
leur foi.et l’esprit de leur siEcle prEcipite dans des luttes
intimes, toujours douloureuses et souvent stErilisantes. A ce
double titre, il mEriterait mieux qu’une simple Etude,
comme en comporte le cadre des publications pEriodiques.
Mais ici notre intention est moins d’exposer dans tous ses
dEtails l’histoire de son Eclat EphEmEre et de son soudain
effondrement, que de montrer, par un court rEsumE de ses
tendances et de ses destinEes, les changements opErEs depuis
quelques annEes dans l’attitude des catholiques mEme les
moins favorables aux envahissements de l’ultramontanisme.
L’Angleterre, nation protestante, a engendre le libEralisme moderne qui a trouvE aux Etats-Unis sa premiEre et sa
plus complEte application. La France et la Belgique, nations
autrefois gallicanes, Etaient le champ prEdestinE au catho
licisme libEral, qui figurait un compromis entre les idEes
politiques issues du libre examen et les dogmes religieux
enseign.Es par l’Eglise romaine, comme le gallicanisme lui-
�mime reprisentait un compromis entre les pretentions de
Rome et les droits de l’Etat.
Il est aisi d’itablir la filiation du catholicisme liberal avec
le gallicanismede l’ancien regime. La declaration du 16 mars
1682, qui, pendant plus de deux siicles, servit de base aux
franchises de l’Eglise gallicane, proclamait formellement
l’indipendance de l’ordre politique vis & vis de l’ordre religieux; on y lit, en effet, que l’autorite du Pape se borne aux
choses spirituelles et que les affaires temporelles relive nt
exclusivement du Roi. Substituez au Roi la notion de l’Etat,
conformement a la modification qui s’est introduite, de nos
jours, dans la theorie de la souverainete nationale, et vous
vous trouvez devant la veritable doctrine du catholicisme
liberal.
Nous savons bien que l’enfant a paru renier sa mire et
que l’ecole francaise du catholicisme liberal a consacrd la
plus grande partie de son existence h combattre les derniers
privileges de l’Eglise gallicane. Mais c’est qu’il y avait
dans cette Eglise deux elements distincts, sinon contradictoires. A cote du principe fondamental, qui aurait du logiquement aboutir & la separation complete de l’Eglise et de l’Etat, se
plagaient les consequences qu’en avaient deduites les legistes
de la royaute, non pour mettre l’Eglise et l’Etat sur un pied
d’egalite, mais pour renverser la balance au profit du pouvoir civil. Ainsi, le clerge de France ne pouvait communiquer avec le Pape que sous l’autorisation des pouvoirs
publics; les assemblies ginirales de l’Eglise ne pouvaient
se tenir sans l’assentiment du Roi, et les parlements intervenaient j usque dans les conflits relatifs a l’administration
des sacrements. La mime contradiction reparut & la Constituante qui, apris avoir proclami la liberti religieuse, la
restreignit par la constitution civile du clerge ou plutot par
les mesures dirigies contre les pritres insermentis. Enfin,
cest ce mime esprit rigalien qui inspira le Concordat de
lan X, le ritablissement de l’appel comme d’abus et l’octroi
du monopole & lUniversiti de France. Mais l’existence de ces
garanties, qu’i tort ou h raison les gouvernements successsif
�9 —
de la nation francaise avaient cru devoir prendre contre les
empietements eventuels de l’^glise , n’emp^che pas la
declaration de 1682 d’avoir theoriquement etabli, conform6ment aux doctrines du liberalisme, la veritable notion des
rapports entre l’Eglise et l’^tat.
Du reste, les principaux chefs du catholicisme liberal ont
eux-memes fini par admettre cette distinction. Quelques
semaines avant la mort du comte de Montalembert, on avait
releve la contradiction de ses anciens discours anti-gallicans
avec sa recente adhesion aux objections soulevees par le
P. Gratry contre le dogme de l’infaillibilite. « Je vous prie
de remarquer — repondit-il dans une lettre qui restera son
testament politique et religieux — que le gallicanisme dont
j etais 1 adversaire resolu et victorieux n’avaitde commun que
le nom avec celui que vous reprochez au P. Gratry... C’etait
uniquement l’intervention oppressive ettracassiere du pouvoir
temporel dans les interests spirituels, qu’une portion de notre
ancien et illustre clerge de France avait quelquefois trop
facilement acceptee. Mais vous ne trouverez, j’ose le croire,
pas plus dans mes discours de 1847 que dans mes autres dis
cours ou ecrits, un mot,un seul mot, conforme aux doctrines
ou aux pretentions des ultramontains d’aujourd’hui, et cela
pour une excellente raison, c’est que personne n’avait ima
gine de les soutenir et de les soulever, depuis mon entree
dans la vie publique jusqu’& l’avenement du second empire.
Jamais, gr&ce au ciel, je n’ai pense, dit ou dcrit rien de favo
rable a l’infaillibilite personnelle et s6paree du Pape, telle
qu on veut nous l’imposer, ni & la theocratie ou & la dictature
de l’Eglise que j’ai reprouvee de mon mieux dans XHistoire
des moines d'Occident, ni enfin & cet absolutisme de Rome
dont le discours que vous me citez contestait l’existence,
meme au moyen &ge, tandis qu’il forme aujourd’hui le symbole et le programme de la fraction dominante parmi nous...
Qu’est-ce qui pouvait prevoir le triomphe permanent de ces
theologiens laics de l’ultramontanisme, qui ont commence
par faire litifere de toutes nos libertes, de tous nos principes
de toutes nos idees d’autrefois, devant Napoleon III, pour
�10
venir ensuite immoler la justice et la v6rit£, la raison et
l’histoire en holocauste a l’idole qu’ils se sont drigde au Vati
can ? »1
L’dcole du catholicisme liberal s’dtait d’ailleurs tromp6e
dans ses provisions; cet aveu de Montalembert en fait foi.
Quand elle eut suffisamment sapd les derniers remparts du
gallicanisme, ce ne fut pas la liberty qui entra par la brOche,
ce fut l’ultramontanisme, et c’est lui qui, seul, rOgne
aujourd’hui dans la place, sur les ddbris du catholicisme
liberal comme sur les ruines de l’Eglise gallicane.
II
En Belgique, l’Eglise se trouvait, au siOcle dernier, rdgie
par desprincipes analogues aux rOglements de l’Eglise galli
cane. L’indOpendance du pouvoir civil y dtait formeliement
reconnue, et 1’indOpendance de l’autorite religieuse y avait
recu plus d’une atteinte, surtout sous la maison d’Autriche.
C’Otait le gouvernement qui nommait aux principaux bdnd1 D6ja ala fin de 1853, Mgr. Sibour, archeveque de Paris, avait
6crit, dans le mdme sens, au comte de Montalembert: « La nouvelle dcole
ultramontaine nous mene a une double idolatrie, idolatrie du pouvoir
temporel et idoldtrie du pouvoir spirituel. Quand vous avez fait autrefois,
comme nous, monsieur le comte, profession 6clatante d’ultramontanisme,
vous n’entendiez pas les choses ainsi. Nous defendions, contre les preten
tions et les empi&tements du pouvoir temporel, l’indypendance du pouvoir
spirituel; mais nous respections la constitution de l’Etat et la constitution
de l'Eglise. Nous ne faisions pas disparaitre tout pouvoir intermddiaire,
toute hi&rarchie, toute discussion raisonnable, toute resistance legitime,
toute individuality, toute spontaneity. Le pape et l’empereur n’ytaient pas
l’un, toute l’Eglise, l’autre, tout l’Etat. »
Enfin, le P. Lacordaire, dans un passage sur le pouvoir des papes, a
ytabli la meme distinction avec plus de nettety’encore : « Le gallicanisme
ancien est une vieillerie qui n’a plus que le souffle et a peine; mais le gal_
licanisme qui consiste & redouter un pouvoir sans limites, s’ytendant a
tout l’univers, sur deux cents millions d’intelligences, est un gallicanisme
tres vivant et meme tres redoutable, parce qu’il est fondy sur un senti
ment naturel et meme tres chrytien. »
Ces lettres montrent en meme temps avec quelle vivacity de langage et
de sentiment d’excellents catholiques, des religieux, des pryiats meme,
combattaient naguere les doctrines qui ont fini par pryvaloir & Rome.
�-H -
flees ecclbsiastiques, et les actes de la curie romaine ne pouvaient htre imprimis ou publics dans le pays sans le placet
de l’autorite civile. Les tendances gallicanes etaient surtout
representees & l’Universite de Louvain par Van Espen et son
£cole; elles inspir&rent les reformes de Joseph II et finirent
par se confondre avec le gallicanisme francais, dans le
courant qui amena, en l’an X, la conclusion du concordat.
Aussi, lorsqu’aprbs la chute de l’empire, le gouvernement
hollandais reprit dans les provinces mbridionales des PaysBas la politique religieuse de Joseph II, les catholiques beiges,
dejb, travaillds par l’6cho des predications que Lamennais
faisait retentir en France, n’hesitbrent pas & s’unir aux lib6raux pour refaire contre le roi Guillaume la revolution brabanconne de 1788.
L’attitude de nos catholiques n’etait pas desinteressee dans
cette alliance; toutefois, les debats du Congrhs prouvhrent
qu’ils croyaient sinebrement h, la necessite de reconcilier
l’Eglise avec la liberte. Le 13 decembre 1830, Mgr. de
Mean, archevhque de Malines, un representant de ces
preiats qui, en 1814, jetaient l’anathhme sur les libertes de
la loi fondamentale, ecrivait solennellement au Congrhs :
« Les catholiques forment la presque totalite de la nation
que vous etes appeies a representer et a rendre heureuse.
En vous exposant leurs besoins et leurs droits, je n’entends
demander pour eux aucun privilege : une parfaite liberte
avec toutes ses consequences, tel est l’unique objet de leurs
voeux, tel est l’unique avantage qu’ils veulent partager avec
tous leurs concitoyens. » Un incident non moins caracteristique, ce fut la protestation de l’abbh Andries contre la fermeture d’un local destine & des reunions saint-simoniennes :
« Je me croirais, dit—il h la tribune du Congrhs, le dernier
deshommes si, aprhs avoir contribue de tous mes moyens et
de grand coeur h, la liberte des cultes, je pouvais laisser soupconner que je ne l’ai voulue que pour mon propre culte. Je
ne veux pas donner credit & un pareil soupcon, et e’est pour
cela quej’ai souscrit h une proposition qui prouve que nous
voulons la liberte en tout et pour tous. » Les sentiments du
�— 12 —
,
Congres se resument, dureste, dans la Constitution elle-mAme
qui, votde par une majorite catholique, realise en quelque
sorte l’ideal politique du catholicisme liberal.
En France, ce fut dgalement aprfes la revolution de 1830
que le catholicisme liberal s’epanouit dans tout son eclat.
Tout le monde connait cette histoire de VAvenir queMrs. Oli
phant, dans sa biographic de Montalembert, appelle the very
romance of journalism. Fonde par cet abbe de Lamennais
qui passait pour un nouveau p£re de l’Eglise et qui avait
naguere refuse un chapeau de cardinal, rddigd par un petit
groupe de jeunes gens eloquents et enthousiastes comme ce Charles de Montalembert, en qui devait se resumer toute
l’histoire ulterieure du catholicisme liberal, et cet abbe
Lacordaire, qui, suivant sa propre expression, devait « vivre
en religieux penitent et mourir en liberal impenitent »,
YAvenir reclamait, au nom meme du catholicisme, toutes les
libertes qu’on etait. habitue a revendiquer au nom de la
revolution. Fideie a sa devise, Dieu et Liberty qui devait se
retrouver, trente ans plus tard, dans la chapelle de la
Roche-en-Brenil, il soutenait avec energie la cause des
nationalites opprimees. Enfin, il proclamait tout haut la
necessite d’une figlise pauvre et independante, theocratie
purement morale, vivant de ses propres ressources, sans
attaches officielles et mAme sans subsides de l’Etat.
Ce dernier point du programme eftt suffi, alui seul, pour
attirer sur la tete des novateurs les foudres de la papaute,
qui, du reste, avait deja condamne, en 1790 et 1791, par
l’organe de Pie VI, les principes essentiels de la revolution
frahcaise. Toutefois, les fondateurs de YAvenir, persuades
qu ils se trouvaient en possession de la vraie tradition catho
lique, etaient convaincus que le chef de 1’Eglise, en vertu de
son infaillibilite meme, devait necessairement partager.leur
maniere de voir. Ils prirent done les devants pour chercher
personnellement a Rome une approbation et un concours
qui leur faisaient defaut dans les spheres catholiques aussi
bien que dans les spheres liberates de leur pays. Mais,
traites avec froideur et partout econduits, ils recurent bieritd't
�13 —
l’ordre de retourner chez eux pour y attendre la decision du
Saint-Si^ge. Ils £taient a Munich quand ils apprirent la
publication de l’Encyclique qui ruinait toutes leurs esperances.
Gregoire XVI y d6clarait que « de l’indiffdrentisme seul
peut d6couler cette maxime absurde et erron6e, ou plutdt
ce d61ire : qu’il faut assurer et gararitir & qui que ce soit la
liberty de conscience. On prepare la voie & cette pernicieuse
erreur par la liberty d’opinion pleine et sans bornes qui se
r6pand au loin pour le malheur de la soci6t6 religieuse et
civile, quelques uns r^pdtant avec une extreme impudence
qu’il en r6sulte quelque avantage pour la religion. Mais,
disait saint Augustin, qui peut mieux donner la mort &
l’&me que la liberty de l’erreur? »
L’Encyclique condamnait ensuite la liberty de la presse,
d6noncant « combien est fausse, tdm6raire, injurieuse au
Saint-Si6ge et f^conde en maux pour le peuple chr6tien,
1’opinion de ceux qui, non seulement rejettent la censure des
livres comme un joug trop on6reux, mais en sont venus & ce
point de malignity qu’ils la pr6sentent comme trop oppos6e
aux principes de droiture et d’£quit6 et qu’ils osent refuser a
l’Eglise le droit de l’ordonner et de l’exercer ».
Apr&s avoir ni£, au nom des lois divines et humaines, le
droit des peuples opprim^s &la resistance et & l’insurrection,
le document pontifical s’attaquait & l’id^al religieux de
1'4 wnir et de son ecole : «Nous n’aurions rien h prSsager que
de malheureux pour la religion et les gouvernements, en
suivant les voeux de ceux qui veulent que l’Eglise soit
separee de l’Etat et que la concorde mutuelle du sacerdoce et
de l’empire soit rompue. »
Et pour qu’on ne se fasse pas d’illusions sur la portee de ses
injonctions, le Pape terminait par un appel manifeste au
bras seculier :
« Que nos chers fils en Jesus-Christ, les princes, favorisent
par leur concours et leur autorit^ ces voeux que nous formons pour le salut de la religion et de l’Etat. Qu’ils considkrent que leur autorit6 leur a 6t6 donn^e non seulement pour
�14
le gouvernement temporel, mais surtout pour defendre
l’JESglise, et que tout ce qui se fait pour l’avantage de l’liglise
se fait aussi pour leur puissance et pour leur repos. »
Nous autres, qui vivons en dehors de l’Eglise romaine,
nous ne saurions concevoir l’amertume d’un pareil desaveu
pour des esprits habitues a unir dans une meme pens6e
d amour et de veneration l’figlise et la liberty, les enseignements du souverain pontife et les besoins de la societe moderne. Lamennais qui, & raison de sa position et de son Age,
portait le principal poids de cette condamnation, ne tarda pas
A se jeter ouvertement dans le schisme. Ses collaborateurs
courbArent la tAte : Lacordaire rentra au cloitre; Montalem
bert se plongea dans des travaux d’histoire et de literature;
mais tous deux, en se soumettant, n’en conservArent pas
moins au fond du coeur, comme ils le montrferent par la suite,
les gAnAreuses illusions qui avaient inspire cette premiere
croisade du catholicisme liberal.
Ill
Du reste, Rome sentait elle-mAme que le moment n’etait
pas venu de pousser sa victoire aux derniAres consequences.
Elie avait encore besoin du catholicisme liberal, surtout en
France, oil il lui fallait renverser toutes les barriAres AlevAes
par la legislation du premier empire contre les envahissements de 1 autorite spirituelle. Or, comment demander la
liberte A sesadversaires, si ce n’est au nom du droit commun?
On laissa done Montalembert reparaitre bientAt A la tribune
pour y redamer la liberte de l’Eglise fondee sur la liberte
generale, en mAme temps que Lacordaire faisait retentir de
son eloquence la chaire de Notre-Dame. Il est vrai que le
catholicisme liberal, s’il continuait A redamer toutes les
libertes individuelles comme des droits parfaitement conciliables avec, la prospAritA de l’Eglise, avait cesse d’en faire
la base necessaire de l’orthodoxie catholique et, d’autre part,
qu’il avait jete par dessus bord l’ideed’une separation absolve
entre 1 Eglise et 1 Etat pour se rallier au regime mixte con-
�sacre par la Constitution beige de 1830. Dans ces conditions,
l’6cole vit peu & peu grossir le nombre et l’influence de ses
adherents; il suflira de citer ici les noms de Tocqueville,
d’Ozanam, de Mgr. Parisis, de l’abbe Perreyve et enfin
de Mgr. Dupanloup qui livrait & la publicity ces paroles
audacieuses : « Ces libertes si chhres & ceux qui nous accusent de ne pas les aimer, nous les proclamons, nous les invoquons pour nous, comme pour les autres. Nous acceptons,
nous invoquons les principes et les tibertes proclamAs en 89.
Vous avez fait la revolution de 1789 sans nous et contre
nous, mais pour nous, Dieu le voulant ainsi malgrd vous. »
En Belgique, l’Encyclique de Gregoire XVI avait produit
une sensation plus profonde encore que chez nos voisins,
car elle paraissait viser directement les principes essentiels
de notre Constitution. Toutefois, Fecole ultramontaine, si
puissante aujourd’hui, ne s’etait pas encore affirmee a cette
dpoque d’effervescence nationale. Aprds un premier mouve
ment de stupeur, les catholiques s’etaient mis a interpreter
le document papal de facon h lui enlever tout caractere
d’hostilite pour nos institutions fondamentales. Suivant
les uns, c’etait 1& une simple declaration doctrinale et absolue
qui restait sans valeur comme sans pretentions dans le
domaine de la politique1. Suivant les autres, c’etait au contraire une sorte de jugement particulier, uniquement appli
cable au cas de Avenir et de sa redaction, qui avaient
eux-memes reclame, la sentence du souverain pontife. Un
representant du parti catholique ayant voulu offrir sa
demission par scrupule de conscience, l’eveque de Gand,
Mgr. Vande Velde, lui repondit que l’Encyclique avait une
portee purement dogmatique et qu’elle ne s’appliquait pas h
notre droit constitutionnel. Gregoire XVI, parait-il, aurait
formellement admis, vers cette epoque, que les catholiques
beiges pouvaient pr£ter serment a notre Constitution sans
manquer h l’orthodoxie. Enfin, l’on exploita un bref, adresse
au roi Leopold cinq mois aprds l’Encyclique, oh le Pape
1 Thonissen. La Belgique sous le roi Leopold Ier, chap. IX.
�16 —
fdlicitait « l’illustre nation des Beiges d’etre restde fiddle a
sa foi au milieu des circonstances les plus difficiles ».
Aussi l’Union put-elle survivre pr6s de huit ann6es
encore. Quand elle succomba, pour laisser entre les deux
partis de notre pays un gouffre qui ira sans cesse en s’61argissant, cette rupture coincida avec les premiers d^veloppements de l’^cole ultramontaine. Toutefois, cette nouvelle
tendance resta longtemps encore tenue en 6chec par l’autorit6 des hommes qui repr&sentaient dans le parti catholique
les id^es de 1830, et qui justifiaient alors son titre de parti
conservateur. C etaient les F61ix de M^rode \ les Vilain XIIII,
les De Decker, les Dechamps, les de Muelenaere, les de Haerne,
tous morts ou silencieux aujourd’hui.
