1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cbb067b32eac4bd3e52d5d97a7608d83.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=HDh6ab2lCY-nC32EnduaMsSwCeY7Bi2RRlFO4QQNUm0gkLkppF8MNss-4vRs0vOhDkC8H-GANQyN1lJyKJbXkEinl%7Eh30XXptuWnE-2R3Nqgo8cg0SZTrqnso-%7Ew-6%7E%7EWXacK6N3JFjuglAufrDBfjaRFLgIa5inwhD%7EBWO43%7EMAVPALEuQHgEuQn45t8ZpxlqVMj6ccDskGYGkkmQ9KSenpFrGtzS--CioyumX5DfOXAwekq5fHojrjvr-1aMfldS%7E7B%7Ebz1BMLBbkn2reV5UX09i%7ECZ6AXsVfnqza5NDmijmy7gVm0u13hsGVLicKoQ-zIfm-eRzKjsA16Cym4DA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1ed51c6acd283bc41c56a60722c7b3af
PDF Text
Text
r
?•
5?
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
01^7
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
i.
Christianity’s triumph over Paganism is considered
by Christians as itself a miracle. They cannot other
wise understand “ the victory of the world’s babes and
striplings over its philosophers and scholars, and the
serried array of emperors, aristocracies, and statesmen.”
But look at Mormonism, look at the Salvation Army.
These systems have grown faster than Christianity did.
True, they have arisen in a period of vital and progres
sive civilization, and, consequently, their spread is
limited. Christianity spread while the Roman Empire
was .decaying, and the ancient civilization was slowly
breaking up for reconstruction. Paganism itself had
broken up also. The old national religions had perished,
because the Empire had annihilated the national barriers.
But the instinct and the material of superstition were
still left. There was a splendid opportunity for a new,
universal religion. Christianity arose and occupied the
field, and had it not done so another system would have
taken its place. It was victorious by adjustment. Its
ecclesiastics altered and improvecTit judiciously, adding
I here and lopping there, until it fitted the superstition of
every race in’ the' Empire. Christianity incorporated
from all preceding creeds, and its triumph' Ts a striking
illustration of the Darwinian law of Natural Selection.
Against the wave of Eastern superstition which swept
over the Roman Empire, allied as it was with that of
the native population, Roman culture was ultimately
impotent. The philosophic schools had no direct in
fluence on the masses who were left to the priests of
r
Q
i
11
Vf
A
fi 1
Pi
i
�o
2
V/r > *
** i
4 '
CHRISTIANITY
the popular religion. Printing was required to make
knowledge and reflection democratic. No doubt great
names exerted an indirect influence over the people,
but all the great names had vanished before Christianity
was victorious. Science, art, philosophy, and literature
died out with the^Empire,^ and Christianity arose in
T
almost universal darkness.1 This is another proof of
Schopenhauer s accuracy in saying that “ Religions are
like glow-worms ; they require darkness to shine in.”
There is no basis in fact for the popular religious
teaching that Christianity brought a new life and a
healthier vigour to Pagan society. It served rather as J
one of the most important factors in its decadence and
decline. What_renovation took jflace after the ageof fill
| Justinian, when Christianity had everything at its feet ? |
I The decadence continued as before. Not until the
Northern barbarians carved out fresh kingdoms from*
the old ruins, and poured new life into the veins of
Europe, was there any sign of improvement. It was
not religion that wrought the change, but the savage
strength of virgin races. From the German forests and
the Scandinavian ice-fields poured down the living tide
that fertilized the barren fields of a decrepit civilization.
Christianity had reviled nature, and nature avenged» the J
insult. She flung her barbaric brood upon the effemi
nate religionists; the healthy blood and brawn triumphed, |
. and Europe was reborn.
II.
Many readers of this pamphlet may recollect a once I;
famous article by the late Mr. W. E. Gladstone on Mrs. |
Humphrey Ward’s novel, Robert Elsmere. In that essay I
Mr. Gladstone drew a picture of society before and after I
the introduction of Christianity, which is recalled here
1 See a fine statement of the case in J. C. Morison’s T/ia
Service of Man, pp. 174-177
0
�AND PROGRESS.
3
because it contains, in a small compass, all, or nearly
all, that Christian apologists are constantly saying. Of
the influence of Christianity on Roman civilization, he
says :—It both produced a type of character wholly new to
thé Roman world, and it fundamentally altered the laws
and institutions, the tone, temper, and tradition of that ?
world. For example, it changed profoundly the relation
of the poor to the rich, and the almost forgotten obliga
tions of the rich to the poor. It abolished slavery,
abolished human sacrifice, abolished gladiatorial shows,
and a multitude of other horrors. It restored the
position of woman in society. It proscribed polygamy ;
and put down divorce, absolutely in the West, though
not absolutely in the East. It made peace, instead of
war, the normal and presumed relation between human
societies. It exhibited life as a discipline everywhere
and in all its parts, and changed essentially the place
and function of suffering in human experience. Accept
ing the ancient morality as far as it went, it not only
enlarged but transfigured its teaching, by the laws of
humility and forgiveness, and by a law of purity perhaps
even more new and strange, than these.