Un moment, l’on put croire que la papaute, reprdsentde
par Pie IX, allait elle-m^me entrer dans le courant des principes modernes. Mais la revolution romaine, qui forca le
nouveau Pape & fuir dans Gaete, modifia le cours de ses id6es
au point de le jeter dans les bras des j6suites, qui ne l’ont plus
lachA Sa restauration par une arm^e francaise fut le signal
d’une nouvelle reaction contre le catholicisme liberal. C’est
en 1850 que se fonda le Bien public, en meme temps que
X'Uni'oers passait aux mains de M. Veuillot, et presque au
lendemain des fetes oh le clerge francais bdnissait les arbres
de la liberte, Montalembert pouvait amerement deplorer h
la tribune la defection « de l’armee qu’il avait form.ee pen
dant vingt ans de luttes » . Apr&s le coup d’Etat, cette reac
tion s’accentua de plus en plus, et l’on put croire que le
catholicisme liberal ne se relkverait pas, en France, de la
nouvelle alliance tacitement conclue entre le tr6ne et l’autel.
1 M. Thiers avait pretendu, en 1844, que la Belgique etait asservie au
clerge. « Si votre appreciation est exacte, repondit Felix de Mdrode, je ne
puis qu’6prouver un profond regret de la part que j’ai prise a la revolution
dont l’ind6pendance est le rdsultat, puisque l’affranchissement du joug
hollandais s’est transform^ pour nos provinces en servitude politique h
ldgard du pouvoir spirituel. Or, cette servitude m'a toujours paru la
chose la plus funeste, le plus grand danger de perversion auquel puissent
Ctre exposes les peuples modernes. » Les liberaux qui, devant l’asservissement de nos campagnes, regrettent la revolution de 1830, se trouvent
done en bonne et illustre compagnie.
�- 17
Mais les instincts lib^raux ont la vie dure et, aussitdt que
le gouvernement imperial desserra un peu le b&illon de la
France, les catholiques lib^raux furent des premiers & reparaitre dans l’ar&ne. Peut-£tre la m6sintelligence, provoqu6e
par l’exp6dition d’Italie entre la papaute et l’empire, ne
fut-elle pas 6trangdre a la r6apparition de l’6cole qui voulait
revendiquer les droits de l’Eglise au nom de la liberte m^me.
Quoi qu’il en soit, nous voyons se reorganiser, vers cette
6poque, la redaction du Correspondant, qui va devenir la
principale forteresse de l’6cole catholique liberate. Le mou
vement gagne mdme les spheres ecclSsiastiques et, a c6t6
des noms signals par l’inscription de la Roche-en-Brenil,
nous voyons figurer des pr6dicateurs en renom, comme les
p&res Gratry et Hyacinthe, des preiats comme Mgr. Maret,
doyen de la Sorbonne; des theologiens comme l’abbe Godard,
professeur au grand seminaire de Langres, qui ecrit un
ouvrage— condamne, il est vrai, par la congregation de
l’Index — sur la conformity de la doctrine catholique avec
les principes de 89; enfin, un jesuite, le P. Matignon,
anxieux d’etablir que ni la cour de Rome, ni m£me la compagnie de Jesus n’avaient jamais combattu les droits naturels de la society civile. Toutes ces tentatives de conciliation
etaient d6nonc6es par l’ZTwws et par la Cwtlta Cattolica,
avec une violence de langage qui scandalisait meme les
libres-penseurs de l’epoque, mais qui ne surprend plus personne, aujourd’hui qu’elle se retrouve jusque dans la
bouche du souverain pontife.
Dans notre pays, l’ancien parti catholique commencait
6galement&se modifier par la lente infiltration des influences
ultramontaines. A la fin de 1856, pendant les debats de
l’Adresse, l’honorable chanoine de Haerne etait encore l’interprfete de ses amis politiques, quand il cdl£brait son attachement pour la Constitution qu’il avait contribud & fonder, en
ces termes, qui doivent bien scandaliser aujourd’hui ^Jour
nal de Bruxelles lui-mSme : « Disons que la Constitution est
pour nous une arche sainte; que nous y tenons par le fond de
nos entrailles, parce qu’elle est l’expression la plus vraie des
2
�— 18 —
besoins actuels et futurs de la nation beige; disons que ce
serait un crime de ldse-patrie que d’y porter atteinte, que
ce serait un parricide. » Et pourtant, dans cette m£me dis
cussion, M. De Decker, alors mihistre de l’int^rieur, devait
d&ja con stater qu’ « un souffle d’intol^rance » commencait &
passer sur la Belgique.
Quelques mois plus tard, le ministere tombait sousl’indignation du pays pour avoir cdd6 lui-m^me & ce souffle into
lerant qu’il venait de d6noncer. L’agitation populaire de
mai 1857 fut vivement exploits par les ultramontains, qui
commenc&rent, d&s lors, h jeter ouvertement le doute et le
discredit sur la valeur de nos rouages constitutionnels. Mais,
' d’un autre c6t6, la n6cessit£ de rentrer dans les bonnes graces
de la majority £lectorale contraignit toutes les forces du
parti k se ranger derriere l’ancien 6tat-major des catholiques
lib6raux,— t6moin laplate-forme liberate et m£me democratique que M. Ad. Dechamps devait faire adopter par ses
amis politiques aux Elections de 1864.
Telle 6tait la situation, lorsqu’en 1863, le Congrks de
Malines vint rassembler, autour de la m6me tribune, les
catholiques de France et de Belgique. Jamais le catholi
cisme liberal n’avait encore affirm^ aussi hautement son
amour de la liberty en tout et pour tous. Il est vrai que ce
devait 6tre son chant du cygne.
M. de Gerlache lui-m^me, l’apologiste de Philippe II,
n’h^sita pas, dans son discours d’ouverture, & proclamer, au
nom des catholiques beiges « qu’il leur importerait peu, au
fond, que l’autorit6 tomb&t aux mains des dissidents ou des
libres-penseurs, s’illeur 6tait permis d’exercer librement les
droits qu’ils tiennent de la Constitution. »
« La religion sans la liberty, disait de son cdte M. Eug.
de Kerckhove, c’est, ou bien la religion pers6cut6e, refoulde
dans lescatacombes, mutil^e surl’dchafaud, oubienla religion
protegee et imposee, aboulissant, hdlasl trop souvent a la ser
vility a la degradation, au silence, a Vheresie... La religion,
l’liglise de Die a doit dtre libre, independante, c’est son droit,
sa force, sa vie, la condition de son efficacit6; mais elle ne
�19 —
doitpas desirer la liberte pour elle seulement; cette liberte
ne serait qu’un privilege sans garantie, une faveur octroy6e
par le pouvoir, et que le pouvoir pourrait lui reprendre un
jour. »
Ce fut, ici encore, le comte de Montalembert qui r6suma
les doctrines du catholicisme liberal avec le plus de vigueur,
de nettety et d’yioquence, quand il posa en ces termes les
principes de la liberte religieuse :
« Ayant recu de Dieu, avec mon &me immortelle, la liberte
morale, la liberty de choisir entre le vrai et le faux, je sais que je
dois choisir le vrai, mais je ne veux pas Atre tenu par l’Etat de
croire ce qu’il croit vrai, parce que l’Etat n’est pas le juge de la
v6rite. Cependant, l’Etat, pouvoir civil et la'ique, souverainement
incompetent en matiere de doctrine religieuse, est tenu de me prot6ger dans la pratique de la v6rite que j’ai choisie, c’est it dire
dans l’exercice de la religion que je professe, parce que je Pai
trouv6e seule vraie et seule supdrieure h toutes les autres. C’est lh
ce qui constitue la liberte religieuse que l’Etat est tenu de res
pecter et de garantir non seulement h chaque citoyen en particulier, mais aux citoyens r^unis pour professer et pour propager
leur culte, c’est h dire aux corporations, aux associations, aux
Eglises.
Est-il besoin d’ajouter que la liberte religieuse, telle que je
l’iiivoque, ne saurait etre illimitee, pas plus qu’aucune liberte. La
liberty des cultes, comme toutes les autres, doit etre contenue
par la raison naturelie et la religion naturelle. LEtat incom
petent, en these generate, a juger entre les cultes et les opinions
religieuses, demeure juge competent, quoique non infaillible, dece
qui importe a, la paix publique, aux moeurspubliques. Contre tout ce
qui porte atteinte a la societecivile il a droit de legitime defense. »
Ce passage m^ritait d’etre city en entier; car, s’il laisse
quelque Equivoque sur le degr6 de protection due aux diff6rents cultes et h leurs associations, il nous parait poser,
dans toute leur plenitude, les vrais principes qui doivent
r6gir les rapports de l’Eglise et de l’Etat, c’est h dire, d’une
part, legality des cultes devant la loi et la neutrality de
l’Etat en mature de dogmes, d’autre part, la restriction des
libertes religieuses par les n6cessit6s de l’ordre et de la mo
rality publique, ainsi que le droit de l’lStat de dyterminer
�souverainement quelles sont ces n6cessit6s. Beaucoup de
catholiques oseraient-ils encore reproduire aujourd’hui cette
belle et fifere declaration ? Montalembert, cependant, — les
comptes rendus l’attestent — resta le h6ros de la session,
et nulle voix discordante ne vint troubler les acclamations
de l’assistance.
IV
On concoit que les janissaires de la papaute ne pouvaient
laisser impunie une pareille debauche de lib6ralisme. L’ann6e
suivante, le Congrds de Malines tint sa seconde et dernikre
session, mais elle fut loin d’offrir l’importance et l’enthousiasme de la premiere : il y avait d6j& du Syllabus dans
l’air.
C’est le 8 d6cembre 1864 que ce catalogue des erreurs
r6prouv6es par l’autorit6 pontificale fut exp6did & tous les
6v6ques du monde, en compagnie d’une Encyclique oil
Pie IX reproduisait les condamnations prononc6es par
Gregoire XVI dans son Encyclique de 1832, contre la
liberty de la presse, de la parole et de la conscience. Parmi
les erreurs qu’on signalait & l’animadversion des fiddles,
nous devons particulidrement noter les suivantes :
VII. L’Eglise n'a pas le droit d’employer, la force; elle n’a
aucun pouvoir temporel direct ou indirect.
XXXIX. L’Etat, comme 6tant la source et l’origine de tous les
droits, jouit d’un droit qui n’est circonscrit par aucune limite.
XLII. En cas de confit legal entre les deux pouvoirs, le droit
civil prtvaut.
LV. L’Etat doit etre sSpare de l’figlise et l’Eglise de l’Etat.
LXXVII. A notre Spoque, il n’est plus utile que la religion
catholique soit consid6r6e comme l’unique religion de l’Etat, h
l’exclusion de tous les autres cultes.
LXXVIII. Aussi est-ce avec raison que, dans quelques pays
catholiques de nom, la loi a pourvu a ce que les strangers qui
viennent s’y etablir y jouissent chacun de l’exercice public de
leur culte particulier.
�LXXX. Le Pontife romain peut et doit se reconcilier et se
mettre d’accord avec le progrds, avec le libGralisme et avec la
civilisation moderne.
Les catholiques libdraux de YAvenir, sauf Lamennais,
avaient accepte leur condamnation sans regimber. Les catho
liques du Congr&s de Malines refus&rent de se voir atteints
par la nouvelle Encyclique, quoiqu’elle visat cependant, dans
certaines propositions condamn6es, les termes m6mes dont ils
s’etaient servis.
Nous vimes reparaitre, en cette occasion, tout l’arsenal des
interpretations plus ou moins elastiques qu’on avait d6j&
mises en avant pour 6mousser l’Encyclique de 1832. Parmi
les plus specieuses, il faut surtout noter la fameuse distinc
tion, si sou vent reproduite & la tribune de- nos Chambres,
entre la tolerance civile et l’intoierance dogmatique.
L’Eglise romaine, dit-on, comme toutes les ISglises, et
meme toutes les dcoles de morale, s’estime en possession
exclusive de la verite; elle doit done se croire superieure &
toutes ses rivales et partant elle ne peut leur reconnaitre,
au point de vue dogmatique, des droits egaux aux siens.
Le Pape ne fait qu’user de son autoritd dogmatique en
d6niant aux fiddles le droit de repousser les decisions de
l’Eglise ou de choisir eux-m6mes leurs croyances. Mais on
ne peut en conclure qu’il leur ordonne de supprimer la tole
rance civile, c’est & dire qu’il leur enjoigne d’invoquer l’appui
de la force publique pour imposer aux autres leurs propres
opinions religieuses. Les Encycliques de 1832 et de 1864
sont simplement des declarations de principes au point de vue
disciplinaire; elles n’ont pas plus de rapports avec la poli
tique des Jfitats que les th6oremes de l’algebre ou les lois de
l’astronomie1.
1 On a dit aussi, sous une forme plus scolastique : L’homme qui a la
faculty de choisir entre le bien et le mal, n’a pas, au point de vue moral, le
droit de choisir le mal; c’est la tout ce que veut dire l’Eglise, quand.elle
conteste, a son point de vue, la liberty de l’erreur. Toutefois, comme en
fait l’apprdciation de ce qui est le bien et le mal differe suivant les individus, la faculty morale de faire son choix devient, dans le domaine du
�— 22 —
i
L
Il s’agit de bien nous entendre. Si le Pape se borne & dire:
« Hors de l’Eglise pas de salut», c’est un droit que personne
ne lui conteste. S’il veut simplement interdire i ses fiddles
les lectures qu’il juge p6rilleuses pour leur orthodoxie,
nous trouverons peut-Stre exorbitante cette pretention de
mettre en tutelle deux cents millions d’intelligences ; cependant, ce n’est en somme qu’un droit de censure priv6e, comme
en possMe tout instituteur dans son dtablissement, tout pfere
de famille dans sa maison. — Mais si telle estl’unique port6e
des deux Encycliques que nous examinons, pourquoi Gre
goire XVI terminait-il la sienne par un appel au concours et
h Xautorite des princes « ses chers fils en Jesus-Christ » ?
Pourquoi Pie IX stigmatise-t-il l’opinion de ceux qui repoussent une religion d’Etat et qui veulent accorder aux dissi
dents etrangers le droit de ceiebrer leur culte (prop. LXXVII
et LXXVIII du Syllabus)? Pourquoi r6prouve-t-il(prop. VII)
ceux qui denient & l’JSglise « le droit d’employer la force » ?
Pourquoi enfin condamne-t-il ceux qui veulent faire pr6dominer le droit civil en cas de conflit entre les deux pouvoirs
(prop. XLII) ? Cette derniere condamnation non seulement
fait litifere des principes modernes sur le rdle essentiel de
l’fJtat, tels queMontalembert lui-meme les definissait au Congrfes de Malines, mais encore proclame hautement la subor
dination complete du pouvoir civil, si meme elle n’impose le
devoir de d6sob6ir aux lois temporelles condamnSdfe par
1’ISglise.
Un theologien de mdrite, grand adversaire des ultramontains, le rev. J.-H. Newman, a fait ici une distinction qui
m6rite d’etre signalee1. Le Syllabus, comme on sait, est une
collection de condamnations d£ja prononc^es par le Vatican
dans des circonstances diverses. Or, le savant oratorien fait
pouvoir civil, la base d’un droit strict que l’Etat doit impartialement
.garantir a tous ses membres. — Voy. Thonissen. La Belgique sous le
regne de Leopold IeT, chap. IX. — P. de Haulleville. Les catholiques et les
liberty constitutionnelles. — Cardinal Sterckx. La Constitution beige et
TEncyclique de Gregoire XVI.
1 A letter on occasion of
Gladstone recent expostulation. Lon
don, 1875.
x
�observer que le Pape a signe l’Encyclique du 8 ddcembre
1864, mais non son annexe du Syllabus. Celui-ci n’est plus,
dfes lors, qu’un recueil de jugements, rassemblds par un compilateur anonyme et possedant, dans son ensemble, une
autorite purement doctrinale. Pour trouver la valeur dogma
tique de ses diverses injonctions, il faut les prendre isoldment,
dans les conditions particuli&res oil elles se sont produites,
et dans le document original d’oti elles sont tiroes. Ainsi, la
condamnation prononc^e contre la tolerance des cultes dissi
dents vise uniquement l’Espagne qui avait encouru cette
sentence dans des circonstances sp^ciales. Ainsi encore la
proposition XVII n’a de valeur dogmatique qu’h lAgard de
la Nouvelle-Grenade, et la proposition XII ne s’applique
qu’aux oeuvres d’un certain professeur Nuytz.
On voit le systdme : d’apres les uns, les condamnations
du Pape ont une portee tellement g6n6rale et absolue qu’elles
n’ont rien de commun avec les mis6rables debats de la poli
tique. D’aprSs les autres, au contraire, elles ont une portee
tellement locale et relative qu’on ne peut les etendre en
dehors des cas particuliers qui les ont motivdes.
Mais que devient le premier de ces arguments devant les
frequents exemples oil le Pape a appliqud aux lois de cer
tains Etats ses principes d’intoldrance dogmatique, renfermds, disait-on, dans la sphere de la morale individuelle ?
Quant & la seconde explication, ne mdconnait-elle pas la
portae generate de l’Encyclique oh Pie IX rappelle d tous
les fideles du globe les termes de la condamnation lanc^e
par son prdddcesseur contre la liberty de la presse et des
cultes? Qu’importe d’ailleurs! Quand le chef de cette grande
organisation religieuse qui a pour devise: Semper eadem, condamne au nom de ses principes absolus l’dtablissement de la
tolerance civile parmi les habitants de la Nouvelle-Grenade
et de l’Espagne, ne doit-il pas n^cessairement aspirer h
l’abolir chez nous, et s’il s’attribue le droit de placer les
membres catholiques de certains gouvernements entre leur
fidelite envers l’Eglise romaine et leur respect pour la liberty
publique, pourquoi n’en ferait-il pas autant, h la premiere
�— 24 —
occasion favorable, dans d’autres pays, comme la France et
la Belgique, infest6s de la meme erreur? Si bien que la
grande distinction de la politique et de la morale, de la
these et de l’hypoth^se, nous semble 6trangement se r^duire
k une question d’opportunit6 et de moyens — ce dont, au
reste, nous nous dtions toujours dout6.
Sans doute, comme fait observer Mgr. Dupanloup1, la
condamnation d’une proposition n’equivaut pas absolument
a l’affirmation de la proposition contraire. Ainsi, quand le
Pape condamne l’axiome: « Il faut proclamer et observer le
principe de non-intervention » (prop. LXII), il ne veut pas
dire « qu’on doit intervenir & tort et & travers, sans discernement, toujours. » —Mgr. Dupanloup a raison; mais quand
le Pape condamne la doctrine: « L’Eglise n’a pas le droit
d’employer la force », cette condamnation ne signifie-t-elle
pas tout au moins que, dans certains cas, l’Eglise a le droit
d’employer la force? Quand le Pape condamne 1’assertion :
«En cas de conflit entre les deuxpouvoirs, le droit civil pr6vaut», cette condamnation ne signifie-t-elle pas tout au moins
que,^o$ certains cas, il fautfaire pr6valoir le droit eccl6siastique? Or, m6me r6duites & cette port6e, ces condamnations
' de l’Encyclique et du Syllabus seraient encore autant de defis
aux principes de la soci6t6 moderne et meme aux doctrines
du catholicisme liberal.