This is the Christian side of the picture. But the
other side must also be painted for the sake of contrast,
and Mr. Gladstone painted it hideously in the darkest
colours. He did the trick dexterously, but it was more
worthy of a party orator than an historical student :—
What civilization could do without Christianity for
the greatest races of mankind, we know already. Philo
sophy and art, creative genius and practical energy, had
their turn before the Advent ; and we can register the
results. I do not say that the great Greek and Roman
ages lost—perhaps even they improved—thè ethics of
mmm and tuum, in the interests of the leisured and
favoured classes of society, as compared with what those
ethics had been in archaic times. But they lost the
hold which some earlier races within their sphere had
�4
CHRISTIANITY
had of the future life. They degraded, and that im
measurably, the position of woman. They effaced from
the world the law of purity. They even carried indulgence to a worse than bestial type, and they glorified in
the achievement.
Anything cruder, more one-sided or distorted, is hard
to conceive. Mr. Gladstone, with little regard to truth,
says the best he can of Christianity; with as little
regard to truth, he says the worst he can of Paganism;
and he fancies it a fair comparison.
Let us examine these two pictures. The Pagan
picture is simply ludicrous. Philosophy and art are
treated as mere trifles, and not a word is said about
the ancient science which modern Europe could not
parallel before the days of Galileo. Nor is there an
allusion to the daily life of the people; the people who
loved, married, reared children, and were buried in
tombs, on which we may still read touching inscriptions.
The apologist rushes to Rome in its worst days, when a
luxuriant aristocracy, fed on the spoils of a hundred
provinces, committed the worst excesses. But even
there he sees no light and shade. The indignant satire
of Juvenal is regarded as true of all Roman society, 1
What if an historian should take the satire of Dryden i
as true of all English society ? Would it not be the
grossest blunder ? Charles the Second, and his Roch
ester and Nell GWynnes, were as bad as any Roman
profligates; but there was still a good deal of sound
morality in the nation, as there doubtless was in the
worst days of Nero or Caligula.
A Christian treads on dangerous ground when he
talks of the profligacy and bestiality of Greeks and U
Romans. Can he name a vice that has not been amply
illustrated by Christian practitioners ? Can he name a m
crime in which Christians have not equalled Pagans ? T
Was not Rome, under some of the Popes, worse than
�5
AND PROGRESS.
Rome under any of the Emperors ? Was there not
more general debauchery in the Middle Ages than at
I any other period in history ? Did not the rapid spread
of syphilis in Christendom, as soon as it was imported,
testify to the promiscuous license of the believers in
Jesus? Are the Christian chapters in the history of
prostitution less foul than the Pagan ? Cannot Chris
tendom show a hundred filthy books for every one that
Greece and Rome have bequeathed us ? Do not
portions of our Christian capitals reek with as much
moral pestilence as ever befouled Athens or Rome ?
And was not the state of things far worse a century
or two ago ? How long is it since the most stupid
debauchee in England was called the first gentleman in
Europe ? There is bitter truth in Thackeray’s remark
that our mouths may be cleaner than our ancestors’
without our lives being purer.
That Pagan civilization degraded woman “ immeasur
ably ” is the reverse of truth. Does it mean that
socially or politically, woman occupied a superior posi
tion is some remote era, when piety and justice were
supreme ? No, it cannot mean this, for it is simply
absurd. What, then, does it mean ? The statement^
• would imply that as Greek and Roman civilization;
advanced, woman sank lower and lower. But nothing
could be falser than this. With regard to Rome, in
especial, it is a singular fact that the corrupt period of
| the Empire was precisely the time when the legal rights
| of' women were firmly established. “ That very im1 morality,” says Thulie,1 “that gangrened civilization,
served to ameliorate her social condition.” Every step
taken in our own day to emancipate woman from
political and social bondage is a return to the laws’
passed under Roman emperors, before Christianity had
1 La Femme, p. 45.
�6
CHRISTIANITY
made any sensible progress. The property of married
»I women was secured, and its misappropriation by the
11 husband was punishable as theft. Divorce was granted
|: to both on the same conditions,1 and in every respect
I i the legal equality of the sexes was admitted. The
■ Justinian code, compiled in the sixth century, made
marriage.a Christian'sacrament; but the Bible was not
appealed to for its social regulations. “ The emperor,”
as Gibbon remarks, “ consulted the unbelieving civilians
of antiquity.”
Christians may be reluctant to accept the authority
of an infidel like Gibbon, but they cannot repudiate
the authority of Sir Henry Maine. This profound
and accomplished writer deals with the history of
woman’s condition, from a legal point of view, in the
fifth chapter of his Ancient Law. After referring to the
expedients which the later Roman lawyers devised for
enabling women to defeat the slavery of the ancient
rules, and the gradual falling into disuse of the three
ancient forms of marriage, which rendered the wife
completely subject to her husband, and even to his will
after his death, this eminent jurisprudist goes on to
say
The consequence was that the situation of the
Roman female, whether married or unmarried, became'
one of great personal and proprietary independence, for
the tendency of the later law, as I have already hinted,
was to reduce the power of the guardian to nullity,
while the form of marriage in fashion conferred on the
husband no compensating superiority. But Christianity
tended somewhat from the first to naiyrow this remT/rkable
liberty. Led at first by justifiable disrelish for the loose
practices of the decaying heathen world, but afterwards
hurried on by a passion of ascetism, the professors
of the new faith looked with disfavour on a marital tie
1 Gibbon, chap. xliv.
�AND PROGRESS.
7
which was in fact the laxest the Western world has seen.