Quand Pie IX condamne la proposition que « la papaut6
doit se reconcilier avec le progrks, le lib^ralisme et la soci6t6
moderne », assur6ment cette condamnation n’implique pas
que le Pape condamne en bloc tous les 616ments de la civili
sation moderne: les tdl^graphes, les chemins de fer, la photographie, etc. — Mais s’ensuit-il, comme le soutientM. Dupan
loup, qu’il entende uniquement condamner les abus et les
exces de cette civilisation, r£prouv6s par tous les partisans
d’une morale quelconque? Pie IX s’est charg6 lui-meme de
rdpondre & cette question, en definissant, dans son allocution
du 18 mars 1861, la civilisation avec laquelle il ne veut pas
, 1 La Convention du 15 septembre et VEncyclique du 8 decembre.
Paris, 1865.
�se reconcilier. C’est « la civilisation qui va jusqu’a favoriser
les cultes non catholiques, qui n’ecarte meme pas les infldeles
des emplois publics et qui ouvre les ecoles catholiques & leurs
enfants ». Tout commentaire serait ici superflu.
Enfin, l’on a soutenu que la condamnation du SaintSiege portait uniquement sur la liberte absolue, illimitee,
de la presse, de la parole, des cultes, etc. Or, nulle part,
ajoutait-on triomphalement, cette liberty illimitee n’existe,
ni ne saurait exister; m6me la Constitution beige a dfr pr6voir la repression legale des deiits auxquels donnerait lieu
l’usagedeslibertds qu’elle proclame. ■—Mais, puisque les gouvernements ont partout et toujours reconnu la necessity de
reprimer par des lois les excks inevitables de la liberte individuelle, qu’etait-il besoin deces protestations bruyantes pour
reprocher au monde l’oubli d’une vdrite eidmentaire que, a
part Proudhon, personne n’a jamais contestde? D’ailleurs, les
commentaires memes du Saint-Siege r£futent cette etrange
interpretation, et nous venons dej& de voir que mainte sen
tence du Syllabus avait pour objet de frapper des nations
coupables d’avoir introduit dans leurs institutions non une
liberte sans limite et sans frein,'mais une timide application
de la liberte des cultes.
Nous reconnaitrons toutefois que plusieurs de ces expli
cations etaient suffisamment specieuses pour permettre aux
catholiques liberaux de se croire encore dans les limites de
l’orthodoxie. L’esprit humain est ainsi fait que, de tr&s bonne
foi, il profitera du moindre doute, de la moindre ambiguite
pour se retrancher le plus longtemps possible dans les inter
pretations sympathiques & ses prejuges ou h ses illusions. Mais
l’ecole du catholicisme liberal n’en etait pas moins frappee
a mort. C’est sur le terrain du concile que, quatre ans plus
tard, elle livra et perdit sa dernibre bataille.
V
< ? •
•
A premiere vue on ne saisit gufere les rapports qui existent
entre le dogme de 1’infaillibilitA et les doctrines du catholi-
�— 26 —
cisme liberal. Une fois que l’Eglise revendique le droit de
faconner les institutions politiques des peuples, qu’importe
si c’est du Pape ou du concile que part le mot d’ordre? Mais,
en rdalitE, — sans parler de l’ascendant que les catholiques
absolutistes ont pu acquErir sur la personne du Pape actuel
— on doit bien admettre que l’ancien systEme des Inglises
nationales, mEme dEbarrassE de toute entrave gouvernementale, favorisait davantage non seulement l’independance des
Etats, mais encore le principe de la liberty politique; car
les EvEques, en contact immEdiat avec leurs concitoyens,
Etaient naturellement plus aptes & faire la part de leur
temps et de leur pays que les thEologiens abstraits et centralisateurs de la curie romaine, isolee et endormie dans
1’atmosphEre glaciale de ses vieilles traditions.
M. Gladstone en a fourni une preuve assez intEressante
dans sa rEcente brochure sur les dEcrets du Vatican. Lorsqu’il
fut question de donner aux catholiques anglais le droit de
siEger au Parlement, on fit une enquete pour Eclaircir si les
fiddles de l’^glise romaine n’Etaient pas tenus d’obEir, dans
leurs actes politiques, aux ordres du Vatican. En un mot,
admettaient-ils que le Pape 6tait infaillible, et que cette
infaillibilitE restait sans limites? Un prelat bien connu ,
Mgr. Doyle, rEpondit sous serment : « Les catholiques se
considerent obliges d’obeir au Pape en ce qui concerne leur
foi religieuse et dans ces questions de discipline ecclEsiastique qui ont dEj& EtE dEfinies par les auto rites compEtentes.
Mais notre obEissance & la loi et 1’allEgeance que nous devons
au souverain sont nEanmoins completes, absolues, parfaites
et sans aucune restriction ni division, puisquelles s’Pendent
d tous les droits civils, legaux et politiques du roi ou de ses
sujets1. » En mEme temps, les vicaires apostoliques qui
administraient, avec autorite Episcopate, les catholiques
1 Ce meme pr61at, interrogd sur ce que ferait le clerge catholique
d’Angleterre, si le Pape' voulait s'immiscer dans les affaires int^rieures
du pays, rSpondit officiellement : « Ce qu’il en r6sulterait, c’est que nous
lui ferions une opposition indomptable, a l’aide de tous les moyens en
notre pouvoir, meme par l’exercice de notre autoritS spirituelle. »
�— 27 -
d’Angleterre, proclamaient, dans une declaration collective,
que : « Ni le Pape, ni aucun prelat ou aucun autre ecclesiastique de TEglise catholique romaine n’a le droit de s'immiscer directement ou indirectement dans le gouvernement
civil,... ni de s’opposer en quoi que ce soit & l’accomplissement des devoirs civils qui sont dus au Roi. » Il est vrai que
ces mdmes autorites ajoutaient que, dans leur conviction,
« l’infaillibilite du Pape n’est point un article de la foi
catholique et que l’Eglise ne les oblige point h y croire ».
Tous les catholiques conviendront avec nousque ces rassurantes declarations ne seraient plus possibles aujourd’hui.
Par les d£crets du concile, non seulement l’infaillibilite du
Pape est devenue un dogme dans toutes les questions de foi,
de morale et mhme de discipline ecciesiastique, mais son
autoritd absolue, son droit a l’ob6issance des fiddles ont
encore hth 6tendus a des objets qui semblent hchapper a la
sphere de son infaillibilite—par exemple aux questions rela
tives au gouvernement de l’Eglise {quae ad disciplinary et
regimen ecclesiee... pertinent}. Or, comme fait remarquer
M. Gladstone \ mbme aux Etats-Unis d’Am6rique — et h
plus forte raison en Belgique — « on pourrait dresser un
long catalogue des objets qui appartiennent au domaine de
l’Etat, mais qui affectent incontestablement le gouvernement
de l’Eglise, par exemple, les manages, les cimetibres, l’instruction publique, la discipline des prisons, les blasphemes,
l’assistance publique, la mainmorte, les donations religieuses, les voeux de c61ibat et d’ob6issance, etc. »
On concoit quele vote de ces dhcrets ait sonn6 le glas funbbre du catholicisme liberal. Les plus avanc6s de ses adeptes,
tels que le chanoine Dollinger et l’abbe Loyson, ne recurrent
pas devant un nouveau schisme. Mais la majority se soumit
avec plus ou moins de bonne gr&ce, h commencer par
Mgr. Dupanloup, nagubre un des adversaires les plus bnergiques de la decision qui avait prbvalu au concile. L’abbe
Gratry ne donna son adhesion que deux ans plus tard, sur
1 Voy. Gladstone. The Vatican decrees. Londres, 1874.
�son lit de mort. Le pere Lacordaire s’etait eteint en 1858.
Quant h Montalembert, il eut le bonheur de descendre dans
la tombe quelques semaines avant la terrible alternative oil
l’aurait place la victoire definitive des ultramontains.
Le 28 f6vrier 1870, dans la lettre que nous avons citde
plus haut comme le testament politique et religieux de sa
longue et brillante carri^re, ce vigoureux athlete du catholicisme liberal avait exhale cette supreme protestation, qui
fait songer & l’ave, Cesar, morituri te salutamt des gladiateurs mourants :
« Dans l’ordre politique, nous sommes dej& deiivresde
l’ancien regime, que tant d’esprits faux et serviles avaient
acclame comme fapogee de l’ordre et du progrfcs, et nous
voyons renaitre l’ordre avec la liberte. Dansl’ordre religieux,
je reste enfin convaincu, malgre toutes les apparenees contraires, que la religion catholique, sans subir la moindre
alteration dans la majestueuse immobilite de ses dogmes ou
de sa morale, saura s’adapter en Europe, comme elle l’a dej&
fait en Amerique, aux conditions inevitables de la societe
moderne et qu’elle demeurera comme toujours la grande
consolation et la grande lumibre du genre humain. »
Cinq mois n’avaient point passe sur ces genereuses pre
dictions que la France avait declare la guerre h la Prusse et
que le dogme de l’infaillibilite papale etait entrd dans la
constitution de 1’lSglise romaine. 11 y a vraiment de ces
heures de vertige, oh, de toutes parts, le monde prend a tache
de justifier l’antique adage : « Dieu frappe de folie ceux
qu’il veut perdre. >
�LA FIN D’UN GRAND PARTI
On vient d’assister h la ddroute du catholicisme liberal sur
le terrain du concile. Les catholiques libdraux, qui pouvaient
encore se trouver dans les rangs du clergd, furent naturellement les premiers & courber la tdte, et, depuis l’exode des
vieux catholiques, c’est l’ultramontanisme qui a eu seul la
parole dans les facultds de thdologie et dans les mandements episcopaux, comme dans les chaires des prddicateurs
a la mode et dans les publications des dcrivains eccldsiastiques. Mais, parmi les laics, les ddcrets du Vatican laissaient
debout un petit groupe de fiddles qui t&chaient encore,
contre vent et marde, d’accommoder leurs anciennes convic
tions libdrales avec les exigences de la papautd. Tels dtaient,
en France, les disciples survivants de Montalembert, rallies
autour du Correspondent, et, en Belgique, les reprdsentants
des traditions qui avaient animd noire Congrds national de
1830. Il restait 1&, dans les deux pays, un centre d’opposi
tion, momentandment impuissant, mais capable, & un instant
donnd, d’entrainer dans son orbite la masse flottante de
ces esprits superficiels, si nombreux parmi nos populations
catholiques, qui t&chent machinalement de concilier l’accomplissement de leurs devoirs religieux avec les impdrieuses
�ndcessitesde la vie moderne. Pour que l’ultramontanisme put
dire sa victoire complete, il fallait que ces derniers foyers de
resistance fussent eteints ou disperses. Ce fut l’objet d’une
nouvelle campagne, qui s’ouvrit peu de temps aprfcs le con
cile et qui se poursuit, ou plutdt, s’ach&ve sous nos yeux.
I
Le 18 juin 1871, une nombreuse deputation de catho
liques francais, conduite par l’evAque de Nevers, etait venue
feiiciter Pie IX d’avoir atteint le vingt-cinquieme anniversaire de son pontificat. Voici ce que Sa Saintete leur
repondit en francais :
Mes chers enfants, il faut que mes paroles vous disent bien ce
que j’ai dans mon coeur... L’atheisme dans les lois, l’indifference
en matidre de religion et ces maarimes pernicieuses, qu’on appelle
catholiques-lib&rales, voila, oui, voila les vraies causes de la
mine des Etats, et ce sont elles qui ont prdcipite la France.
Croyez-moi, le mal que je vous signale est plus terrible encore
que la Revolution, que la Commune m&me.
Ici1 le Saint-P^re porta la main h son front et, avec un
mouvement qui indiquait un amer chagrin meld & une profonde indignation, il dit : « J’ai toujours condamnd le libd« ralisme catholique »; levant alors les mains, il ajouta
avec vivacitd et avec force : « Et je le condamnerais quarante
« fois encore, s’il le fallait. » Puis il continua :
A cepropos, je me souviens d’un Frangais qui avait une place
61evee et que j’ai connu de pres ici, & Rome; j’ai eu meme occa
sion de parler avec lui, et il me faisait de grands compliments.
C’etait ce que l’on appelle un homme distingue, honnete, qui pratiquait sa religion et se confessait. Mais il avait des idees etranges
1 Cette allocution fit grand bruit a l’6poque ou elle fut pronbnc£e;
cependant les journaux n’en avaient donn6 qu’un texte abr6g6 et m6me
att6nu6. C’est seulement depuis quelques semaines que la version authentique — telle que nous la reproduisons textuellement — a paru dans l’6dition, autorisie et revue par le Saint-P&re, des allocutions prononc£es au
Vatican, durant ces quatre dernidres annees.
�- 31 -
et certains principes que je n’ai jamais pu comprendre comment
ils avaient pu prendre racine dans un catholique de bonne foi.
C’6taient pr6cis6ment les maximes dont je parlais tout & l’heure.
Ce personnage soutenait que, pour bien gouverner, il faut
avoir une legislation athde, de l’indiff^rence en matidre de reli
gion, et cette singuliere tactique qui sait s’accommoder h toutes
les opinions, h, tous les partis, & toutes les religions, et unir
ensemble les dogmes immuables de TJSglise avec la liberty des
cultes, des consciences. Nous etions d’accord sur plusieurs points;
sur ceux-ci, jamais.
Cet homme, que faisait-il, en effet? Aujourd’hui, une chose;
demain, une autre tout oppos^e. Un de ses amis, qui etait protes
tant, mourut & Rome; il suivit son convoi et assista aux fundrailles dans un temple protestant! On fait certainement tres bien
d’assister les protestants dans leurs n6cessites, leurs maladies, et
de leur faire l’aumdne, l’aumdne de la verity surtout, pour pro
curer leur conversion; mais c’est chose extremement blamable
que de participer & leurs c6r6monies religieuses.
Que pensent de ce passage les divers chefs de notre parti
catholique qui prirent part aux fun6railles d’un auguste
protestant, premier roi des Beiges? Qu’en pense surtout cer
tain membre de notre cabinet actuel qui assistait nagufere a
« l’enfouissement» civil d’un haut magistrat, mort en librepenseur? Il est vrai que, d’apres l’organe officieux du Vati
can, nos ministres ne sont que des cldricaux faux teint, des
ribaldi, des « catholiques lib^raux » pour tout dire!
On doit croire, cependant,que, malgrele retentissement de
cette allocution, les derniers catholiques lib6raux ne se
hat&rent pas suffisamment de depouiller le vieil homme, car
l’ann6e 1873 voit accumuler bref sur bref contre leurs « pernicieuses » doctrines.
Sans parler du bref adress6, le 10 f6vrier, h 1’Association
g6n£rale des catholiques allemands, pour les exhorter & combattre la politique religieuse dugouvernementprussien, nous
devons signaler en premiereligne lebref que Pie IX envoyait,
le 6 mars, a la jeunesse catholique de Milan :
Oui, h61as! il y en a qui ont l’air de vouloir marcher d’accord
avec nos ennemis et s’efforcent d’etablir une alliance entre la
lumiere et les tSndbres, un accord entre la justice et l’iniquitd, au
�moyen de ces doctrines qu’on appelle catholiques - liberates,
lesquelles, s’appuyant sur les principes les plus pernicieux,
flattent le pouvoir laic quand il envahit les choses spirituelles et
poussent l’esprit au respect ou tout au moins h la tolerance des
lois les plus iniques, absolument comme s’il n’etait pas ecrit que
personne nepeut servir deux maitres. Or, ceux-ci sont plus dangereux assurSment et plus funestes que des ennemis declares, et
parce qu’ils secondent leurs efforts sans etre remarques, peut-etre
mdme sans s’en douter, et parce que, se maintenant sur Textr&me
limits des opinions formellement condamndes, ils se donnent une
certains apparence d’inttgrite et de doctrine irreprochable, alltchant ainsi les imprudents amateurs de conciliation et trompant
les gens honn^tes, lesquels se revolteraient contre une erreur
declaree.
Le 8 mai suivant, c’est notre pays qui a son tour, par un
bref adressd h la Fidiration des cercles catholiques de Bel
gique :
Ce que nous louons le plus dans cette religieuse entreprise,
c’est que vous etes, dit-on, remplis d’aversion pour les principes
catholiques-lib&raux que nous tdchez d'effacer des intelligences,
autant qu'il est en notre pounoir.
Ceux qui sont imbus de ces principes font profession, il est nrai,
d'amour et de respect pour I'Fglise et semblent consacrer a sa de
fense leurs talents et leurs trataux; mais ils n’en tranaillent pas
moins apernertir son esprit et sa doctrine;Qi chacun d’eux, suivant
la tournure particuliere de son esprit, incline b. se mettre au ser
vice, ou deC6sar, oude ceux qui inventent des droits enfaveur de
lafausse liberty. Ils pensent qu’il faut absolument suivre cette
voie pour enlever la cause des dissensions, pour concilier avec
l’Evangile le progres de la soci6t6 actuelle et pour retablir l’ordre
et la tranquillit6; comme si la lumiere pouvait coexister avec les
t6n6bres, et comme si la verity ne cessait pas d’etre la verity, des
qu’on lui fait violence en la dGtournant de sa veritable significa
tion et en la depouillant de la fixit6 inh6rente a sa nature.
Cette insidieuse erreur est plus dangereuse quune inimitit
ouverie, parce qu’elle se couvre du voile spScieux du zele et de la
charit6; et c’est assurSment en vous efforcant de la combattre et
en mettant un soin assidu & en 61oigner les simples, que vous
extirperez la racine fatale des discordes et que vous travaillerez
efficacement h produire et h entretenir l’union btroite des ames.
Ce n’estdonc pas aujiw^ liberal, aux heretiques etauxlibrespenseurs que s’adresse ce bref, mais bel et bien h ces catho-
�33 —
liques qui, chez nous, s’intitulent moddrds, parlementaires,
constitute onnels.
Le 9 juin, dans un bref au Comitb catliolique dCOrlia/ns,
le Souverain Pontife revient sur la m&ne idde :
Bien que vous ayez h soutenir la lutte contre l’impidte, cependant vous avez moins & redouter de ce cdte, peut-dtre, que de la
part d’un groupe compost d’hommes imbus de cette doctrine,
laquelle, tout en repoussant les consequences extremes des
erreurs, en retient et en nourrit obstinement le premier germe et
qui, ne voulant pas embrasser la vdritd tout entiere, riosant pas
non plus la rejeter tout entire, s'efforce d‘interpreter les enseignements de TEglise de maniere a les faire concorder d peu pres avec
ses propres sentiments.
Car, aujourd’hui encore, il en est qui adherent aux vdrites
rdcemment ddfinies par un pur effort de volonte, et cela pour
dviter I’accusation de schisme et pour abuser leur propre con
science; mais ils n’ont nullement « depose cette hauteur qui
« s’dleve contre la science de Dieu, ni rdduit leur intelligence en
« captivite sous l’obeissance de Jdsus-Christ ».
Cependant, les malheureux catholiques liberaux — qui
s’etaient donnd tant de peine, k l’apparition du Syllabus,
« pour interpreter les enseignements de 1’ISglise de mani&re
a les faire concorder h peu prds avec leurs propres senti
ments » — mettaient encore de la mauvaise grA.ce, parait-il,
A se reconnaitre dans cette description. Alors, le 9 juillet,
comme pour souffler sur leurs dernidres illusions, Pie IX
envoie A, l’dvdque de Quimper un bref oil Sa Saintetd commente elle-mdme ses declarations prdcddentes :
Avertissez, vdndrable frere, les membres de l’Association catho
lique que, dans les nombreuses occasions ou nous avons repris
les sectateurs des opinions libdrales, nous n’avons pasen vue ceux
qui halssent l’Eglise et qu’iZ cdt ete inutile de designer, mais bien
ceux que nous venons de signaler, lesquels, conservant et entretenant le virus cache des principes liberaux qu’ils ont sued avec le
lait, sous pretexte qu’il n’est pas infestd d’une malice manifeste
et n’est pas, suivant eux, nuisible & la religion, l’inoculent aisdment aux esprits, et propagent ainsi les semences de ces revolu
tions dont le moDde est depuis longtemps dbranld.