¡The latest Roman law, so far as it.is touched .by the
Constitutions of the Christian Emperors, bears some
maries* oT a reaction against the liberal doctrines of the
great Antonine jurisconsults. Ànd the prevalent state
oFreiTgious sentiment’ may explain why it is that modern
jurisprudence, forged in the furnace of barbarian
conquest, and formed by the fusion of Roman juris
prudence with patriarchal usage, has absorbed, among
its rudiments, much more than usual of these rules
concerning the position of women which belong
peculiarly to an imperfect civilization.1
Roman jurisprudence, in the modern law of Southern
and Western Europe, was the influence which gave
comparative freedom to spinsters and widows ; while
the Canon Law, which chiefly controlled the marriage
relations, was the influence which imposed disabilities
on married women. “ This was in part inevitable,”
says Sir Henry Maine, “since no society which ^preserves
any tincture of Christian institution is likely to restore
[to married women the personal liberty conferredjpn
»them by the middle Roman law.”2
When we are told that the Pagan civilizations “ effaced
from the world the law of purity,” it is difficult to regard
the statement as serious. That gross immorality exis
ted among the idle and wealthy, and often, though
certainly not always, at the imperial court, we frankly
allow. But may not the same be alleged of every age
and every country ? Catherine de Medici was extremely
pious, but this did not prevent her giving a banquet to
her royal son, at which her handsomest maids of honour
officiated naked to the waist. Brantôme utters pious
ejaculations amid his incredible filth. The court he
paints was horrified at the thought of heresy, and
1 Sir Henry Maine. Ancient Law, p. 156. The italics are ours.
2 P. 158.-
�CHRISTIANITY
rejoiced at the burning of Freethinkers ; yet, as Mr.
Morisbn says, “ one fails to see how it differed, except
for the worse, from the court of Caligula or Commodus.” 1 Centuries earlier, before the Renaissance,
when the Church was supreme and Christianity un
questioned, Europe sent army after army t» wrest the
Holy Land from the Mohammedans. Those enterprises
were religious. The Christian warriors were soldiers of
the Cross. They carried the “ sacred emblem ” on
their shoulders. Yet history attests that they were the
vilest savages that ever disgraced the earth. They
were cannibals, and their bestiality is beyond description.
Might not a Mohammedan have said that “ Christianity
had effaced from the world the law of purity”?
Christians may reply that the law of purity was
not effaced; it was taught though not practised. But
this argument can be used against both ways. Purity »
was equally taught (and practised) by Seneca, Marcus .
Aurelius, and Epictetus, to say nothing of minor
moralists. The wise Emperor wrote : “ Such as are thy
habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of thy
mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts.”2 Does
not this carry the law of purity into the very citadel of
man’s nature? Epictetus said: “For since the Gods
by their nature are pure and free from corruption, so
far as men approach them by reason, so far do they
cling to purity and to a love of purity.”3 Seneca wrote:
“ If sensuality were happiness, beasts were happier than
men ; but human felicity is lodged in the soul, not in the
flesh.”4 Such was the effacement of the law of purity i
in the Pagan world !
1 The Service of Man, p. 152.
2 Thoughts of M. Aurelius Antoninus. Translated by G.
Long. P. 112.
3 Discourses of Epictetus. G. Long. P. 366.
z
4 The Morals of Seneca. Edited by Walter Clode. P. 68.
�9
AND PROGRESS.
The above cited panegyric on Christianity is as false
as its censure on Paganism. Some parts of it are too
vague to be answered, but where it is definite an
answer is easy. Christianity, it declares, abolished
slavery. It did nothing of the kind. Before Christianity influenced the Roman Empire, the evils of slavery
were mitigated, and the institution was thus tending to
extinction. Slaves were protected by the laws, and if
they were ill-treated they obtained their freedom or a
less cruel master. Manumission became so frequent
that the law had to impose some restraint, lest the free
citizens should be overwhelmed by the multitude of
new comers.1 Learned and artistic slaves sat at their
masters’ tables* and educated their children. Slavery
was, in fact, a caste and not a traffic, though slaves
were bought and sold. They were the offsprings of
captives of war, and not kidnapped like negroes. Ib
was reserved for Christianity to steal men from distant
countries for the express purpose of making them
slaves. No such infamy as the African slave-trade,
carried on by Christians under the protection oE
Christian laws, ever disgraced the nations of antiquity.
Constantine was the first Christian emperor. Did he
abolish slavery ? No. He liberated the slaves owned
by Jews, if they embraced Christianity, but the slaves
of Christian masters enjoyed no such advantage. Ac
cording to the old law, a free woman who had inter
course with a slave was reduced to servitude; but
Constantine humanely decreed that the free woman
should be executed and the slave burnt to death.
Stoicism branded slavery as immoral, but where does s
the New Testament say a word against that institution?
Jesus never once whispered it was wrong. He could
vigorously denounce what he disapproved. His objur
1 Gibbon, chap. ii.
�10
CHRISTIANITY
gation of the Scribes and Pharisees is almost without a
parallel. Those who rejected his teaching and opposed
his claims were overwhelmed with vituperation, but
never did he censure those who held millions in cruel
bondage.
Saint Paul,also never said a word against slavery,
btut many words that lent it a sanction. He_tells slaves
(servants, in our Authorised Version) to count their
owners worthy of all honour (i Tim. vi. i) ; to be obedi
ent unto them, with fear and trembling, as unto Christ
(Ephesians vi. j); and to please them in all things.
All Greek scholars clearly understand that the word
which Paul uses signifies slave, and not servant. The
great Apostle was brought face to face with slavery,
yet he uttered no word of condemnation. There is a
certain pathetic tenderness in his letter to Philemon, if
we suppose he took the institution of slavery for granted,
but it vanishes if we suppose he felt the institution to be
unjust. Professor Newman justly remarks that “ Onesimus, in the very act of taking to flight, showed that
Jie had been submitting to servitude against his will.”
Nor is there any escape from this writer’s conclusion
that, although Paul besought Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother, “ this very recommendation, full of
affection as it is, virtually recognizes the moral rights of
Philemon to the services of his slave.” “ Paul and
Peter,” he adds, “ deliver excellent charges to masters
in regard to the treatment of slaves, but without any
hint to them that there is an injustice in claiming them
as slaves at all. That slavery, as a system, is essentially
immoral, no Christian of those days seems to have
suspected.”1
Century followed century, and the Church never once
raised its voice against slavery as an institution. It
1 Professor F, W. Newman, Phases of Faith, p. 105.
�AND PROGRESS.
11
excommunicated heretics, but not slaveholders. Chris
tian divines invariably justified slavery from Scripture.
Ignatius (who is said to have seen Jesus), Saint Cyprian,
Saint Basil, Tertullian, Saint Augustine, Gregory the
Great, Saint Isidore, Saint Bernard, Saint Thomas
Aquinas, and Bossuet, all taught that slavery is a
divine institution. Christian jurisprudists, even in the
eighteenth century, defended negro slavery, which it
was reserved for the sceptical Montesquieu and the
arch-heretic Voltaire to condemn.
Church Councils rivetted the slave’s fetters. The.
'Council of TEabdicea~actually interdicted slaves from
Cfiurcfi communion without the consent of tfieirmasters.
I The Council of^Orleans (541) ordered that the descen. idants of slave parents migHl be captured andGepIaceH
in the servile condition of their ancestors. The Council
ofroledo (633J Torbade bishops to liberate "slaves
I belonging to thq. Church. Jews having made fortunes
/by slave-dealing, the Councils of Rheims and Toledo
V both prohibited the selling of Christian slaves except to
Christians. Slavery laws were also passed by the
Council of Pavia (1082) and the Lateran Council (1179).
During all those ages, priests, abbots, and bishops held '
, slaves. The Abbey of St. Germain de Prés owned
I 80,000 slaves, the Abbey of St. Martin de Tours
120,000?
Negro slavery was likewise defended by the pulpit
and the divinity chair in America, ^krs. Beecher
, Stowe said the Church was so familarly quoted as
I being on the side of slavery, that “ Statesmen on both
\ sides of the question have laid that down as a settled
\fact.”2 Theodore Parker said that if the whole
American Church had “ dropped through the continent
1 See Tourmagne’s Historic de I'Esclavage
Moderne.
2 Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin, p. 533.
Ancien
et
I
�12
CHRISTIANITY
and disappeared altogether, the Anti-Slavery cause
would have been further on.”1 He pointed out that no
Church ever issued a single tract among all its
thousands, against property in human flesh and blood ;
and that 80,000 slaves were owned by Presbyterians,
225,000 by Baptists, and 250,000 by Methodists.
(Wilberforce himself declared that the,. American Epis
copal Church “ raises no voice against the predominant
evil; she palliates it in theory^ and Tn practice she
shares in it. The mildest and most conscientious of
thebishops of the South are slaveholders themselves.”2
The Harmony Presbytery of South Carolina deliber
ately resolved that slavery was justified by Holy Writ.
The college church of the Union Theological Seminary,
Prince Edward County, was endowed with slaves, who
were hired out to the highest bidder for the pastor’s
salary. Lastly, Professor Moses Stuart, of Andover,
who is accounted the greatest American theologian since
Jonathan Edwards, declared that “ the precepts of the
New Testament respecting the demeanour of slaves and
their masters beyond all question recognize the existence
of slavery.”
The Northern States were even more bigoted to
slavery than the Southern States. Boston, the classic
home of American orthodoxy, closed all its churches
and chapels to William Lloyd Garrison, who delivered
his first Anti-Slavery lecture in that city in Julian Hall,
which was offered him by Abner Kneeland, an infidel
who had been prosecuted for blasphemy.
American slavery was not terminated by the vote of
the Churches; it was abolished by Lincoln as a strategic
act in the midst of a civil war. England abolished
• slavery in the West Indies, and honourably or quixotically
1 Theo. Parker, Works, vol. vi., p. 233.
2 Wilberforce, History of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in America, p. 42T.
�AND PROGRESS.
ll
I
3
1
13
paid for it; but she was not the first nation to move in
this matter. Professor Newman rightly observes that
“ the first public act against slavery came from repub
lican France, in the madness of atheistic enthusiasm.”
But it is a memorable fact that Bonaparte, who set up
the Catholic Church again, gave a fresh lease of life to
slavery.