Il dtait impossible de viser plus directement les opinions
de presque tous les catboliques qui avaient pris la parole au
y
3
�— 34 —
CongrAs de Malines. D’ailleurs, les encouragements prodiguAs, depuis cette allocution, par le Saint-PAre aux adver'saires invAtArAs de l’ancienne Acole catholique-libArale,
achAvent de prAciser contre quels hommes et quelles ten
dances Ataient dirigAes les condamnations papales.
Tout le monde connalt les doctrines de la Croix. Voici les
felicitations que Pie IX envoyait, le 21 mai 1874, & la redac
tion de cette feuille ultramontaine :
... C’est pour nous un devoir de louer le dessein que votre lettre
nous fait connaitre et auquel nous avons appris que votre journal
repond pleinement, & savoir : de produire, de repandre, de mettre
en lumiere, de faire pAnAtrer dans les esprits tout ce que le SaintSiAge a enseignA contre des doctrines coupables ou contre des
doctrines pour le moins fausses et regues en plus d’un lieu,
notamment contre le liberalisme catholique qui tache de concilier
la lumiAre avec les tenebres, la vAritA avec l’erreur.
Sans doute, vous avez entrepris 1& une tache bien rude et bien
difficile, puisque ces doctrines pernicieuses, qui ouvrent le cbemin
* & toutes les entreprises de 1’impiAtA, sont en ce moment soutenues
avec violence par tous ceux qui se glorifient de favoriser le prdtendu prog res de la civilisation; par tous ceux qui, faisant consister la religion dans les actes extArieurs et n’ayant pas son
veritable esprit, parlent partout et tres haut de paix, alors qu’ils
ignorent la voie de la paix et attirent a eux, par ce proce'de, le
nombre tres considerable des hommes que seduit Vamour egoisle du
repos.
Ces gens que seduit V amour dgoiste durepos, nous semblent
bien procbes parents des hommes politiques qui prAchent
une politique « d’apaisement » et qui mettent toute leur
adresse & Aviter « les dAbats irritants ».
Il est & peine besoin de rappeler les brefs dont ont AtA
rAcemment honorAs le rAdacteur en chef du Courrier de
Bruxelles et l’auteur des Lois de la societe chretienne.
Plut & Dieu, Acrivait le Pape & M. Ch. PArin, que ces vAritAs
fussent comprises de ceux qui se vantent d'etre catholiques tout en
adJidrant obstin&ment a la liberty des cultes, a la liberte de la presse
et a d autres libertes de la meme espece, decrdtees a la fin du siecle
dernier par les revolutionnaires et constamment rdprouvdes par
lEglise, de ceux qui adhArent & ces libertAs non seulement en
tant qu’elles peuvent Atre tolArAes, mais en tant qu’il faut les
considerer comme des droits, qulil faut les favoriser et les defendre
�comme nfcessaires a la condition prdsente des choses et & la marche
du progrds.
Ainsi, le Pape condamne mdme ceux qui se bornent &
representer les principes de notre Constitution comme ndcessaires a la condition presente des choses. Il faut un singulier
aplomb pour soutenir, comme le Journal de Bruxelles, que
ce bref est une justification indirecte et non une flagrante
condamnation de la politique adoptde par ses patrons. Le
Courrier de Bruxelles s’est d’ailleurs charge de lui rdpondre
au nom delalogique ultramontaine, enl’invitantsimplement,
mais inutilement, & reproduire le bref ainsi reprdsentd
« sous un jour errond ».
Parmi les nombreuses attestations analogues prodiguees
par Pie IX aux ecrivains qui defendent en France les’iddes
ultramontaines, nous citerons seulement les lettres adressees
au chanoine Morel et & Mgr. de Sdgur, parce qu’elles compldtent la signification des brefs reproduits plus haut.
M. Morel, chanoine honoraire de la cathedrale d’Angers,
demontre une fois de plus qu’un exalte trouvera toujours
un plus exalte qui l’excite, car il en est venu & incriminer le
moderantisme... de M. Veuillot lui-mdme! Partisan ddvoud
de l’inquisition espagnole, qu’il appelle « la sentinelie la plus
« dclairde, la plus vigilante et la plus incorruptible » de la
citadelle catholique; apologiste convaincu de la torture < que
« l’Eglise n’a jamais regardde avec defaveur » et quelle
devait employer « sous peine de faire dclore des inconvd« nients plus graves », — cet enfant terrible de l’Eglise a
consacrd un ouvrage h rdfuter les alldgations des catholiques
qui, par respect humain, cherchaient, soit & attdnuer les
rigueurs et les cruautds de la procddure inquisitoriale, soit
& ddgager la responsabilitd des papes en rejetant l’organisation du saint office sur le compte du pouvoir royal. Enfin,
dans la prdface d’un ouvrage publid en 1869, sous le titre
d’Incartades liberates de quelques auteurs catholiques, il
termine ainsi l’dnumdration des erreurs catholiques-libdrales
qu’il a cru trouver mdme chez des dcrivains jusque-1^ peu
soupconnds d’hdtdrodoxie : « Des ultras qui sont encore des
�— 36 —
consentiraient bien & s’avancer jusqu’au point de
d6fendre le grand cardinal Xim6n£s; mais ils frissorment
au nom de la torture /preventive, surtout si cette question
rigoureuse menace un savant qui a la raison de son cbtt,
Galilee, par exemple... Nous d^velopperons successivement
nos theses contre ces erreurs ou fractions d’erreur. »
De pareilles 6normit6s, Kerites h froid, ne valent-elles
pas les sinistres declamations de l’lnternationale rouge? Eh
bien, le 7 octobre dernier, ce fanatique — que nous aurions
voulu croire isoie dans notre dix-neuvi&me sifecle, — recevait
du Pape infaillible une lettre de felicitations pour son cou
rage & defendre « la saine doctrine contre les pretentions
« de ceux qu’on nomme catholiques liberaux » !1
Et l’on s’etonnerait de voir la republique de l’Equa^eur
arrieres,
songer & retablir l’inquisition! A quand les « grandioses »
auto-da-fe qui, suivant M. le chanoine Morel, ont fait la
gloire et le salut de l’Espagne?
Le dernier bref, que nous avons & rappeler, a ete adresse
le ler avril 1874 a Mgr. de Segur, pour le feiiciter d’une
publication intitulee : Hommage aux jeunes catholiques libdraux. Cette petite brochure, publiee au commencement de
l’annee derniere, a deja atteint sa dixieme edition; h&tonsnous d’ajouter qu’ellejustifie pleinement ce succ&s par la fran
chise de son langage et par la logique de son argumentation.
Mgr. de Segur s’y donne pour but d’abord de resumer et de
coordonner les condamnations prononcees par le Souverain
Pontife contre les doctrines du catholicisme liberal, en second
lieu, de rechercher et de definir, conformement aux paroles
memes du Pape, ce qu’il faut entendre par le mot de catho
licisme liberal: « Aucun catholique, dit-il, ne pense & nier,
en theorie, le droit souverain de Jesus-Christ; mais en pra
tique, lorsqu’ils sont atteints de liberalisme, les catholiques
1 L' Univers, du 4 avril, annonce que ce meme abbe Morel vient d’etre
nomm.6, par le Pape, consulteur de la Sacrde congregation de l’lndex. Un
billet du cardinal Antonelli portant cette nouvelle a la connaissance de
l’int6ressd, le 6 mars dernier, nous apprend que cette faveur lui a 6t6
accordSe « & raison de son intelligence et de la rectitude de ses Merits. »
�37 -
se conduisent en vrais lib^raux; au lieu de defendre, comme
c’est leur devoir, le droit de Jfeus-Christ et de son ^glise,
ils sont toujours pr^ts & le sacrifier, au nom de la politique,
au nom des n^cessitds du temps, au nom de l’opinion
publique, au nom des faits accomplis. On les voit revendiquer, au moins indirectement, pour les ennemis de la foi,
la liberty d’attaquer l’Eglise, et ils mettent une sorte de
g6nerosit£ chevaleresque a soutenir les pr6tendus droits de
l’erreur et & r^clamer pour les ennemis de Dieu des privileges
,6gaux ceux de ses serviteurs. Ils feront, comme hommes
publics, des actes qui impliquent la negation de ce qu’ils
croient comme hommes priv6s. De pareilles tendances, con
sequences logiques des principes catholiques - lib£raux,
peuvent-elles, je le demande, se concilier avec la foi d’un
vrai chretien? Un m£me homme peut-il avoir deux con
sciences, et ce qui est faux pour l’homme priv6, peut-il 6tre
vrai pour l’homme public? » 1
Quel esprit de bonne foi peat refuser de reconnaitre dans
cette description les doctrines professees par les catholiques
du Congres national et du Congr&s de Malines — en un mot,
les doctrines de nos catholiques constitutionnels... quand
ils avaient encore une doctrine?
** J
II
chasses dans leurs derniers retranchements? Ils pouvaient, a
la rigueur, pr^tendre que ces brefs n’avaient pas d’autorite
dogmatique, sous pr^texte qu’ils ne r^unissaient pas les condi
tions exig^es pour les «d63nitions de foi». Maisilconvientde
se rappeler que les decrets du Concile ont 6tendu l’autorit6
absolue des papes sur presque tous les objets ou le Souverain
Pontife croit en jeu les int6r£ts de l’Eglise. Des lors, comme
1 Mgr. de Sdgur ddveloppe dgalement cette idde que la liberty est upe
idde essentiellement protestante etle libdralisme, un « rejeton » du protestantisme. Il est assez curieux de voir un prdlat ultramontain se rencontrer ainsi avec MM. F. Laurent et Em. de Laveleye.
�— 38 —
fait observer Mgr. de S6gur, « du moment que le Pape parle
et enseigne officiellement, il importe peu que ce soit par un
bref, ou par une ency clique, ou par une bulle; ce qui importe
uniquement, c’est de savoir ce qu’il entend enseigner. Dans
les cinq brefs en question, la pens^e pontificale ne saurait
Atre douteuse, non plus que la port6e magistrale quele Pape
entend donner & sa parole. En effet, ainsi que le fait remarquer le docte et lumineux 3v£que de Poitiers, le Pontife
romain n’invoque rien moins ici que I’infaillibilitG de son
pouvoir doctrinal. Il reclame explicitement une pleine et
humble soumission au Saint-Si^ge et A son infaillible minist6re (bref a la federation des Cereles beiges), et cela au moment
m6me oil il va enseigner dans un simple bref que les opinions
lib6rales sont des erreurs, des erreurs maintesfois r6prouv6es
dont il faut se d6fier plus que de l’impi6t£ elle-m&me. »
D’autre part, ces brefs sont en quelque sorte un long commentaire du Syllabus et un commentaire d’autant plus
d^cisif que l’autorit6 dont il emane est elle-m6me la source
du document h interpreter. Si done on pouvait contester leur
portae dogmatique, on ne pouvait en aucun cas leur refuser
le merite de donner & un acte — dont aucun fiddle ne nie la
force obligatoire — une interpretation qui aneantissait les
dernieres echappatoires du catholicisme liberal.
Les catholiques liberaux n’avaient plus, d£s lors, qu’& se
retirer.de l’Eglise ou h se soumettre. Nous comprenons
sans p'bine tout ce qu’ils devaient trouver de grave et de
douloureux h l’eventualite d’une rupture avec Rome. Et
pourtant ils avaient la un beau rdle & jouer — ou du
moins & tenter! S’ils avaient su s’eiever h la hauteur de
la situation, si, confiants dans la justice de leur cause
et la saintet6 de leurs intentions, apr^s avoir recule jusqu’aux derni&res limites de la soumission compatible avec
l’independance de leur conscience, ils avaient respectueusement, mais fermement crie au papisme : Tu n’iras pas plus
loin, — ils auraient sauvegardd leur dignity en m6me temps
que leur foi, ils auraient definitivement assis leur ecole sur
des fondements qui n’auraient plus menace ruine au moindre
�— 39
souffle du Vatican. Avec le concours du libdralisme, qui
n’aurait pas commis la sottise de prdtexter son d6sint£ressement des questions religieuses pour repousser une alliance
capable de deplacer la balance de nos partis politiques \ ils
auraient r6duit & nine impuissance complete cette faction
ultramontaine qui les tient aujourd’hui prisonniers dans leur
* propre camp, et qui, par un raffinement de vengeance ou
d’habiletd, se sert de leurs bras pour saper leur oeuvre. Enfin,
ils auraient peut-^tre donnd le signal de la seule renovation
qui puisse encore sauver le catholicisme d’une debacle finale,
ou tout au moins ils nous auraient ouvert une issue pour
6chapper h ce deplorable antagonisme du sentiment religieux
et de la liberty politique qui est en train de perdre notre pays,
comme, du reste, toutes les populations resides fiddles h
1’jSglise de Rome.
Mais ils ne Font pas voulu! A une resistance pleine de
grandeur, ils ont prdfflrd une resignation pleine d’amertume,
qui comptera parmi les phdnomfcnes sociaux les plus caractdristiques d’un si&cle si fdcond pourtant en singularity
religieuses et politiques. Il est vrai que le virus de lapapolatrie, graduellement infiltr6 dans leurs veines, avait depuis
longtemps affaibli la constitution de leur parti, en apparence
si robuste encore il y a vingt ans. Qui done aujourd’hui
— parmi les laics militants du catholicisme, aussi biep que
dans les rangs de sa hi^rarchie sacerdotale — oserait seulement formuler la simple pens£e d’une resistance quelconque
aux injonctions du Pape declarant lui-meme qu’il commande
1 Aujourd’hui encore — ainsi que le faisait dernierement ressortir la
Flandre liberate, — si l’exemple des quelques curds siciliens qui viennent
de quitter 1’Eglise romaine a la tete de leurs paroisses pouvait, par extra
ordinaire, trouver des imitateurs chez nous, les liberaux devraient favoriser cette diversion par tous les moyens ldgitimes en leur pouvoir, prives
ou publics, et notamment en faisant transferer & la nouvelle Eglise la part
la plus large possible des avantages materiels actuellement assures au
culte catholique-romain. Ajoutons que cette judicieuse politique ne compromettrait en rien notre fidelite au principe de la separation absolue
entre l’Eglise et l’Etat. Il est mdme & craindre, devant l’art. 131 de la
Constitution, que cet objectif final de notre parti ne puisse s’atteindre sans
une vdritable revolution religieuse dans les sentiments de nos populations^
�— 40 —
ex cathedra? Plus que jamais, 1’Eglise romaine realise de
nos jours l’image autrefois appliqu^e & 1’autocratie russe :
une vaste steppe avec une tour au milieu. La steppe, ce sont
ces millions de consciences catholiques abaiss^es, nivel^es,
« r6duites en captivity » par les dogmes de l’omnipotence et
l’infaillibilitd papales; la tour, c’est ce palais du Vatican oil
quelques janissaires fanatiques montent la garde autour
dune idole mitr6e!
Encore si le catholicisme liberal avait su mettre dans son
abdication la dignitd que lui commandait l’^clatde son pass6.
A vrai dire, quelques uns de ses principaux chefs, comprenant qu’ils ne pouvaient plus affirmer leurs convictions,
aimfcrent mieux se taire d6sormais que de parler pour ne
plus rien dire, et nous devons nous incliner devant ces quel
ques esprits convaincus qui jug^rent une retraite pr6matur6e
pr6fdrable & un vrai role d’eunuques politiques. Mais le
grand nombre, qui ne voulait ni ne pouvait plus vivre, ne
sut pas mOme mourir. Il tenta encore de se d6rober aux condamnations d^sormais inGluctables du Vatican en quittant
subrepticement le terrain des principes pour chercher un
refuge surle terrain des faits. Il ne comprit pas qu’h force de
secramponner h la vie,il allait perdre toute raison de vivre.
Nous ne nierons pas que les circonstances ne se soient
prM6es & cette dtrange tactique. Le parti des catholiques
liberaux avait toujours compris deux dl6ments : l’un com
post des £crivains et des orateurs qui poursuivaient, au nom
de leurs principes et en pleine connaissance de cause,
l’alliance de* l’Eglise romaine avec la liberty politique —
l’autre form6 de ces masses que nous avons montr^es s’efforcant par instinct d’accorder les aspirations du si6cle avec les
exigences de leur culte. Quand de ces deux dements le pre
mier se d6sagr6gea sous les foudres papales, ses ddbris trouvbrent naturellement au sein du second un asile trop com
mode pour n’Atre pas tenths de s’y r6fugier, m6me en laissant
leurs principes & la porte. Mais, par le fait mAme de cette
Evolution, le catholicisme liberal a abdiqud son tang d’6cole
philosophique et religieuse pour devenir une simple expres-
�sion politique de ces attaches inconscientes qui imposent aux
masses, quels que soient leurs erreurs et leurs prejuges, le
respect des conditions essentielles a la conservation de leur
milieu social. LA oil il y avait nagukre une doctrine devant
nous, il ne reste plus aujourd’hui qu’une juxtaposition de
craintes et d’intdr^ts. Cette transformation marque la troisieme et probahlement la derni&re phase de l’ecole catho
lique liberate.
,
.
UAvenir proclamait que toutes les libert6s etaient de droit'
divin et que la moindre immixtion de l’Eglise dans le
domaine temporel etait un crime de l&se-christianisme.
Aprks l’Encyclique de Gregoire XVI, l’ecole de Montalembert, sans affirmer encore que la liberty etait une Gonsdquence directe et n^cessaire de la doctrine catholique, continua & en faire un droit de l’homme reposant sur le fait du
libre arbitre, ainsi que sur Pincompetence de l’Etat dans les
questions de dogmes, — ajoutant que le regime du droit
commun etait la condition sociale la plus favorable aux
progr&s de la society et la plus avantageuse pour l’^glise
elle-mdme.
Or, aujourd’hui, pour les moins r^actionnaires de nos
catholiques, la liberty n’est plus un droit; c’est une simple
transaction entre les partisans et les adversaires de la v6ritd
catholique. Elie represente un etat social inf6rieur au r&gne
des lois de 1’lSglise. On peut la tol6rer 1& ou elle existe, et
l’etablir 1& ou elle est profitable au catholicisme; mais on ne
peut ni l’aimer ni la rechercher pour elle-m^me, et surtout
Ton ne peuts’y rallier qu’a condition d’en espdrer ladisparition.
Si l’on croitque nous calomnions nos catholiques soi-disant
constitutionnels, qu’on relise, dans leur principal organe,
Particle que nous avons d6j& cit6 au sujet du bref rdcemment
obtenu par M. Ch. P6rin. On y voit apparaitre, dans tout
leur naif machiavelisme, les embarras des gens qui veulent
encore manager la ch&vre de Rome et le chou de notre
Constitution. Ainsi, le bref papal louait M. Perin d’avoir
enseigne que, sous l’empire de certaines circonstances, on
peut tol6rer les deviations de la rdgle, lorsque ces deviations
�— 42 —
ont ete introduces dans les lois civiles pour 6viter de plus
grands maux, mais que dans aucun cas il ne faut Clever ces
deviations & la hauteur de droits. Le Journal de Bruxelles
traduit ce passage comme si le Saint-P6re avait lou6 M. Pdrin
d’enseigner que certains principes, quoique r^prouv^s en
these absolue, peuvent parfaitement' trouver place dans les
lois et y etre inscrits & titre de droits. Voila pour le chou
de la constitution. — La feuille officieuse s’efforce ensuite de
justifier, au point de vue catholique, son attachement & notre
Constitution, en rappelant que la faculty de revision, inscrite
dans l’art. 131, ne donne pas & nos liberty fondamentales le
caractere d’institutions normales et irr&vocables. C’est & dire
que tout bon catholique peut impun^ment leur apporter son
concours, puisqu’il lui reste permis d’en espSrer le renversement. Voil& pour la chdvre romaine!
Qu’on rapproche de ce langage mesquin, embarrassd,
Equivoque, les belles et explicites declarations prof6r6es
en faveur de nos institutions par tant de catholiques sinceres, depuis le Congr&s national jusqu’au Congr^s de
Malines : on aura la mesure de la distance qui s6pare les
catholiques lib6raux d’autrefois et les pr6tendus catholiques
constitutionnels d’aujourd’hui. Ce sont d’autres principes,
d’autres allures; c’est une autre langue, un autre monde.
En France, une modification analogue s’est op6r£e sous
l’empire des memes circonstances parmi les derniers survi
vals du groupe qui repr^sentait les doctrines consacr6es
par l’inscription de la Roche-en-Brenil. Lamort a d6j& frapp6,
plus d’un coup dans le petit cenacle de 1862; le d^couragement et la defection ont fait le reste. A la suite de Montalembert, Cochin et Foisset se sont eteints en 1873. Dans une
de ces heures d’entrainement, qui ne sont pas rares chez les
6crivains francais, M. de Falloux a bien 6crit encore que Dieu
et la liberty 6taient les deux poles du monde moral et poli
tique ; mais on sait ce que l’honorable collaborateur du Correspondant a fait de son p61e liberal pendant son passage au
pouvoir. Nous ne parlerons pas de Mgr. Dupanloup, et pour
cause. Quant au prince de Broglie, il peut aujourd’hui se
�trouver « present de corps »; mais il sera certainement
a absent d’esprit» chaque fois qu’il s’agira de liberalisme —
meme sous la forme mitigee du catholicisme liberal.
Veut-on juger par un exemple frappant h quel point les
derniers survivants du catholicisme liberal brblent aujour
d’hui leurs drapeaux et leurs devises ? Certes, l’inscription de
la Roche-en-Brenil reprdsente non seulement uu fait impor
tant dans l’histoire des doctrines qu’elle pretendait consacrer,
mais encore un trait marquant dans la vie des personnages
r6unis au banquet spirituel dont elle devait perp6tuer le sou
venir. Eh bien, qu’on parcoure l’eioge funbbre de Montalembert par Cochin, la vie de Cochin par le comte de Falloux,
les travaux publics sur Montalembert par Foisset, enfin
l’etude de M. de Saint-Loup sur la correspondance de
Foisset; dans toutes ces biographies — qu’b part la dernihre
les hdtes de La Roche-en-Brenil ont dcrites les uns sur les
autres — on ne trouvera qu’une seule mention de l’incident
ou nous avons puisd le pr^ambule de cette etude. Ce sera
dans l’ouvrage de M. de Falloux. Et encore celui-ci ne pouvait-il guere garder le silence devant les insinuations,
prodiguees a son hdros par les feuilles ultramontaines en
raison de sa participation h la solennitd de la Roche-enBrenil. Mais si M. de Falloux relhve enfin ces attaques au
nom de toute son ecole, sera-ce dumoins pour se faire gloire
d’une inscription qui resumait ses doctrines de 1862? Allons
done! C’est en 1874 qu’il ecrit, et desormais les catholiques
liberaux ne remuent plus les fastes de leur passd que pour
redamer le benefice des circonstances attenuantes :
■ D’abord, ce n’est pas dans une chapelle que se passait la
sebne, mais dans un simple oratoire, « un tout petit oratoires.
— Ensuite la reunion de la Roche-en-Brenil avait ete « abso« lument fortuite et sans aucune ombre de dessein premd« dite. » — En troisieme lieu, le « pain de la parole » que,
d’aprbs les termes pompeux de la plaque commemorative,
Mgr. Dupanloup distribua g6nereusement au petit cenacle,
n’etait qu’une mince galette de circonstance, quatre mots
« d’emotion pieuse ». Enfin, l’epigraphe; composee par le
�44
comte de Montalembert et par M. Foisset, qui nourrissaient tous
deux « le gofit » des inscriptions, n’avait « d’autre impor
ts tance que celle d’un souvenir affectueux » . Et M. de Fallouxajoute:« Aucun de nous n’en fut inform6et nous n’ avons
appris T existence de cette inscription que par Z’Univers. »
Cependant, l’inscription date de 1862 et elle n’a paru dans
X Univers qu’en mars 1871, neuf ans aprfes. M. de Falloux
n’est done jamais retourn6 & la Roche-en-Brenil pendant les
huit derni&res ann^es qu’y passa son vieil ami?
Quelques mois avant le comte de Falloux, M. l’abbd
Lagrange, vicaire-g6n£ral du diocese d’Orl6ans avait aussi
public dans le Correspondant1 un.e r^ponse aux attaques
dirig^es par 1’Univers contre Mgr. Dupanloup, & l’occasion
des faits relates par la fameuse inscription. Cet article tendait surtout & disculper l’ev^que d’Orleans d’avoir formule
dans son allocution la doctrine du catholicisme liberal. « Je
retrouve l’analyse de ses paroles dans mes notes, ecrit
M. Lagrange. Il prit texte de ce verset de saint Jean :
Le verbe s’est fait chair et a habite parmi nous. Apr&s
quelques mots sur la presence r£elle de Notre Seigneur, 1&,
sur cet autel, il dit Thonneur et le bonheur pour des chretiens
d‘avoir ete les champions de la sainte Eglise sur la terre;
puis il ajouta que cet honneur obligeait et qu’il fallait le soutenir par les vertus chretiennes, par une vie irrdprochable
et sainte. » Or, prononc^e devant Montalembert et ses amis,
la phrase que nous avons soulign^e dans l’analyse de ces
« quatre mots », si elle ne touche pas/lirectement aux theo
ries du catholicisme liberal, ne semble-t-elle pas au moins
renfermer une approbation sacramentelle de l’attitude poli
tique adoptee paries principaux chefs de l’ecole?
Un trait d’ailleurs caract6ristique, c’est l’indignation de
M. Lagrange contre « le violateur inconnti de l’hospitalit^
« de la Roche-en-Brenil », qui s’est empar£ de cette inscrip
tion pour la livrer « & 1’adversaire le plus notoire parmi les
« catholiques de M. de Montalembert, M. Veuillot. »
1 Une page de la vie du comte de Montalembert, par 1’abbS F. Lagrange.
(Correspondant du 24 mars 1874.)
�45 —
Cette indignation m£me dquivaut& unddsaveu. Ce n’est pas
Montalembert quieflt ainsi rougi de la publicity donnde& une
de ses plus grandes et de ses plus heureuses manifestations.
Quant aux doctrines mdmes de l’inscription, l’abbd
Lagrange, comme le comte de Falloux, se borne h pretendre que la formule pro libera ecclesia in libera patria
signifie : « Pour l’Eglise libre dans la patrie libre », — ce
qui, parait-il, est une tout autre th^orie que l’J&glise libre
dans l’Etat libre. M. Lagrange traduit m£me : « Pour la
liberte de l’Eglise et la liberty de la patrie, » avec la plus
profonde conviction que par cette ldg&re alteration du texte
il vient de sauver l’orthodoxie et l’honneur de l’dcole1.
Pour faire justice de toute cette casuistique, il nous suflira
de renvoyer le lecteur aux paroles m6mes que Montalembert
prononca au Congr&s de Malines sur les rapports de l’Eglise
et de l’Etat, — paroles si explicites et si justes, que nous
avons pu nous y rallier nous-meme presque sans reserves.
Devant de pareilles subtilitds, drigdes a la hauteur d’un
system e politique, nous ne pouvons nous etonner de la des
cription qu’inspire h Mgr. de Sdgur l’dtat actuel du catholi
cisme liberal. C’est en France que l’illustre polemiste a
cherchd ses modeles, mais leur air de ressemblance avec les
types de certains groupes bien connus dans notre pays
-prouve que les memes causes ont produit chez nous les
memes effets :
« Les meneurs du parti, tout catholiques qu’ils sont,
savent intriguer mieux que personne, et leur conduite
1 Cette distinction rappelle l’ingdnieuse 6chappatoire trouvSe par les
organes actuels des anciens catholiques lib6raux, tels que le Franpais et
le Journal de Bruxelles, pour d6montrer l’orthodoxie de leur attitude.
« Le Pape, disent-ils, condamne le catholicis,me liberal; il a bien raison.
Aussi ne sommes-nous pas catholiques libSraux, ce qui serait horrible,
mais catholiques et lib6raux, ce qui est tout autre chose, c’est a dire catho
liques en religion et amis de la liberty en politique. — Le Pape n’aurait
done mis a l’ceuvre toutes ses foudres que pour combattre l’id&e saugrenue
d’introduire le lib^ralisme dans la religion, c’est a dire dans les questions
purement religieuses et ecclSsiastiques! Cette absurde supposition est,
du reste, surabondamment contredite par les termes memes des brefs
que nous avons cit6s plus haut.
�— 46 —
publique offre un singulier melange d’honneur et de dupli
city. Ils aiment dtrangement les faveurs, les decorations et
les bonnes places. Pour y arriver, ils se font la courte
dchelle, ils se surfont sans vergogne les uns les autres dans
leurs journaux, dans leurs revues, et on les a appelds trds
justement une society d’admiration mutuelle. On ne comprend gudre ce qu’ils font de leur conscience au milieu de
tout cela ; car, malgry tout, ils entendent rester catholiques,
et bons catholiques. »
Le tableau est syvere; mais qui l’oserait dire immerity ?
Voila oil en est arrivye l’ycole des Lamennais et des Monta
lembert, l’ycole qui a donnd h la Belgique la Constitution de
1830! Quel exemple pour les partis qui survivent & leurs
principes!
Et, cependant, les ultramontains ne sont pas encore satisfaits. Par un juste ch&timent, les dybris de 1’armye catholiquelibdrale sont poursuivis j usque sur le terrain oil ils avaient
cru acheter le repos au prix de leurs doctrines, par les thdoriciens implacables du papisme, plus apres et plus puissants a chaque nouvelle victoire.
« Ils commencent maintenant h repudier le nom de libdraux, dit Mgr. de Sygur. C’est ddjh quelque chose; c’est le
sens catholique qui commence h dominer le non-sens libyral.
Mais il ne s’agit pas du nom seulement; c’est surtout le fond
qu’il faut laisser 1&; le fond, c’est a dire les idyes fausses; le
« virus cachy des principes libyraux » , ce « germe des
« erreurs qu’ils retiennent et nourrissent obstinyment » et
qui n’est autre chose que cette conception anti-catholique de
la notion de la libvrtb et de la notion de Xautorite, ainsi que
nous l’avons rappely plus haut. Ce qu’il faut mettre de c6ty,
c’est cette manidre humaine, anti-surnaturelle, anti-catholique
de juger et les doctrines et les personnes et les choses; c’est
l’esprit de parti, c’est l’entytement, c’est, en un mot, tout ce
que nous avons signaly dans ce petit opuscule.
« Ils se disent raisonnables, par opposition hnous autres,
catholiques tout courts, qui sommes toujours, le Pape
le premier, .des exagerds, des ultramontains, qui perdons(
�— 47 —
l’Eglise et la France. Raisonnables ! C’est raisonneurs
qu’ils devraient dire. La vraie raison est inseparable de la
vraie foi, de la vraie fidelite catholique. Les catholiques
liberaux n’ont que la prudence humaine & leur disposition;
et c’est pour cela qu’ils perdent toutes les bonnes causes, soit
religieuses, soit politiques. »
Est-il besoin de rien aj outer & ce language peut-etre brutal
dans sa franchise, mais irrefutable dans sa logique?
Or, les droits delalogique — commeles droits de la verite et
de la morale — peuvent etre temporairement transgresses
par les partis aussi bien que par les indi vidus, sans quoi il n’y
aurait pas de liberte humaine; mais ils finissent toujours
par reprendre leur empire au detriment de ceux qui les ont
meconnus, sans quoi il n’y aurait pas de progres dans les
societes. L’ecole de nos catholiques constitutionnels a con
serve ses cadres et son etat-major; elle remplit notre admi
nistration et notre Parlement; elle dirige les affaires du
pays; elle posskde toutes ces masses indifferentes qui se
laissent guider, dans leurs predilections politiques, par 1’interet, la peur ou l’habitude. Mais, tandis qu’elle occupe
bruyamment le devant de la scene officielle, elle est sourdement minee, au sein meme du parti clerical, par une faction
chaque jour grandissante qui a pour elle trois grandes
forces : la foi, l’abnegation et l’esprit de suite; nous n’en
voulons d’autre preuve que le developpement pris, dans ces
dernieres annees, par la presse ultramontaine jadis bornee
au seul Bien public. Aussi le jour n’est peut-etre pas eioigne
oil le catholicisme constitutionnel s’effondrera dans la fosse
qu’il aura lui-meme creusee.
HI
En resume, il n’y a plus de place, dans l’Eglise de Rome,
que pour les partisans sans reticences d’un ultramontanisme
sans limites. Le catholicisme liberal a passe sans retour,
comme ces nuees d’orage qui, aprfes avoir rafralchi les campagnes alterees, se fondent sur l’azur en laissant h peine
�— 48 -
derriere elles quelques flocons perdus de vapeurs. Notre
catholicisme constitutionnel, qui se pr^tendait une incarna
tion de la meme 6cole, ne renferme plus gu&re que des habiles
ou des indiffdrents, destines & disparaltre le jour oti Rome
se croira assez forte pour attaquer de front nos institutions
et nos droits. Alors se d&chainera, dans toute sa violence, le
duel h mort de l’Eglise et de la liberty, que certaines feuilles
ultramontaines proph^tisent d6j & h travers leurs rAves de feu
et de sang. Heureux les peuples qui, & l’heure supreme,
seront doues d’un temperament assez robuste pour triompher de ces menees liberticides par les settles armes de la
liberte!
Nous comprenons que les hommes de 1830 dcartent systematiquement le fantdme d’une crise aussi menacante pour
l’avenir de leurs creations. Nous-meme, nous ne pouvons
nous defendre d’une secrete epouvanteen nous trouvant force
de conclure & l’incompatibilite absolue de nos libertes avec la
religion dominante du pays, avec cette Eglise qui, malgr6
nos attaques, comme malgr6 ses exces, reste le culte de nos
femmes, de nos enfauts, de nos paysans. Mais nous n’en
croyons pas moins salutaire de crier sans relache & ces nombreux catholiques, que seule la force de l’habitude retient
sous le joug de Rome, comme & ces lib6raux impr6voyants,
plus nombreux encore, qui livrent si all^grement & l’ennemi
les avenues de leur foyer domestique : Soyez luth6riens,
soyez calvinistes, soyez unitairiens, soyez vieux catholiques,
soyez isra&ites, soyez rationalistes, soyez bien autre chose
encore : vous pourrez rester de bons citoy ens, d’excellents
libSraux, de sinc&res progressistes. Mais sachez que, logiquement, nul ne peut dtre a la fois liberal en politique
et catholique romain en religion — pas plus que le m6me
citoyen ne peut appartenir & deux Etats, pas plus que
deux corps ne peuvent occuper le m6me espace. — $omme
l’a dit Pie IX, en donnant a sa citation le m£me sens que
nous : Nemo potest duobus dominis servire. Il est grand
temps de choisir lequel des deux maitres vous voulez servir!
�■ I - »»...
���EN VENTE A LA LIBRAIRIE MUQUARDT, A BRUXELLES
OUVRAGES DU MEME AUTEUR :
L ETABLISSEMENT DES COBOURG EN PORTUGAL
ETUDE SUR LES DEBUTS D’UNE MONARCHIE CONSTITUTIONNELLE
(D’APRfiS DES DOCUMENTS lN^DITS)
Un volume in-8°. Paris, 1871. — Prix : 5 francs.
UNE EXCURSION DANS L’ARCHIPEL DES LIPARI. — L’lLE D’ELBE
SOUVENIRS DE L’IRLANDE OCCIDENTALE
Bruxelles, 1871
DIzSARMER OU DECHOIR
ESSAI
SUR LES RELATIONS
INTERNATIONALES
(Ouvrage couronnd par la Societe des Amis de la Paix)
Avec
un
Avant-propos de M. Frederic. PAS SY
Un volume in-8°. Paris, 1872. — Prix : 5 fr.
SAHARA & LAPONIE
I. UN MOIS AU SUD DE L’ATLAS. — II. UN VOYAGE AU CAP NORD
Un vol. in-12 orn6 de 18 gravures. — Prix: 4 fr.
Paris, 1873.
�
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
Le Catholicisme liberal autrefois et aujourd'hui
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Goblet d'Alviella, Eugene Felicien Albert [1845-1925]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Brussels; Leipzig
Collation: 48 p. ; 25 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From Revue de Belgique. Printed by M. Weissenbruch, Brussels.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
C. Murquardt; Merzbach & Falk
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5411
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (Le Catholicisme liberal autrefois et aujourd'hui), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
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
French
Catholic Church
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b89e898a08df2d8404a096ca68a5a255.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=K45dX96ZDW5eKKOhI6IYrXGARhOMsEcvLPSZS64Sieh2GoEKNsCxkq7j9XivcjRO502nvVG8xWQ8JtiKNciNM-8D5GHTcQOcSfEKXdUW9CGPaq0frp-A5ydTj5acmvDznr9JEJfa7OvGGaaWB6T2lsAjYC9QMVYByQ9H9Ian%7Er6HseYmXD1iwjrR98qnfTRdVM3a3tU%7EMql6eqX-9kGVmbUZLLR1kcI74Tzg4sUzd85yKKTJh7N6yvKxZDekU7fA53udEHYsV7hiVAOjVBr2Vn9hORKGktCdjusFeuxm5NCesRLjNzyaslC6Y6CIT6ofY6F3Yb-mmcxAUBrigqyF0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b828d597f349b8e293bfe8d2bf718d41
PDF Text
Text
FRASER’S MAGAZINE
JUNE 1875.
MORAL ESTIMATE OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT.
R. AUBREY DE VERE opens
No one ever has grudged, and no
his preface to Alexander the one will ever grudge, praise to
Great, a Dramatic Poem, by in form Alexander for .military talent; but
ing us that in the last century it the talent was not that of a scientific
was thought philosophical to sneer general who plans a campaign, as a
at ‘the Macedonian madman,’ and Von Moltke or even a Napoleon;
moral to declaim against him as a it was only that of a quick-eyed
bandit. The ancients, he says, Garibaldi or Conde. Generalship
made no such mistake. He proceeds of the highest modern type was
to panegyrise Alexander as uniting then impossible, for the plain reason
the highest military genius with a that maps did not exist, and the
statesmanship instinctive and im- roads which Alexander traversed7
erring. His intellect, he tells us, were in every instance unknown to.
was at once vast and minute. His him. Not only was he without the
aim was to consolidate the whole means of forming previous plans of
world into a single empire, redeemed operation; he was also destitute of
from barbarism and irradiated with storehouses and stores for feeding
Greek science and art; an empire his troops, and of gold or silver
Such that its citizens, from the mouths to purchase food and remunerate
of the Ganges to the pillars of Hercules, their services. The Romans, who
should be qualified to learn from methodised war, accounted money
Plato and to take delight in to be its sinews (pecuniam nervos
Sophocles. It is not necessary to belli) ; but all agree that Alexander
quote further from Mr. Aubrey de enteredupon war against the opulent
Vere. The above sufficiently shows Persian monarchy with resources of
what a picture he aims to hold up money and stores of provisions
for our admiration, what impres utterly inadequate, so that nothing
sions he desires his drama to leave but instant and continuous success
on the minds of readers. In this could save him from. ruin. But,
article it is not purposed to discuss says Plutarch gaily, though his
its poetical merits, which must be resources were so small and narrow,
left to another pen and time, but he gave away his Macedonian
to enter into the historical questions possessions freely to his comrades ;
whether Alexander the Great was houses to one, a field to another,
a beneficent or a malignant star a village to a third, harbour dues to .
to Greece and to mankind, and a fourth ; and when some one asked.,
what sentiments are just concerning ‘ O king, what do you leave for ■
him. But it may concisely be said yourself ? ’ he replied, ‘ Hopes ! ’
at once that the present writer is This was very spirited, no doubt.
intensely opposed to Mr. de Vere’s In the midst of a martial people,
avowed judgment.
and from a prince barely of age,
VOL. XI,—NO. LXVI.