To assert that Christianity abolished slavery is,
therefore obviously false. The statement is made but
no proof is furnished, nor can it be, until history is
rewritten. The Bjble_never condemns_nor censures^
slavery ; CJi r is tianit y_ tolerated it' without reproachy
for a period^ as long _ as the whole ___ history pf I
ancient Rome; Church Councils regulated it, and R
Church dignitaries reckoned slaves among their posses- 11
sions. When slavery died a natural death in Europe, 1*
Christian nations continued it in America, with no
hereditary excuse, but animated by the most brutal
spirit of avarice ; nor were divines wanting to prove that
negroes might be fitly oppressed, as they were not
included in the descendants of Adam. It is not so |
long ago to remember when slavery was legal in our *
West Indian colonies. Men under thirty may remember
its abolition in the United States. It has only recently
been abolished in Brazil. To declare these things
the tardy results of a religion which was established by
a divine personage nearly two thousand years ago, is to
invite ridicule and laughter.
The next assertion is that Christianity “ abolished
human sacrifice.” When and where? Does anyone.
suppose that human sacrifice was tolerated in the
Roman Empire? Or is it believed^that the ^stories_of
Abraham and Jephthah had any special tendency to
discredit human sacrifice ?
The “ multitude ■ of other horrors ” abolished by
Christianity are too vague for refutation. Reply is
I
�14
CHRISTIANITY
impossible until these apologists condescend to be
explicit. But it must be allowed, as an historical .
$ fact, that the gladiatorial shows were suppressed by
•4 Honorius.1 Let Christianity receive the credit of that,
if you will; but set against it the frightful severity
which Christianity imported into the laws, burning ;
L alive was first inserted into the Roman penal code by it
Constantine. “ He appointed this punishment,” says **
Jortin, “ for various offences. To burn men alive
became thenceforward a very common punishment, to
the disgrace of Christianity.”2
J, Christianity does not appear to have extinguished
| cruelty with the gladiatorial shows. Fourteen centuries
ihave rolled by since then, but cock-fighting has only
just died out, and bull-fights are still popular in Spain.
What moral difference is there between such a sport
and the old Roman shows ? The lust of cruelty is
gratified in both ; the arena is reddened with blood ;
and what matter whether it flows from animal or human
veins ?
But all this is trivial in comparison with the positive
* cruelty which Christianity inflicted in the name of God.
The bloodshed of the gladiatorial shows sinks into
insignificance beside the bloodshed of Christian perse
cution. When Rome was Pagan thought was free.
Gladiatorial shows satisfied the bestial craving in vulgar
breasts, but the philosophers and the poets were
unfettered, and the intellect of the few was gradually
, 1 achieving the redemption of the many. When Rome
i was Christian she introduced a new slavery. Thought
I
The “fact,” however, seems somewhat doubtful. We allow
it on the authority of Gibbon; but Dr. Smith, in a footnote to his
edition of the Decline and Fall (vol. iv., p. 41), asserts that “ the
gladiatorial shows continued even.a»t-a later period.”
2 Archdeacon Jortin, Remarks on Ecclesiastical History,
vol. ii.,p. 137.
�AND PROGRESS.
15
was chained and scourged, while the cruel instincts of
the multitude were gratified with exhibitions of suffering,
compared with which the bloodiest arena was tame and
insipid. No longer gladiators, but heretics, were
“ butchered to make a Roman holiday.” What hypo
crisy, to denounce the bloody sports of Paganism, and
call the mob to see men burnt alive ! Eleven centuries
after Honorius, John Calvin was burning Servetus
with green wood to prolong his torment.1 Alva was
perpetrating atrocities which Tacitus would have deemed
incredible. Here is a Christian picture from Lisbon, so
late as 1706, beheld by Bishop Wilcox. A woman and
a man were burnt for heresy.
The woman was alive in the flames half an hour,
and the man above an hour...... Though the favour he
begged was only a few more faggots, yet he was not able
to obtain it. The wind being a little fresh, the man’s
hinder parts were perfectly wasted ; and as he turned
himself his ribs opened.2
Amongst the “multitude of horrors” which Chris
tianity “abolished,” was there one to equal this?
Physician heal thyself! Cease denouncing others while
your own hand is red enough to incarnadine the
multitudinous seas.
Christianity “ restored the position of women in
society.” We have already seen what was the position
of woman under the best Roman law. In what respect '
did Christianity improve it ? As a matter of fact,
^Christianity degraded woman by tyyo methods ; nrst, Ey
K a"3opting the Jewish story of' tfe "FaTl; secondly, by
H preaching up virginity. Paul’s ' view of woman™
position is contemptible ; she is as inferior to man as
man is to God. Saint Jerome called her “the demon’s
door, the road of iniquity, the scorpion’s sting.” Saint
1 R. Willis, Servetus and Calvin, p. 487.
2 Chandler, History of Persecution, p. 827.
�16
CHRISTIANITY
Chrysostom called her “ a sovereign pest.” “ When
you see a woman,” said Saint Anthony, “ be sure you
have before you not a human being, not even a wild
beast, but the Devil in person.” Saint Augustine’s
insults were nearly as extravagant. Saint John of
Damascus styled her “ a child of lying, the advanced
sentinel of the Devil,” and “ a malignant she-ass.”
Gregory the Great denied her “any moral sense.”1
That is how Christianity “ restored the position of
woman in society.”
Christianity sought to destroy the family. “No
religion,” says Thulie, “ has combated marriage with
such ardour as Christianity.” The Christian doctors
despised it. Saint Jerome cried “ Det us take the axe,
and cut up by the roots the sterile tree of marriage.
God permitted marriage at the beginning of the world,
but Jesus Christ and Mary have consecrated virginity.”