NEW SERIES.
3A2
M
�668
flforaZ Estimate of Alexander the Great.
[June
it may be thought very amiable; superior. (Persian cavalry always
but with Grecian statesmen and dreaded a night attack, and
philosophers the delusiveness of systematically, according to Xeno
hope was a frequent topic. Nothing phon, passed the night some twelve
is plainer than that from the miles distant from an enemy.)
beginning Alexander was a gambler Hence the Greeks would be able to
playing ‘double or quits,’ and that cross by night without opposition.
causes over which he had no con The young king replied that, after
trol, and knew he had none, might crossing the Hellespont, it was dis
at any moment have involved him graceful to be afraid of the little
in sudden overthrow. The unex Granicus; and presently plunged
pected death of Memnon as much into the stream, bidding his thirteen
as anything (says Arrian) ruined squadrons of cavalry to follow.
Darius’s fortunes. No doubt it The violence and depth of the
was just to count on the great water, the rugged banks, and the
superiority of Greek armour, Greek enemy awaiting him, rather incited
discipline, and Macedonian military than appalled Alexander. It seemed,
tactics; also on the feebleness says Plutarch, to be a strategy of
entailed on Persia by royal luxury despair, not of wisdom, and indeed
and half-independent satraps. The to be the deed of a maniac. But
successes of Xenophon and of the young king was certain of one
Agesilaus had long familiarised the thing—that wherever he led, his
Greeks to the belief that a moderate Macedonians would follow; and this
Greek army was superior to a fact was the impetus to all his
Persian host. Experienced Greek military conduct. The Macedonians,
generals did not esteem the invasion from their long spears, had advantage
of Persia to be a wild expedition ; in close combat over the Persians
the Congress of Greece,1 from which who fought with swords ; but darts
only the Spartans were conspi and arrows from above were
cuously absent, deliberately sanc severely felt while they were in the
tioned it. No one could foresee river. Struggling up with difficulty
such a commencement as was the through the mud, they could not
battle of the Granicus; everyone keep any ranks and lines of battle,
in the retrospect judged Alexander’s and the opposite squadrons became
conduct rash in the extreme. That mixed, horse pushing against horse.
it succeeded we know, but Mr. de The signal helmet displayed Alex
Vere has not said a word to pro ander to the enemy, and three
duce conviction that such conduct eminent Persians hurried into
is that of a wise general.
personal conflict with him. Accord
The Persian satraps had as ing to Arrian, Alexander slew the
sembled a force, powerful in cavalry, first, received . from the second a
but in infantry very inferior to the blow of the sword which cut off
Greeks, to prevent his crossing of the crest of his helmet; neverthe
this river, which, by the uncertainty less him too he slew with the
of the bottom and steepness of the Macedonian pike. The third would
banks, was in itself formidable undoubtedly have killed Alexander
enough. The day was far gone, had he not himself first been
and Parmenio urged that the enemy pierced through the body by the
would not dare to pass the night in Macedonian Cleitus.
proximity to Grecian infantry so
Not unlike was the conduct of
’ It is due to those who have read an article from my pen in Fraser April 1874
to confess that, from trusting my memory, I have erroneously stated, page 474 that
Philip was assassinated before the Congress met. Since it does not at all affect mv
argument, I need only regret the blunder.—F. W. N.
J
�1875]
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
the younger Cyrus in the battle of
Cunaxa, as narrated by Xenophon ;
but Cyrus egregiously miscalculated
in expecting his mercenary, the
Spartan Clearchus, to obey orders.
Cyrus impetuously rushed against
the Persian king’s body-guard,
commanding Clearchus to support
him. But Clearchus thought this
a rash procedure, disobeyed, and
allowed Cyrus to be surrounded
and killed; thus sacrificing the
whole object of the expedition, and
exposing all the Greek troops to
difficulties so severe that their
ultimate escape appeared miracu
lous. Alexander’s troops and Alex
ander’s generals were of different
mettle; on that he counted, and
was never deceived. Fearless ex
posure of his own person was his
mode of inciting them; but they
quite understood the error and the
mischief of such conduct. Even
after the final overthrow of Darius,
if Alexander had been slain in
battle no one could measure the
calamity which such an event might
entail. Nevertheless he retained
this habit of acting the part of
soldier as well as of general, being
many times severely wounded with
swords, darts, arrows, and stones,
until he narrowly escaped with life
in his Indian campaign. Arrian
gives the account in great detail.
The wall was difficult to ascend.
The king thought his soldiers
deficient in spirit, seized a ladder,
and himself climbed to the top.
Alarm for his exposure made so
many hurry tumultuously that their
weight broke the ladders. Finding
himself alone on the top of the wall,
he leaped down on the other side,
and, in spite of prodigies of valour,
received a very dangerous arrow
wound in the breast. The Macedonians poured in after him just in
time to save his life, which for days
after was accounted doubtful. His
friends severely reproached him for
an imprudence which might have
been the ruin of them all; and (says
Arrian) he was greatly vexed, be
669
cause he knew that their reproaches
were just; but as other men are
overcome by other vices, so was he
by this impetus to fight. This
being his habit, surely no more
words are needed to show the
character of his generalship. Speed
of movement, urgency in pursuit,
were his two marked peculiarities ;
but to these he added a marvellous
quickness to perceive at the moment
whatever the moment admitted.
On this account he will ever be
named among the greatest generals
of antiquity, although he was never
matched against troops at all to
compare to his own, nor against
any experienced leader.
Without for a moment under
valuing his high military qualities,
we must not put out of sight the
pre-eminent army which his able
father had bequeathed to him. The
western world had never before seen
such an organisation. A reader of
Greek accustomed to Thucydides,
Xenophon, and Demosthenes finds
it hard to translate the new Greek
phrases made necessary in King
Philip’s army. The elaborate
ness of modern times seems to come
upon us suddenly. We find Guards,
Horse Guards, Foot Guards, the
King’s own Body Guard, the Van
guard, the King’s Horse, the
Cavalry, Equestrian Tetrarchies,
the Agema (which may seem to be
the Gros, whether of an army or of
each brigade), the Horse Darters,
the Lancers, the Horse Archers, the
Archers, the Forerunners (or
Scouts ?), besides all the Infantry
common in Greece; and an
apparatus for sieges, such as the
old Assyrians and Egyptians dis
play to us in sculpture and painting.
The history of the transmission of
this art is curious. We have no
reason for supposing that the Per
sians ever used its higher mechanism,
but the Phoenicians carried the
knowledge of it to Carthage. The
Carthaginians practised it ela
borately in some of their Sicilian
wars, and from them Dionysius of
�670
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
Syracuse learned it. Philip II. of
Macedon is said to have imported
it into Greece from Dionysius ; but
his temperament was adverse to the
use of force where bribery could
effect his object. To him is im
puted the saying, that he deemed
no fortress to be impregnable if an
ass laden with gold could climb up
to the gate. He must have incor
porated with his army sappers and
miners, and men furnished with
engines and ladders, skilled also in
extempore construction; for in his
son’s campaigns these agencies
come forth whenever they are
wanted. It is quite unexplained
how in his rapid marches through
mountainous countries (as Caubul)
he could carry with him huge
machines that rained arrows on an
enemy from a distance farther than
a human arm could send them. The
speed with which his engineers
make bridges to cross rivers, even
the great river Indus, takes one
quite by surprise. Long skill and
training is here presupposed. Under
Alexander’s successors the engines
of siege attain a magnitude and im
portance previously unparalleled.
Philip disciplined every class of
troops to its own work, and from
Thrace and Thessaly had men and
horses beyond any previous Greek
potentate. Greece had been accus
tomed to admire Spartan discipline ;
but Spartan troops were nearly all
of one kind, heavy infantry. They
had scarcely any cavalry, and, with
all their solid armour, were unable
to stand against arrows, or even
against slingers and darters. Before
walls or ditches they were helpless.
Yet Agesilaus had not found the
Persians formidable. He never en
countered such clouds of arrows as
Mardonius showered on the Spartans
at Plataea; hence in general the
Greeks feared Greek mercenaries
fighting on the side of Persia far
more than they feared Persians.
Every Macedonian captain knew
[June
so well the superiority of a Mace
donian army, that they counted on
victory if only they could meet the
foe in the field, whether a Philip,
a Parmenio, or an Antipater was to
be the general. This must be re
membered in estimating Alexander’s
victories.
Plutarch, desirous of exalting
Alexander, makes much of his boy
ish utterances, among which is one
of jealousy against his father for
too great success. ‘ Why, boys,’
said he, ‘ my fathei’ will leave me
nothing to conquer.’ Everything
which is told of him by his panegy
rists points to the same intense
egotism. To be a conqueror greater
than his father, and to be a fighter
equal to Achilles, and if possible
to be celebrated by a poet as noble
as Homer, was his ardent and con
stant aspiration. Alexander him
self told Darius plainly what were
his motives for ‘persevering in
hostility. At least Arrian (who
follows the accounts of Ptolemy,
son of Lagus, and Aristobulus, one
of Alexander’s commanders) pro
fesses to have before him the
actual despatch.2 After the battle
of Issus, in which Darius’s queen
and young son and mother and
other ladies had been captured,
Darius wrote to ask of Alexander
that he would restore them, and
accept from him friendship and
alliance ; for which he offered full
pledges, and begged for the same in
turn. Alexander had treated the
captive ladies- with ostentatious
honour; therefore a mild reply
might have been hoped. Instead of
this, from beginning to end the
letter breathes reproach and defiance.
In conclusion it says: ‘ Since I
have defeated, first thy generals and
satraps, and next thee and the
forces with thee; since I hold the
country, and have now in my army
numbers of those who fought on
thy side, come to me as to him who
is lord of all Asia: then thou shaft
8 ‘ The despatch of Alexander,’ says he, * stands tutts : 23e
�1875]
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
receive back thy mother, thy wife
and children, and much beside,
whatever thou canst persuade me
by asking for it. But in future do
not send to me as thine equal, but
as the lord of all that is thine; else
I shall regard thee as injurious.’
Such a repulse of friendly overtures,
when Alexander had attained far
more than any Greek hoped or
wished, must surely be censured by
every modern. Yet, before any new
defeat was encountered, Darius
made yet another attempt at peace.
As Arrian tells it, while Alexander
was engaged in the siege of Tyre,
ambassadors came, offering to him
ten thousand talents (say, two
millions sterling) as ransom for the
king’s family ; Darius was willing
to yield to him the country as
far as the Euphrates •, he proposed
that Alexander should accept his
daughter in marriage, and that they
should be friends and allies. The
only reply of Alexander was ‘ that
he wanted no money of Darius, for
he counted all Darius’s money to
be his own; he would not accept a
part of the country instead of the
whole ; and if he wished to marry a
daughter of Darius, he would take
her by force without her father’s
leave.’ The historian who tells
this does not seem to be aware
how very inhuman was such a reply;
no censure escapes him. As far as
we can learn, to make Alexander
great and glorious, is Alexander’s
motive according to his own account.
Mr. de Vere would persuade us that
his aims were philanthropic. The
notion is in itself wholly ana
chronistic.
Ambition, not philanthropy, down
to the present time is the motive for
conquest. Philanthropy does some
times lead to annexation; we see
an instance in the archipelago of
Fiji, which has been accepted re
luctantly, not conquered, by the
rulers of England. So, we make
no doubt, the Incas of Peru bene
volently accepted the responsibility
of rule over various barbarian and
671
scattered tribes, whom they pre
sently attached to themselves by
benefits. Instances of this kind
exist in history, enough barely to
show what is possible to human
nature; but, alas! they are very
rare. Where the philanthropic
object is sincere, the sense of duty
and responsibility is keen, and there
is no coveting of territory and
power, no claim that might makes
right, no violence is used to establish
the claim. To make armed invasion
and attack on another country is an
avowal that you are not seeking
the welfare of the invaded, but
some interests or imagined rights of
your own or of your ally. Now, it
is obvious in Greek literature that
up to the time of Aristotle and
Alexander no idea of international
right existed. In the discourses
reported by Xenophon we have no
hint that Socrates thought a war of
Greeks even against Greeks to need
justification; and Aristotle lays
down that, by the natural superio
rity of the Greek mind, barbari
ans are made for subjection to
Greeks ; and if they do not submit,
they may rightly be forced to sub
mission—in fact, as brute animals.
When Aristotle so reasoned and
so believed, we cannot expect any
Greek prince, or any Greek republic,
to have moral scruples against in
vading any foreigner. If, from a
modern point of view, anyone
now call Alexander a ‘ bandit,’ as
Mr. de Vere complains, it is noton
the bare ground that he was an
invader ; it must mean that he was
a peculiarly reckless invader, who,
with no motive then generally
esteemed adequate, marked his
course with blood and devastation.
That is a question of detail. But
up to that time the world had seen
no right of territory or of empire
asserted on any other argument
than that of simple force. The
great Darius, son of Hystaspes,
piously records on his monuments
the names of the successive nations
which God gave to his sceptre.
�672
Moral Estimate oj Alexander the Great.
Hebrew princes spoke in the same
tone concerning whatever conquests
they could make on their narrower
scale. None can now wonder or
censure if Alexander, after the
battle of Issus, says to Darius, ‘ By
my victory God has given me
countries which were thine.’ The
Persians had no title but force to
the possession of Cilicia and Lydia ;
force might be repelled by force.
Brom the earliest times the Greeks
had swarmed out into colonies
planted on the coast of Asia, without
asking leave of Asiatic princes ; but
those princes no sooner became
powerful than they endeavoured to
recover the possession of their seabord,3 and the Lydian dynasty at
length absorbed into itself these
Asiatic Greeks. When the Persians
conquered Lydia, they naturally
regarded the Greek coast as an
integrant part of their domain;
but the Greeks, rejoicing in the
fall of the Lydian suzerain, hoped
for entire independence, and had
to be re-subdued. The Athenians
imprudently assisted them against
Darius, and sent a body of troops
which took part in the burning of
Sardis, the capital of Lydia. No
modern empire would wink at such
an outrage ; nor could King Darius ;
yet the Athenians always speak as
though his war against them had
been unprovoked. Each side knew
the outrages it had suffered and
forgot those which it had inflicted
—a common case. Unless treaties
and oaths forbade, war was received
as the natural and rightful relation
even , in Greece itself between city
and city.
But when ambition is the real
undeniable motive of war, there are
yet two kinds of ambition—personal
and national. However much we
may palliate, excuse, or even praise
the latter, all good feeling, all mo
rality, and all common sense unite
severely to rebuke the former. No
moral reasoner can justify the deeds
[June■
of Warren Hastings or of Clive,
yet we do not stigmatise the doers
as vile men; Cicero may defend
Bonteius, yet the reader sees that
the defence amounts to this, that
the oppressions complained of, if
criminal, were violences perpetrated
in the interests of Roman con
quest, not for Bonteius’s own en
richment or aggrandisement. Each
nation is strong by patriotism.
Patriotism seldom escapes a tinge
of national vanity, and generally
is deep dyed in absurd national
self-esteem. One who sacrifices
himself for the exaltation of his own
people has in him the vital element
of high virtue, even though he may
injuriously overlook the rights of
other peoples ; hence we can hon
our mere soldiers, faithful servants
of a dynasty or of a powerful re
public, when they wholly decline
all judgment of the right or wrong
of a war, and bestow their entire
energies and their lives to exalt
their nation and dynasty. The
more signally the selfish element is
suppressed, the higher is the hon
our due to them; but just in
proportion as the selfish element
is combined with unjust war, our
moral estimate is turned the other
way. If the separate commanders
are encouraged to love war because
it enables them to become rich by
plundering the conquered, the war
is demoralising to the victors. If
the king who decrees the war is
aiming at the exaltation not of his
own nation and race, but of his
own individual person; if he is
ready to trample his own people
underfoot, and set up the barbarian
as equal or superior, as soon as this,
in turn, conduces to his personal
magnificence; and if at the same
time he is utterly reckless of hu
man life and suffering on both, sides,
whenever he has a fancy or a whim
of glory—it is rather too great a
strain on our credulity to hold him
up to moral admiration. Now, in
3 Bord = edge, border; a different word from board.
�187S]
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
the case of Alexander we have to
enquire, of which class was his am
bition P Was he aiming to exalt
himself, or his royal race, or to
exalt Macedonia, or to exalt Greece?
Kone of these alternatives contents
Mr. de Vere, who says that Alex
ander was aiming to make Indians
and Spaniards learn wisdom of
Sophocles and Plato. But we must
go into various details in order to
get at the truth.
Alexander, in Greek belief, de
scended from Hercules onhisfather’s
side and from Achilles on his mo
ther’s. He might naturally be
proud of each genealogy. The
Macedonians were half-Thracian,
and doubtfully Greek; but the
Macedonian dynasty claimed to be
Heracleid. Philip had satisfied the
Olympian umpires of his right, as
a genuine Greek, to send chariots
and horses to contend for the prize,
and was sincerely proud of the
honour. Plutarch, a great admirer
of Alexander, censures Philip for
the pleasure which he took in the
rivalry of cultivated Greek conver
sation, and for engraving on coins
hi® Olympian victories; while the
boyish Alexander, on the contrary,
said ‘ he must have kings for his
rivals before he would enter any
contest.’ Such royal airs did he
give himself when he was but six
teen, that a jocose saying became
current: ‘ Alexander is our king,
and Philip only our general;’ and
Philip himself was pleased with it.
But the politic Philip committed at
last one imprudence; it was great
and fatal. He had long been tired
of his queen Olympias, as well he
might be, for all agree that she
was proud, intemperate, and vio
lent. Plutarch believes the story
that, as the poets tell of Thracian
women, she practised Orphic and
Bacchanalian enthusiasm, and was
a zealot of ‘ possessions,’ inspira
tion, or catalepsy, which the mo
derns do not easily believe to have
been managed without drugs or
wine. Be the cause what it may,
673
she was very overbearing and unamiable. Alexander was moulded
into pride by his mother, and was
in general very much disposed to
yield to her; but an utterance of
his, after he was supreme in Asia,
has been stereotyped : ‘ My mother
really charges me a very high rent
for my ten months’ lodging [in her
womb].’ Philip is said already to
have had another wife, Eurydice
(Arrian, iii. 6), but apparently
Olympias still held the chief place as
queen, until he became fascinated
by a much younger lady, Cleopatra,
who was introduced to the Court
in a magnificent wedding-feast.
Her uncle, Attalus, when much the
worse forwine, uttered an imprudent
blessing on the marriage. Olympias
flamed out with all the wrath
of a Medea. Alexander expected
to be disowned as successor to the
throne and superseded by a new
heir. He escaped with his mother
into Epirus, and thence took refuge
with the Illyrians. This was when
he was about seventeen. With a
slight turn of events his history
might have been that of many
■ Oriental princes;—a son contending
with his father for the throne.
Philip, by kind messages, per
suaded him to return ; but Alex
ander was still jealous, and his new
jealousy was of his brother Arrhidaaus. Pexodorus, satrap of Caria,
desired to give his daughter in
marriage to Arrhidseus. Alexan
der, suspecting some treason in
this, sent a private messenger to the
satrap, dissuading the match, and
asking why the young lady was not
rather offered in marriage to him.
Plutarch, who tells this, does not
see how unamiable this makes Alex
ander towards his brother as well
as his father. With his cousin
Amyntas he had a deadly feud,
because Amyntas, his elder, was
son of Perdiccas, who preceded
Philip on the throne, and had osten
sibly a higher claim to the succes
sion than Alexander. All danger
of collision with Philip himself was
�■674
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
removed by the assassin Pausanias,
whom Olympias was believed by
the public to have instigated.
The new reign opened with all
the symptoms of a Court revolu
tion. Noblemen who had gone into
exile returned at once, among
whom was Ptolemy, son of Lagus.
Amyntas was put to death as a
dangerous rival. Cleopatra’s infant
son suffered the same fate. Attalus,
to whom Alexander was implacable
for a drunken speech, had been sent
forward by Philip with an army into
Asia, but was there assassinated by
Hecatasus, Alexander’s emissary.
Cleopatra herself was ‘ handled
cruelly ’ by Olympias—words of
Plutarch, which are generally in
terpreted to mean that she was put
to death with bodily outrage.4 But
when the violent deeds of princes
are secret we must make allowance
for credulous exaggerations of de
tail.
Though Alexander was proud of
his descent from Hercules through
his father, so quickly was his head
turned by too rapid and dazzlingsuccess, that he presently disowned
his father Philip, and wished to be'
accounted a son of Jupiter. This
was the beginning of disgust to the
Macedonians.
His comrade and
playmate Philotas, whom Philip
had employed to reprove him for
his foolish and wrongful meddlinoagainst the marriage of his brother
Arrhideeus, wrote to him honest
truth in Egypt, when first Alexander
trumped up this monstrous fiction,
and warned him of the mischief
which he would do to himself by it.
That Alexander never forgave him
for his plain speaking appears un
deniable : for, years after, when
Philotas was accused of complicity
in a plot against Alexander’s life,
Alexander, rising in the council of
chief Macedonians, bitterly accused
Philotas of having been a traitor
[June
from the beginning, and adduced
this letter as a proof of his early
disaffection. Whether Philotas was,
or was not, at last in complicity with
the plot, it is not probable that the
moderns will ever agree. Quintus
Curtins condemns him; but the
argument which Curtius puts into
his mouth appears a complete and
sufficient defence, and on this point
makes him reply: ‘ I wrote to the
king direct; I did not write to
others concerning the king ; I feared
for him; I did not raise odium
against him • my trust in friendship,
and the dangerous freedom ofgivingtrue advice, have ruined me.’ Be
the case of Philotas as it may, all
the historians agree that Alexander
insisted on the title Son of Jupiter,
for which he had obtained the
sanction of the oracle of Hammon by
a very dangerous journey through
the desert.
On one remarkable
occasion (Arrian, vii. 8), when the
army was able to speak with a com
bined shout, by which no one should
be singled out for vengance, they cry
to him that ‘ they had best all
return to Greece, and leave him to
campaign in Asia by help of his
father ’—meaning Jupiter Hammon,
says the historian. Plutarch, who
certainly does not censure him, says
that ‘ to the Persians he assumed
the haughty tone of one who was
quite convinced of his divine birth,
but to the Greeks he was more
moderate and sparing in his
assumption of divinity, except that
to the Athenians he wrote a letter
concerning Samos saying: “I,formy
part, should not have given to you
a free and glorious city [Samos] ;
but you have received it from him
who then was master of it, and used
to be called my father ”—meaning
Philip.’ But a king who could
gratuitously write thus in a public
despatch to the Athenians displayed
a determination to enforce his pre
4 Plutarch says that Alexander was very angry with his mother for her conduct
to Cleopatra. One might interpret his words to mean that Olympias inflicted some
bodily outrage that marred her beauty; but I fear that a still more terrible sense is
truer.
�f ' 1875]
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
posterous claim.5 And here it is
difficult to understand the liberty
which Mr. Aubrey de Vere takes
with history. He represents Alex
ander as speaking with contempt
and disapproval of the mythical
tale of his miraculous origin (p. 7) :
Mark, Hephrestion!
The legend-mongers at their work! ’Twas
thus
They forg’d in Macedon that tale prepost’rous,
Scand’lous alike to me and to my mother,
Touching great Zeus.
Such a tale cannot have been in
vented before the battle of Issus,
and Alexander himself eagerly
adopted it (whoever was the in
ventor) within half a year after the
battle. It is evident, therefore, that
his head was turned by his sudden
and vast success ; and the Mace
donians saw it.
A second great disgust with them
$
I was his disparaging of his father
Philip, especially over his wine-cups.
The Macedonians were right loyal
royalists and justly proud of Philip.
He had raised their country from
a very feeble to a predominant
position. When he came to the
throne Macedonia had but half a
sea-coast, from the number of in
dependent Greek cities. He had
recovered all Macedonia and added
Thrace to it, including Byzantium
itself; had brought Thessaly and
Phocis into his dominion; had
defeated the Theban and Athenian
forces by land, and made himself at
sea equal or superior to Athens ;
had become master of Molossia and
Pseonia, and was at length ac
knowledged as the genuine Greek
K prince, who was the only rightful
50 leader of Greece.
His army he had
so organised as to make it un
675
equalled, and by the consent of one
and another State he had been
allowed to garrison many of the
most critical fortresses in Greece.
What Macedonian captain could be
willing to hear Philip the Great
disparaged by his own son ? All
the old officers of Philip were in
dignant at it. The habit of the
Macedonians, as of the Thracians,
was that of much wine-drinking,
and the king was expected to dine
with his chief captains and ministers.
It is a sufficient mark how national
customs preponderate over talents
and wisdom, that the father and son
who in all Greek history are signal
and pre-eminent were both gravely
damaged by the wine-cup. Mr.
de Vere is pleased to allude to it
as Alexander’s ‘ supposed intempe
rance ; ’ and no doubt Arrian tries
to excuse him, as does Plutarch, on
the ground that his tarrying over
the wine was from Jove of com
pany, not from sensuality.
Of
course; so it generally is. The
historical form of drunkenness
with Greeks, Romans, Persians,
Gauls, Germans, and we readily
believe also of Macedonians, was
different from that of an English
artisan who stands up at the bar of
a gin-palace to enjoy his solitary
glass. But the evidence of mischief
from these Macedonian banquets is
not to be sneered away. The be
ginning of ruin to the house of
Philip was from the wedding-feast
of the new queen Cleopatra; at which
her uncle Attalus, when overfilled
with wine,6 prayed ‘ that the gods
would give to Philip a legitimate
successor by Cleopatra.’ ‘Am I then
a bastard, you rascal?’ cried young
Alexander, and flung his cup7 at
the head of Attalus. Philip rose in
5 A curious story is told, that the priest of Hammon tried to give an oracular reply
1
'
’ „ ’
’
11
V
J ' "
'
"
"
, in Greek; and not ’being deep in the Greek language, thought that iraibiov for a „ A,
youth
j*? ought to be masculine; so, instead of addressing Alexander by a> iraioiov, 0 youth !
or 0 my son ! he said, a> iraibios ; and Alexander, in Greek fashion, instantly ‘ accepted
ai the omen,’ declaring that the x
priest had addressed him by the title
mxi Aios,
v
p
O child of Jupiter!
I 6 ev
irtfrcp fj,e0va>i/.
7 ‘ Scyphis pugnare, Thracum est,’ says Horace.
�676
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
anger, and, sword in hand, tried to
step across to his son; but his feet
failed him, and he fell on the floor.
‘Here is a man,’ said the youth,
‘ who is preparing to cross into Asia,
and is upset in passing from one
seat to another.’ Evidently Alex
ander, as well as Philip, was already
the worse for wine ; but that scene,
in which he might have been slain
by a tipsy father, must surely have
impressed him deeply, if he remem
bered his own scoff. One who was
planning to reorganise all Asia, one
who knew the frightful mischiefs
which a despotic king may inflict
on himself as well as on others,
when wine overmasters him, is not
exempt from our moral criticism.
The higher his intellect, the deeper
is the censure deserved. But that
Alexander was fond of wine, Plu
tarch regards as a fact, while he
apologises for it. Alexander’s body,
he says, had a delicious fragrance ;
no doubt from his hot and fiery
nature; for heat brings out aro
matic smells ; and the same heat
of body made Alexander addicted
to drink and passionate (rai irorucdv
Kat Ovpoetci]). A history written of
a king by another king, or by one of
his generals, is not likely to allude
to drunken bouts such as the
customs of the nation sanctioned,
except when special necessity re
quired; yet wine in this Macedonian
tale plays a part previously un
known in Greek history. The de
fence of Alexander rests on his love
of conversation ; but what was the
talk which he most loved ? The
poison of flattery. Arrian, his
defender, throws the fault upon
those who extolled him as superior
to Hercules and the other mythical
heroes, and of course as far and far
above his father Philip; but since
Alexander never checked them, but
manifestly enjoyed their praise, it
necessarily became the staple of
these feasts. At other times he was
too busy to listen to such reptiles ;
the essential evil of his long sittings
was, that there was plenty of time
[June
for him to drink in such adulation,
to the ever increasing disgust of
Philip’s old soldiers. Q. Curtius
regards it as a certain fact that
Alexander himself was fond of disparaging his father’s deeds and
exalting his own. The report of it
even reached Italy, where his uncle
Alexander of Epirus, who met his
death in Italian battle, uttered an
epigram which was re-echoed in
Asia—that in Italy he had had to
fight with men, but his nephew
Alexander in Asia had alighted on
women. Ho one can wonder that a
king who in his boyhood was already
comparing his own future deeds
with those of his father, should inwardly boast to himself, after conquering Asia Minor, Syria, and
Egypt in less than two years, that
he had far exceeded the deeds of
Philip ; and with each new success
new vanity and new arrogance
entered his heart. In vino veritas.
After wine had sufficiently lessened
his self-restraint, he was liable not
merely to listen to praise from
others, but to trumpet his own
praise. The same wine sometimes
affected the self-restraint of his
comrades ; and he surely must have
foreseen each possibility.
Mr. de Vere wishes us to make
light of his killing his faithful com
rade Cleitus ; and since Cleitus
could not be brought to life again,
and Alexander was shocked at his
own deed, of course all the Macedo
nians tried to comfort the king, and
to accuse Cleitus as having provoked
his own death. Arrian, a profound
royalist, is very severe upon Cleitus;
yet the fact comes out that Cleitus’s
high words were elicited by the disparagement of King Philip, which
Cleitus could not endure, whether
from Alexander or from Alexander’s
flatterers. It is seldom indeed that
one can attempt to guess the utterances of tipsy men ; but if you cut
short eithei’ the long story of Arrian
or the still longer story of Q. Curtius, you get something like this as
the result: ‘ King Philip, my prede-
’
1
'
;
!
■
;1
5
>■
P
‘
1
1
[
,f
‘‘
'
J
[’
|!
’
i1
F
r
r
■-
'
t
;
R
h
1
tj
JS
k
r-1
|
IE
|-
�1875]
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
cessor,’ says Alexander, 1 was no
ticing1 of a general compared to me.
In twelve years he did not conquer
half of what I conquered in twelve
months.’ ‘ Stop ! ’ replies Cleitus ;
‘remember that he never had the
chance Of fighting with Persians:
ho had to deal with stubborn Greeks.
Besides, he never committed such
a blunder as you did at the Granicus, where you nearly ruined us
all, and nothing but this right hand
saved your life.’ The last words
Arrian regards as abominable and
inexcusable from a soldier to a king;
and so, no doubt, all the flatterers
urged ? the greater the truth, the
worse the offence. But the absur
dity is, to expect a man who is halftipsy io retain prudence and mo
desty. Alexander, according to his
warm admirer Plutarch, was of a ‘ furious and violent nature ’ (faylalov
iceti (b£f>6p.ETov
and now,
being full of wine, of course he was
uncontrollable. When reminded
that he owed his life to Cleitus, and
virtually all his after-successes, he
could not bear such an amount of
indebtedness ; and although all the
armed men around, seeing his state,
disobeyed his orders, he succeeded
in, snatching a weapon from one of
them, and with it laid Cleitus dead.
Might not one have hoped that such
a tragedy would for ever have cured
him of long drinking ? But it did
not. Indeed, Arrian, wishing to
defend him, represents him as
already* somewhat corrupted into
Asiatic depravity, implying that he
was on the downhill track—not
that we know anything so bad of
Persian kings.
Another grievous offence to Ma
cedonian feeling was, that he ex
acted of them prostration on the
ground before him in Persian fa
shion. This was as detestable to
Greeks as to Englishmen. It was
emphatically the unmanning of free
men. JEschylus puts into the mouth
677
of Agamemnon the sentiment of
every Greek :
Nor yet, in fashion of barbaric wight,
Prostrate before me, mouth unmanly
words.
There could not be a more decisive
proof that Alexander intended to
destroy every vestige of Greek sen
timent and Greek freedom, and
reduce them all to the level of Orien
tal slaves. Disaffection was inevit
able ; his noblest comrades were the
most certain to disapprove; the
basest took the opportunity of ca
lumniating them, and ingratiated
themselves with the king by slander.
We cannot know the exact time of
this and that detestable whisper,
nor whether it be true that Alexan
der tampered with Philotas’s mis
tress, and bribed her to report
month by month whatever words
of indignation Philotas might drop.
Such is Plutarch’s account, who
indeed represents Philotas as put
to torture, and Alexander behind a
curtain listening to every word;
and when, overcome by suffering,
Philotas uttered piteous entreaties
to Hephmstion the torturer, Alex
ander drew back the curtain and
reproached Philotas with unmanli
ness. Plutarch in general is just and
tenderhearted; yet he can tell this
horrible story without seeing how
odious it makes Alexander. Arrian
cuts the tale of Philotas short, but
relates on the authority of King
Ptolemy that he was killed by the
darts of the Macedonians—equiva
lent to the modern shooting of a sol
dier. On this comes a second deadly
crime, to which Mr. Aubrey de
Vere will hardly reconcile us. ‘ Silly
is he, ’ said the Greek proverb, 1 who
slays the father and spares the son.’
‘ Silly shall I be,’ argued Alexander,
‘ if I kill Philotas and leave his
father Parmenio alive.’ Parmenio
had conquered Media for the king,
and was there at the head of a large
army. Letters are therefore sent
8 ‘For Alexander had already, in the matter of drinking-bouts, made innovation
towards more barbaric manners.’
�678
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
with the utmost speed, to three ge
nerals in high command, ordering
them to assassinate Parmenio while
he is engaged in reading certain de
spatches, which are sent to put him
off his guard. That they were all
base enough to obey proves how com
pletely the Macedonian commanders
were already enslaved; but the
wrath of the common soldiers was
extreme, and might have been dan
gerous. There can be no doubt that
Alexander was now hated as much
as he was feared.
The accusation against Philotas
had risen out of a real conspiracy
of the pages when Alexander was
in Bactria, of which, it was al
leged, Philotas had had knowledge.
Philip had established the system of
royal pages—youths of the noblest
families, who waited on the king,
acted as grooms, helped him to
mount his horse, and hunted with
him. On one occasion, when a
dangerous wild boar rushed at the
king, the page Hermolaus killed the
animal with his dart. The king
was enraged at losing his own
chance of killing it, and ordered
the page to be flogged. Such a
reward for such a service was of
course unendurable to a noble Ma
cedonian youth, who at once vowed
revenge. Whether he would actual
ly have taken the king’s life we
cannot now ascertain. Other pages
shared the indignation of Hermo
laus. The evidence against them,
according to Aristobulus, was swol
len by Alexander’s belief in the
supernatural powers of a Syrian
woman who was subject to ‘ posses
sions,’ and was allowed access to the
king day and night, to warn him of
danger. She was believed to have
saved his life from Hermolaus. One
thing only is here clear—that he
knew himself to be hated, and
through his suspicions degraded
himself to precautions at once per
nicious and odious. One of the
alleged conspirators, Dimnus, slew
himself when he found what reports
and beliefs were accepted ; the rest
[June
were stoned to death, guilty or.
guiltless. For us it suffices to
know that Alexander was definitely
engaged in the task of trampling
out the Greek sentiment of freedom
from his own people. This is very
unlike the task to which Mr. de
Vere thinks he set himself, of re
deeming the world from barbarism,
and irradiating it with Greek science
and art, with the wisdom of Plato
and Sophocles.
Callisthenes the philosopher had
been the tutor of Hermolaus and a
great favourite with him. The
flatterers knew that Alexander
dreaded his honesty and his courage,
and they laid a plot to force him
to deliver his opinion on the ques
tion of prostration before the king
by questions over the wine. Arrian,
who calls him clownish or rude
(crypoiKoc), gives his speech at great
length ; but no rudeness is apparent
in it to us. He says that he honours
Alexander as the first of men, but
different honours are due to men
and to gods ; that prostration is fit
honour to gods only; that Alexander
would not approve of a low multi
tude voting a common man into the
royal throne, nor can the gods be
pleased with men voting a man
into divine honours ; that Darius,
honoured by prostrations, was
defeated by Alexander, to whom no
prostrations had been used. Indeed,
the great Cyrus, who first received
such honour, had been chastised by
the Massagetans, and the great
Darius by other Scythians, as
Xerxes and the later kings by
Greeks.
This discourse, says
Arrian, violently displeased Alex
ander, but was acceptable to the
Macedonians. Callisthenes after
wards distinctly refused to prostrate
himself. He now was accused of
having incited the pages to their
conspiracy. That the mode of his
death was uncertain, Arrian regards
as remarkable; for Aristobulus
says he was put in fetters and
carried about wherever the army
went, until he died of disease;
�1875]
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
Ptolemy says he was first tortured
on the rack and then hanged.
Every honourable Greek philoso
pher had now full warning to keep
his distance from Alexander. To
Aristotle the king had already sent
from Asia a characteristic complaint,
when the philosopher published
some lectures. Plutarch professes
to give the very words of the letter.
‘ Alexander sends greeting to Aris
totle. You do wrong in publishing
your lectures. For wherein shall
we excel other men, if you impart
to them the instruction which you
gave to us ? But I, for my part,
would rather excel men in the
noblest experiences [science] than
in military forces. Farewell.’ This
is not in the tone of one who desires
all foreign peoples to imbibe Greek
science and philosophy, as Mr. de
Vere fancies.
The pride and violence of Alex
ander, his vices and his crimes, one
by one, Arrian seems able to defend
or excuse ; but when all culminates
in his assumption and enforcement
of the Persian dress, the historian’s
eyes seem at last to be opened.
‘I do not praise,’ says he, ‘his
excessive punishment of Bessus ’
(whom he first scourged and ex'hibited naked in a cage, afterwards
cut off his nose and ears, and sent
him to be put to death by his own
countrymen), ‘and I confess that
Alexander was enticed to imitate
Persian luxury and barbaric cere
monialism ; nor can I praise that
he, being a Heracleid, wore Median
vesture instead of his native Mace
donian, and assumed the Persian
tiara instead of his own victorious
garb. But if the mighty deeds of
Alexander can teach us anything
they teach this, that no accumulation
of outward magnificence conduces
to any man’s welfare, if he cannot
retain sobriety of mind ((T<l)(|>po(Tvvr|f,
Let this be a set-off to Mr. de Vere’s
other quotation from Arrian, which
he says ‘ is doubtless right ’—that
Alexander assumed the Persian
dress that he might appear not
679
altogether to despise the barbarians.
The matter is indeed quite plain.
He himself took three noble Persian
ladies as his wives, one of them a
daughter of Darius — a frank
adopting of the Oriental seraglio,,
the curse of princes and nations.
He induced eighty of his high
officers similarly to take Persian
wives. The marriages were all
conducted with Persian ceremonies,
and to all of them the king gave
liberal dowries. More than 10,000
Greek soldiers followed the example
of marrying native women. The
king had the names of them all
registered, and sent marriage gifts
to every one. Nothing is clearer
than that he desired to shift his
centre of support.
Instead of
depending on Greeks, who were
sure to abhor and resist his striving
after Oriental despotism, he aimed
simply to step into the shoes of
Darius, and let the Persians feel
that their institutions remained
unchanged ; they had only changed
one king for another. To Mace
donians, and to all Greeks who had
a particle of free spirit, such con
duct appeared treason to Greece,
who had freely chosen him as leader,
treason also to freedom.