Saint Chrysostom railed at woman for having brought
about the Fall and the propagation of mankind by
sexual intercourse, which he called a pollution. Tertullian
told her. she should wear mourning or rags, for she was
the cause of the death of Christ. The triumph of
Christianity meant the degradation of motherhood, and
the subjection of the wife as a tolerated concession to
the weakness of man’s flesh. Marriage sank into
gratified lust, and women fell back into the abject
position they occupied in barbarous ages.
Polygamy was not proscribed by Christianity, because
it did not exist in the Pagan civilization which Christi
anity supplanted. Monogamy was legal in Greece and |
Rome, and had been so for centuries. When Christi-4
anity opposed polygamy among the barbarians it simply
carried forward the morality of Pagan civilization. The
Bible itself^ never censures polygamy or enjoins
monogamy^
’ .........
1 Thuli£, pp. 201-206.
�AND PROGRESS.
17
That Christianity “put down divorce” is undoubtedly
true, but the result was of questionable value. The
Church still brands divorce with its anathema, but the
secular law, even in the most Catholic countries, has
been constrained to permit it under certain con
ditions.
Christianity certainly did not put down war, nor did
it make “ peace, instead of war, the normal relation
between human societies.” The Pax Romanus was a
reality, which Christendom has never equalled. At no
time did the Roman armies number four hundred thous
and men; yet now, after eighteen centuries of the gospel
of peace, Europe is armed to the teeth, millions of
soldiers are grasping arms, and every Christian nation
anxiously increases its defences. On a peace, footing,
Europe spends nearly two hundred millions every
year on armies and navies, and another two hun
dred millions are required to pay the interest on
debts incurred over past wars.
New rifles, new
artillery, new explosives, crowd upon us every few
. years. Surely, in the face of these facts, the Christian’s
eulogy of his creed is the idlest verbiage.
Christians are right, however, in saying that Christi
anity “ changed essentially the place and function of
suffering.” Suffering was always regarded as an evil
before Christianity preached it as a blessing. For
tunately, the modern world is returning to the old
opinion, and the party of progress is everywhere warring
against the evils of this life, without waiting for the
rectifications of another world.
Charity itself has been narrowed by Christianity into
mere almsgiving. Paul’s great panegyric on this virtue
is perhaps the finest thing in the New Testament, but
' ■ the very word he uses (cavitas) was borrowed from „
Pagan moralists. Cicero anticipated him before the W
birth of Christ in his caritas generis humani.
�18
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
11 Humility and forgiveness” are fine phrases, but
they are seldom more. Generally, they are little else
than cheap devices for popular oppression. “ Blessed
are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,” is a
sweet text; but, as a matter of fact, the soil of England
is chiefly owned by the House of Lords. The clergy,
also, have taught humility by enjoining the “lower
orders ” to remain contented in that state of life to
which Providence, has called them, and to order them
selves lowly and reverently to all their betters. As for *
“ forgiveness,” we have simply to point out that, until ||;
recently, the criminal jurisprudence of Christendom was j!
a ghastly scandal. Even in England, in the early part 1
of the present century, men and women were hung in g
batches for small felonies ; and when Romilly tried to g
terminate this infamy, he was vigorously opposed by the |
bench of Bishops.
Improvements jnjife are the offspring of civilization} 1
not of religion. Why was there so little civilization jn 1
Europe^'when Christianity "was supreme ? Why did I
Europe wait so longTor the advent of what we call I
4“ progress ” ? Why was every new idea baptized_in^|
■ blood ? Why was every reform opposed by the Chinch. I
oFChrist? WhyEave scepticism and civilization, moved I
forward with an equal pace”? WFy^does Christianity |
fade^ as *men become wiser andhappier ? Whyjs this.«
age of progress the agejof unbelief ?
~LetfiCHfistians pluck out the heart of this mystery ; a
mystery indeed on his principles, though sun-clear to
the Freethinker, who sees in the history of Christianity
and civilization the perpetual strife of irreconcilable
opposites.
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.*
i.
'
Now that the “Eastern Question” is once more
burning, and all sorts of charges are made against
the Turk—not only as a Turk, but also as a Moham
medan—it will be as well, at least for Freethinkers,
to get a clear view of the facts of the case; since it
is only the fizcAs that are of any importance what
ever to men of judgment who think for themselves.
The Christians in the south-east of Europe are
represented as ethnologically and morally superior to
the Mohammedans. They are thus represented, that
is, by their partisans in the pulpit and the press.
But they are not thus represented by travellers. It .
is almost the universal testimony of those who have
visited that part of the world that the Moham
medans are, on the whole, superior to the Christians
in chastity, temperance, self-control, veracity, and
sincerity; in all the virtues that build up a strong,
wholesome, and dignified manhood.
The superiority of the Mohammedans in the
fundamental virtues of human life is a very old story.
The testimony of the chroniclers of the Crusades on
this point is very striking. It was a commonplace
amongst Protestant preachers on salvation by faith,
who were fond of declaring that if good works could
save a man, Turks would go to heaven before Christians.
John Wesley said the same thing in slightly altered .
words. Half a century later, Byron seized on this very
* Written October, 1903.
�20
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
point in that splendid battle scene iu the eighth canto of
Don Juan, where the old Turk, whose five sons have all
fallen around him, still wields his blade, and refuses to
surrender, in spite of the entreaties of the rough
Russians who were touched by the only thing that
could touch them-his serene bravery. Was the poet
describing the son of Priam, or Peleus, or Jove ?