As
Callisthenes said to his face, the
progenitors of the Macedonian
dynasty came from Argos to Mace
donia ; there, not by force, but by
law, they were accepted as rulers,
and received honour as men, not
as gods. Surely the idea that
Alexander was bent on imparting
the blessings of Greek civilisation
to all Asia is, in the face of the
facts, only a wild fiction.
And here the thought presents
itself, What is the erudition of Mr,
Aubrey de Vere ? Has he enough
knowledge of Greek to read Arrian
oi’ Plutarch for himself? A matter
in itself slight moves strong dis
belief. Nine times in his drama he
pronounces the name Kpartpoe
Craterus. It would appear that he
cannot ever have seen the name in
Greek letters, common as it is, or
�680
MbruZ Estimate of Alexander the Great.
he could not make such a blunder.
There is no ambiguity about it.
Thus:
p. 27. Or keen-edg’d, like Craterus. This
I grant him—
p. 74. But sacrilege. I scorn your words,
Craterus.
p. 79. Which by Craterus, Ptolemy, Hepliaestion—
p. 90. Forth, sirs, and meet them. Let
Craterus bide—
He is uniformly consistent with
himself in the error. So too he
pronounces Heraclides (p. 212)
with short penultima, evidently un
aware that it is 'Hpct/ALch/c in the
Greek. The Niscean horses ('ittwoi
Nio-cuot) he converts into Nyseean
(p. 164), misled by Nvo-a, Nysa, the
supposed Bacchanalian centre. In
p. 96 he makes the Macedonians
talk familiarly of the philosophy of
Epicurus, whom our books re
present as ‘ flourishing ’ half a
century later. At that day Epicurus
surely cannot have been known.
On the whole, Mr. de Vere does
not, primd facie, command any
deference to his opinions ; else one
might be curious to know, whence
he gets his information that Alex
ander planned the conquest of Italy
and Spain. ‘ The empire which
Alexander had resolved to create
was that of the whole world. Had
he lived, he must have created it
. . . . had ten years more been
accorded. But it was not to be.
Alexander was not to tread the
banks of the Tiber....................... He
had aspired to give to one small
spot on earth’s surface, Greece, a
power extending over the earth. . ..’
Will he, perhaps, appeal to the wild
speech in which he strives to per
suade his soldiers to march to the
mouths of the Ganges, assuring them
that the sea of Bengal joins the
Caspian Sea, and that he will carry
his army from the Ganges round
Africa to the pillars of Hercules,
1 and so all Africa becomes ours ’ ?
How can a modern who knows any
thing of geography fail to see that
if he was serious, he was a fool,
[June
rather than a statesman with un
erring judgment ?
The schemes of Alexander were
wild enough, and it is not requisite
to attribute to him what is wilder
still. All his generals—and one may
add, all his soldiers—knew that
his dream of holding India to the
mouths of the Ganges was morally
and physically impossible. To ima
gine that the native Indians would
submit voluntarily and become
loyal to his sceptre, was simply
ridiculous. Greek heroism and
discipline must make the conquest;
but the entire military population of
Greece was insufficient to garrison
and maintain even the Persian em
pire, say nothing of India proper.
Alexander showed admirable mili
taryjudgment in choosing sites for
Greek colonies, but he could not
people them without unpeopling
Greece. The vast drain of young
men and mature men to fill his
armies quickly made the native
population decay, and the Mace
donian army there under Antipater
crushed all that remained of liberty.
Mr. de Vere whimsically says that
Alexander was aiming ‘ to give to
Greece (!) a power extending over the
whole earth,’ at the very time when
he was actually trampling Greece
itself, as tvell as Greek institutions
and sentiments, under foot, training
Persian levies to control what he
regarded as Greek insolence, and
putting forward native Persians,
who willingly submitted to pros
tration and all Oriental servility, into
high posts expressly as a curb on
the Macedonians. It may even
seem that from the day that Alex
ander set foot on Asia he abandoned
all thought of returning to Greece.
This explains his lavish giving away
of Macedonian revenues.
Like
Achilles, that type of pride and
royal egotism, he meant to conquer
or die; at best Macedonia was
nothing to him but a distant re
cruiting-ground. When Parmenio
or any other general dropped the
suggestion, ‘ Is it not time to think
�1875]
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
of home ? ’ he at once treated it as
disaffection. The desire of soldiers
to return to their native lands and
friends, was with him base and
stupid ingratitude. On two occa
sions Arrian gives a very full
account of his resentment, but con
densation is here desirable. After
Alexander’s victories over the In
dian king Porus the army showed
extreme reluctance to march farther
eastward, and the dissatisfaction
was too great and general to be
dissembled. He tried to persuade
them to march to the mouths of the
Ganges, and his speech shows us on
what motives he relies. ‘ He makes
them rich by plunder-, he shares
toil and danger with them; no
nation has yet withstood them, and
none will be able. Me will mahe them
satraps over new and new lands. He
gives them even now good pay. After
they have overrun all Asia he will
load them with riches, and either will
let them go home, or will lead them
home, or will make those envied
who prefer to stay with him in Asia.
Such were the base arguments by
which from the beginning he had
trained his soldiers to thrive on the
misery of the conquered peoples. But
the army felt the toils, the wounds,
the numbers who had perished, the
little chance of carrying home a ro
bust frame: in short, they were
home-sick :and, to his extreme dis
gust, he was forced to listen to an
honest speech from his old officer
Coenus, who, after long silence, ex
pounded to him the views and
feelings of the army. Mr. Aubrey
de Vere seems to think that the
soldiers were fools and narrow
minded, and that, even years later,
an inscrutable Providence, cutting
short Alexander’s life, alone
hindered the accomplishment of
conquests far more difficult than
any which he had achieved. If he
681
had economised his own strength
and that of his Greek troops, he
might doubtless have reigned over
all Darius’s empire and over Greece
in addition, but certainly not while
he lavished Greek life recklessly.
Mr. de Vere is indignant that
Alexander should be spoken of as
the Macedonian 1 madman, ’ and
evidently does not understand what
is the justification of that epithet.
It is because he was not satisfied
with encountering inevitable dangers
and losses, but gratuitously espoused
and invented needless dangers and
new losses. The battle of the
Granicus was the first manifestation
of this folly. His war against Tyre
was a signal and needless cruelty,
which might have been fatal to him.
The Tyrians, having no aid from
Darius, sent ambassadors to say they
would perform all his commands,
except that they must receive neither
a Persian nor a Macedonian force
within their city—an island. If he
had accepted this compromise, their
fleet and their resources would at
once have been at his disposal; and
as soon as the fortunes of Darius
were manifestly irretrievable, the
very small reserve of respect for
Persian rule9 was certain to vanish.
But Alexander’s pride was inflamed
that any exception or reserve, how
ever temporary, should oppose his
absolute will. He sent away the am
bassadors in anger, and commenced
a war which proved extremely
difficult. In it he received and in
flicted cruel wounds, wasting time
and enormous effort. At the end
he won a ruined city, having spoiled:
its site for ever by his works ; and
after all the slaughter in the siege,
and frightful carnage in the final
storming, he had the miserable
satisfaction of selling into slavery
thirty thousand Tyrians and fo
reigners who were in the city.
* The case is not fully explained. Perhaps the Persian kings had so far honoured
and gratified the Tyrians as to stipulate that no Persian force should enter their city.
A highly reasonable request.
VOL. XI.—NO. LXVI,
NEW SEEIES.
3 B
�682
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
No other Greek general would have
committed such an error, if we may
not call it crime. Again and again
we find him undertake dangerous
and difficult enterprises, wasteful of
Greek life, not because they are
needful, but barely because of the
difficulty.
In Sogdiana there was a natural
rock, supposed to be impregnable ;
among the Paraitakse a second
rock; among the Bazeri (modern
Caubul ?) a third, which it was
said Hercules had failed to take.
He must waste blood and time to
capture them all. The mention of
Hercules instantly inflamed his pas
sion to outdo the mythical hero.
When he came to the Iaxartes (the
Sir Deria), the river which sepa
rated the Massagetan Scythians
from the Persian empire, he of
■ course found Scythian cavalry
watching him. They shoot arrows
into the stream to show him that
he must not cross. It is an un
endurable insult, he says : he must
chastise them. He crosses the
river, undergoes hard fighting, takes
credit for victory, but presently
has to come back again, half
poisoned by drinking foul water,
with no reward but needless blood
shed. Naturally, when he turns his
back, they come over to help his
enemy. But nothing so much de
serves to be called a wicked destruc
tion of his soldiers as his march
through Gedrosia, the modern Beloochistan. After the toils, wounds,
and losses encountered to conquer
in India territories which could
not be kept permanently, he built
a fleet of transports and sailed
down to the mouths of the Indus.
There he heard that no army had
ever passed safe through Gedrosia ;
that Queen Semiramis had at
tempted it, and brought through
only twenty men, and the great
Cyrus had come through with seven
only. This immediately determined
him to do (says Nearchus, his ad
[June
miral) what to them had been
impossible. (The tales were, no
doubt, mythical; but Alexander had
an open ear to every lying legend,
equally as to soothsayers and cata
leptic women.) All the sufferings
elsewhere endured by the army
were as nothing compared to this.
Heat, want of water and of fodder,
presently reduced them to the ut
most distress. They could not feed
or water their cattle; they killed
them for food. Alexander knew it,
and did not dare to forbid it. The
waggons had to be abandoned.
They dug into the sand for partial
supplies of water. A miserable
stream and timely rain saved a part
of the army. Many are said to
have perished by excess of drinking
after long thirst and heat, probably
also after long fatigue and fasting.
Alexander in the worst suffer
ing displayed great;10 magnanimity,
and, like the Hebrew king David,
when water was brought to him
that did not suffice for many, poured
it out on the ground. The guides
professed to have quite lost the
tracks, and a miserable time had
still to be endured. That he, got
through safe with any considerable
part of his men, seemed to be a
miracle; and meanwhile several
satraps took great liberties, not
expecting that he would ever reappear. It cannot be pretended
that such a king either economised
his resources or acted as one who
understood the difficulties of his
own task. It- is vain to talk of
his statesmanship, when his mili
tary impetus and habit of sacri
ficing everything for the victory of
the moment uniformly carried him
away.
His cruelties to the unfortunate
and innocent Asiatics would not
deserve censure from a Greek point
of view, if they had proceeded
from any long-sighted policy. Philip
also was cruel to the Phocians
where it served his ambition. No
M Plutarch tells a story not unlike this on a different occasion.
�1875]
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
one greatly blamed Alexander for
his severity to Thebes; though all
shuddered. He sold all the Thebans
who survived his attack, men, wo
men, and children, into slavery,
divided their country among his
allies, and razed the walls to the
ground. This was intended to
strike terror into every Greek city,
and teach to all the danger of his
enmity. Beyond a doubt it was
politic, but not the act of one who
desired to exalt Greece. It was in
his uniform style of pure egotism.
But his cruelties to the unhappy
Asiatics who for the first time heard
his name are repeated to satiety.
He comes suddenly into Bactria,
where is only one strong place,
Gyrupolis. He captures five cities
in two days, and massacres as many
of the people as he can. He places
cavalry round one city to intercept
fugitives who might report his pre
sence to the next, lest the people
run away into the woods and moun
tains and be harder to catch.
Nevertheless the smoke of the burn
ing city gave warning. Tidings
also of the disaster came, and the
population took flight; but they
Were mercilessly slaughtered—un
armed and without discrimination.
In storming these hapless and ut
terly weak places Alexander gave
strict orders to kill every man, and
make slaves of the women and
children. (What the army could
possibly do with so many slaves,
and how they could be fed, here as
elsewhere is unexplained.) When
Alexander was wounded, as often
happened, the Macedonians were
made doubly ferocious. Nothing so
bloody is ever imputed by the
Greeks to Xerxes. Our historians
would never have been silent had
he committed such atrocities as
they tell of Alexander.
683
.And this may remind us of the
burning of the palace in Persepolis.
Alexander himself was afterwards
ashamed of it, and so, apparently,
was King Ptolemy, who represents
it as an act of mistaken policy.
Forsooth, Xerxes burnt Athens, and
Alexander wished to avenge the
outrage ! Had, then, the countless
multitudes 11 relentlessly slaugh
tered in pursuit, after his great
victories, been insufficient revenge
for ancient deeds ? And did Alex
ander forget that Persepolis was
now his own city, and that he was
burning his own palace ? Arrian
elsewhere, in courtier fashion, says
that Ptolemy, being a king, was
likely to tell the truth; but he
forgets that it must have been very
painful to him to tell facts dis
agreeable to his royal patron and
friend, on whose favour and suc
cesses his own fortune had been
built up. Plutarch gives another
account, which Mr. de Vere believes,
that the palace was burnt under
the initiative of the Attic courtesan
Thais in the midst of drunken
festivity ; that she was the mistress
of Ptolemy; that Alexander was
not master of himself when, with
garland on his head and lamp in
hand, he assisted and aided in the
conflagration ; finally, that the
Macedonians eagerly assisted, be- '
cause they thought it a certain proof
that Alexander did not mean to keep
Persia and live among barbarians.
This is the more probable account,
but it was morally impossible for
King Ptolemy to publish it.
One cannot read the details of
battle, and fire, and ravage of
peaceable homes, without seeing the
vast amount of suffering, of star
vation, and of ruined prosperity
entailed by this ruthless conquest
over a vast area of country. If it
_ J1 In all mere estimates of force we may justly suspect 'immense exaggeration. Ar
rian says that, after the last great hattie with Darius, as many as 300,000 corpses
oi barbarians were gathered, and a far greater number of persons were captured.
One may suspect that he wrote A, and that it has been corrupted to A. This would
reduce the number to 40,000, and agree with Q. Curtius.
3 B 2
�684
MoraZ Estimate of Alexander the Great.
had been followed by a total over
throw of old corrupting despotism,
and the introduction of nobler in
stitutions, we might say it was a
dreadful price paid for a great good;
but when Alexander carefully pre
served all the worst Persian insti
tutions, who will show us any good
at all from it ? So successfully
did he act. the part of a mere
Asiatic, born in a seraglio, that
Persian tradition, and the cele
brated Persian epic, represent him
as a younger Persian prince who
dethroned his own brother, and so
succeeded to the throne. If we
ask, Wherein did he improve Per
sia ? we get from some the reply,
‘ He diffused a knowledge of the
Greek language.’ Yet the Greek
language and Greek literature could
not save Greece itself from decay,
nor from worse and worse corrup
tion, under the despotism which
he imposed and bequeathed. He
exposed his own life recklessly,
month by month, yet never took a
single precaution for the benefit of
the empire in case of his death.
This is in perfect harmony with
the essential egotism of his charac
ter. He believed himself the most
generous of mankind, because he
gave away the fruit of other men’s
labour to his soldiers; and he fre
quently boasted that he retained
nothing for himself, when he was
claiming supreme power over all
their property, their lives, and their
honour. At the last, when they
saw he was dying, they implored
him to name his successor; but to
the question, ‘ To whom do you
leave the empire ? ’ he would give
no other answer than, 1 To the
strongest man among you.’ Here
by he entailed on Asia the new
misery of twenty years’ civil war
among his generals.
The mischief to Greece in each
new generation was worse and
worse. Freedom was almost every
where crushed. All the young men
had to unlearn patriotism, and
accept the creed that to become
[June
mercenary soldiers in Asia, or suffer
conscription under & tyrant, was a
life good enough for a Greek. Thai
genius in Greece perished with
Demosthenes is so often remarked,
that it is difficult to understand
how any scholars blind themselves
to the evidence that Alexander was
the assassin both of liberty and of
genius. Of course the evil result®
from the overthrow of law and of
all semblance of right could not
appear at once. The vast system
of standing armies undermined in
Greece industrial pursuits, cultiva
tion of the soil, and family life.
The same result, depopulation, fol
lowed in Italy from the demand of
men for the Roman legions; and
we cannot be wrong in tracing to
the same cause the marked and
steady decay of population in Greece.
As to Asia, we have no documents
to base assertion upon, but nothing
visible denotes that under Mace
donian or Parthian despots things
were better than under Persian.
While princes are born in a seraglio,
and practise polygamy from an early
age, no royal dynasty is long equal
to common men in body or mind.
To join personal despotism to poly
gamy is fatal to all enduring good
government; yet this is exactly
what Alexander did. Of durable
prosperity he laid no foundation®.
Military posts in abundance he
planned and fortified; docks for
ship-building he established on the
rivers of the Panjab; but how
could he hope to obtain allegiance
from the people ? He depended on
mere force. When his back was
turned they revolted. He might
well say, as Napoleon I. said, ‘ Ah I
I cannot be everywhere.’ When an
Indian king—Musicanus—revolted,
Alexander in revenge razed to the
ground the walls of the cities which
he had placed under Musicanus,
and reduced the people into slavery
(what he did with them as slaves
is never explained, and this makes
one hope there is exaggeration),
and where he had himself placed
�1875]
Moral Estimate of Alexander the Great.
garrisons he dismantled and de
stroyed the citadels; an impotent
mod® of securing future submission.
Musicanus, having been caught by
the Macedonian Pei th on, was sent
back by Alexander to be hanged
among his own people. It must
surely be evident that Alexander
could not always be an Achilles,
and that the Panjab was certain
to be lost to him the moment that
it ceased to fear an overwhelming
military force. The description of
the army with which he conquered
it, takes one quite by surprise,
though in his letter to Darius after
the battle of Issus he boasts that
many who in that battle were in
the king’s ranks now fight in his.
But in India the Greeks in Alex
ander’s army were so outnumbered
by Asiatics that, if the king had
died of the arrow-shot in his lungs,
they feared to be massacred by their
own auxiliaries. Were these to
garrison all India for the king ?
We cannot wonder at the entire
absence of prudence in a young
man spoiled from childhood, intoxi
cated with military success, and
bent on egotistical glory; but to
extol such conduct as ‘ instinctive
and unerring statesmanship ’ is very
delusive doctrine. ‘ If I were Alex
ander I would accept Darius’s
offers,’ said Parmenio. ‘ So would
I, if' I were Parmenio,’ replied
Alexander, insolently and foolishly ;
yet it is lauded as a right royal
sentiment. Parmenio thought it
better to accept treasure freely
granted by Darius, and use resources
accumulated in the past, than to
seize supplies by wasteful and odious
685
rapine ; better to accept three solid
countries with the whole sea-coast
fronting Greece, and take time to
consolidate the conquests and press
lightly on the conquered, than to
push farther at once and risk their
communications with home ; better
to establish peace with Darius, even
if it could not last very long, and
secure their home predominance,
than to make the quarrel with
Darius implacable and give hope to
all the Grecian enemies of Mace
donia. If Antipater had been de
feated in Greece, Alexander might
have been ruined by it in Asia; the
loss of a single battle by Alexander
himself against Darius might have
been fatal. Parmenio, it seems, is
a stupid pedant in Mr. de Vere’s
estimate. If his advice had been
taken—if the Greek dominion had
never gone beyond the Euphrates—
we cannot be sure that the history
of mankind would have been hap
pier, simply because vast contin
gencies always elude certain know
ledge. But, without rashness, we
may say,-—acquaintance with the
masterpieces of Greek literary
genius would even then have been
diffused in the East among minds
capable of appreciating them.
Whether Parthians or Babylonians
ever got much benefit from such
literature, it is truly hard to ascer
tain ; but high literary eminence
does not need war to extend the
sphere of its admiration. If any
one lay stress on such a result of
Macedonian conquest, he confesses
that it was very barren of good in
Asia; that it was deadly to Greece
is no theory, but manifest fact.
E. W. Newman.
�
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
Moral estimate of Alexander the Great
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 667-685 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From Fraser's Magazine, Vol. XI, no. LXVI. Printed in double columns. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT54
Subject
The topic of the resource
Greece
Classics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Moral estimate of Alexander the Great), 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
Alexander the Great
Ancient Greece
Conway Tracts