Neither—but a good, plain, old temperate man.
Byron saw with his own eyes and knew what he was
talking about. A recent traveller has observed that the
honest business men in Salonica are mostly Turks:
Byron noticed the same characteristic nearly a hundred
years ago. In a note to the second canto of Childe
Harold he said : —
In all money transactions with the Moslems, I ever
found the strictest honour, the highest disinterestedness.
In transacting business with them, there are none of
those dirty peculations, under the name of interest,
difference of exchange, commission, etc., etc., uniformly
found in applying to a Greek consul to cash bills, even
on the first houses in Pera.
The same sincerity was apparent in their religious
devotions. Renan was so impressed whenever he
stood within a mosque that he could hardly help
wishing himself a Mussulman. Byron wrote thus of
the Mohammedans he had often beheld at their
prayers :—
On me the simple and entire sincerity of these men,
and the spirit which appeared to be within and upon
them, made a far greater impression than any general
rite which was ever performed in places of worship, of
which I have seen those of almost every persuasion
under the sun.
Speaking, of the Turks in general, Byron said with
great energy:—
It is difficult to pronounce what they are, we can
at least say what they are not : they are not treacherous,
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
21
they are not cowardly, they do not burn heretics, they
are woi assassins, nor has an enemy advanced to their
capital. They are faithful to their sultan till he becomes
unfit to govern, and devout to their God without an inqui
sition. Were they driven from St. Sophia (Constan
tinople) to-morrow, and the French or Russians en
throned in their stead, it would become ■ a question
whether Europe would gain by the exchange. England
would certainly be the loser.
Byron praises the toleration of the Turks in this
passage. Strange as it may sound to orthodox
Christian ears, Mohammedanism is not a persecuting
religion ; and, as a matter of fact, there is far more
religious freedom in Turkey than in Russia—more,
indeed, than has obtained until quite recently in pro
gressive countries in England and France. Carry
the comparison back a hundred, or even fifty years
ago, and you will find that Turkey was in this
respect the most enlightened and liberal country in
Europe.
Some plain truth on this matter was lately expressed
by Professor Syed All Bilgrami, lecturer in the
Marathi language at the University of Cambridge.
This gentleman was interviewed by a representative
of the Daily News; and one passage in the interviewer’s
report is well worth quoting :—
Then you claim that Islam is tolerant ?
It is the most tolerant faith of all. There has
never been such absolute toleration under any other
religion. In Turkey, if a subject pays his taxes and dis
charges his civil obligations, he is absolutely free as to
'
faith. Missionaries of all religions are tolerated. Why,
if I preached Islam here in Norwood you know I should
j be mobbed.
With regard to one important point—however much
it may be considered as by the way—Professor
Bilgrami made a statement which cannot be too often
�22‘
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
repeated. “ I think,” he said, “ the Mohammedans
suffer even more than the Christians for want of firm
and equitable government.” A number of testimonies
to this effect are quoted by Professor T. W. Arnold
in his able, and, in some respects, noble, book, The
Preaching of Islam (pp. 132, 133). Finlay, the great
historian of Greece, remarked that “ The central
government of the Sultan has generally treated its
Mussulman subjects with as much cruelty and injustice
as the conquered Christians.” Forsyth, writing as late
as 1876, said that Turkish misgovernment falls with
a heavy hand on all alike. “In some parts of the
kingdom,” he added, “ the poverty of the Mussulmans
may be actually worse than the poverty of the
Christians, and it is their condition which most excites
the pity of the traveller.” Bryce, writing still later of
the north of Asia Minor, said, “ All this oppression and
misery falls upon the Mohammedan population equally
with the Christian.” The real truth is that the con
dition of the Christians in Turkey is not primarily
a religious question at all, but a purely political one.
Had this truth been steadily borne in mind, and firmly
represented to the public opinion of the Western world,
the “ Eastern Question ” might long ago have ceased to
exist—that is, if the Western Powers had also been
sincere in their expressions of desire for a reformation
in the state of affairs in Turkey, instead of aiming at its
dismemberment and spoliation.
It is that “ The propagation of his faith by the sword
is part of the religion of the Turk.” This is devoutly
believed by the vast majority of Christians. But, like
a good many other things they devoutly believe, it rests .
upon a very flimsy foundation. Professor Bilgrami
denied it most emphatically:—
Propagation of religion by the sword ? That is entirely
an exploded view. No Mohammedan ever thinks that
religion is to be propagated by the sword.
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
23
Professor Bilgrami took the opportunity to add«
something that will astonish the Christians who'
read it. They have been taught that Mohammedans
call them “infidels”—which, by the way, is their
own favourite term for those who differ from them.
But this, Professor Bilgrami said, is wholly in
correct :—
The “ infidels ” referred to in the Koran were the
cruel, idolatrous pagans of Arabia. The Christians are
called “ the people of the Book,” and we believe in the
sinless life and prophetic mission of Christ, though not
in his Divinity,
The statement that it is a part of the Turk’s
religion to propagate his faith by the sword is a very
old calumny. Its justification has always been that
it served the turn. That it was a lie was a matter of
little importance. When our English Pocock visited
the great Christian apologist Grotius, in the seventeenth
century, and asked him his authority for the story
that Mohammed kept a tame pigeon to pick peas out of
his ear, and pretended that it whispered him messages
from God, Grotius admitted that he had no authority
for it at all. Yet the lie lived on for another two
hundred years.
If we go back to Lord Bacon we shall find him
giving classic expression to this old charge against
the Turk of conquest in the name of religion. In the
Essay “ Of Kingdoms and Estates ” his lordship
says: “ The Turk hath at hand, for cause of war, the
propagation of his law or sect, a quarrel that he may
always command.” In the Essay “ Of Unity in Re
ligion ” he amplifies this statement:—
There be two swords amongst Christians, the spiritual
and the temporal; and both have their due office in the
maintenance of religion. But we may not take up the
third sword, which is Mahomet’s sword, or like unto it •
�24
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
that is, to propagate religion by wars, or by sanguinary
persecutions to force consciences ; except it be in cases
of overt scandal, blasphemy, or intermixture of practice
against the State.
It is common for the advocates of Christianity against
other religions to display craftiness, and Lord Bacon
was no exception to the rule. Courage, indeed, as well
as cunning, was necessary to write such a passage
as this while Christendom was being torn to pieces
with religious wars. There is even a positively
atrocious subtlety in the idea that, while it is wrong
to declare war against another country for the purpose
of propagating your own religion, it is quite right to
carry on a war, for the same object, against your fellow
citizens.
Lord Bacon deals with this subject again, from a
political point of view, in his tractate on “ War with
Spain ” :—
In deliberation of war against the Turk it hath
been often, with great judgment, maintained that
Christian princes and States have always a sufficient
ground of invasive war against the enemy; not for
cause of religion, but upon a just fear ; forasmuch as it
is a fundamental law in the Turkish Empire that they
may, without any further provocation, make war upon
Christendom for the propagation of their law ; so that
there lieth upon Christians a perpetual fear of war,
hanging over their heads, from them; and therefore
they may at all times, as they think good, be upon the
preventive.
What a detestable doctrine—built upon what a foun
dation of falsehood ! Whenever you feel disposed to
cut the Turk’s throat, however long he may have been
living at peace with you, all you have to do is recollect
that if he were logical he would be trying to cut your
throat, and then you may logically proceed to cut his in
self-defence.
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
25
Dr. Johnson was just the man to repeat this
doctrine, although the lapse of a hundred and fifty
years compelled him to be more cautious in his ex
pressions. In a note on Shakespeare’s Henry IV., he
says :—
If it be -a part of the religion of the Mohammedans
to extirpate by the sword all other religions, it is, by
the laws of self-defence, lawful for men of every other
religion, and for Christians among others, to make war
upon Mohammedans, simply as Mohammedans as men
obliged by their own principles to make war upon
Christians, and only lying in wait till opportunity shall
promise them success.
The “if” in this passage destroys the force of all
that follows. But a truer knowledge of Mohamme
danism was beginning to prevail, and Johnson had to be
more circumspect than his great predecessor.
II.
Long before Johnson, and soon after Bacon, the
wise and witty, and generally humane, Thomas Fuller
dealt with this point in his History of the Holy War
—that is, of the Crusades. Fuller gives the arguments
for and against the “ lawfulness of the Holy War ”
without positively committing himself to either side.
Amongst* the affirmative arguments, he perhaps im
plies, but he does not assert, that the Mohammedans
were bound to propagate their religion by the sword.
“ A preventive war,” he says, “grounded on a just fear
of invasion is lawful; but such was this holy war.”
The only “ fear ” he actually alleges, however, is based
upon the Saracenic conquests, which had driven
Christianity out of Africa and Asia, and were threat
ening it in Europe. This might have justified the
Christian nations in joining together to keep the
Saracens out of Europe: but, as a matter of fact,
�26
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
they did not join together for that object; their aim
was simply to wrest Palestine—and with it Jerusalem
and the Sepulchre of Christ—from the hands of the
“ unbelievers,” who had been peaceably settled there
for four hundred and sixty years !
Fuller, although a doctor of divinity, was so little
of a bigot that he not only slurred over the popular
Christian belief so openly adopted by Bacon, but
often put in a good word for the Mohammedans. The
following admission, touching the state of the Christians
in Palestine, is quite remarkable :—
Now the condition of the Christians under these
Saracens was as uncertain as April weather. Some
times they enjoyed the liberty and public exercise of
their religion ; and to give the Mohammedans their due,
they are generally good fellows on this point, and Chris
tians amongst them may keep their consciences free, if
their tongues be fettered not to oppose the doctrine of
Mahomet.
We do not believe that such an honest sentence
concerning Mohammedanism can be found in the
pages of any contemporary writer. Fuller probably
felt in his heart that Christianity was the more
intolerant religion of the two.
Historically, it is quite true that the Mohamme
dans have always allowed Christians to live amongst
them in peace—at least to a far greater extent than
Christians have tolerated Mohammedans. Mohammed
himself never oppressed the Christians who would live
at peace with him. Gibbon justly observes that he
“ readily granted the security of their persons, the
freedom of their trade, the property of their goods, and
the toleration of their worship.” Christian churches'
were permitted in Mohammedan States, although no ■
Christian State would have tolerated a Mohammedan
mosque. The Mohammedan conquerors of India
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
27
showed religious toleration to the inhabitants ; and the
first empire in modern times in which perfect religious
freedom was universal, was that of Akbar, whose mag
nanimity has been sung by Tennyson. The Arabian
caliphs gave freedom to all the oriental sects, employed
Christians as secretaries and physicians, appointed
them collectors of the revenue, and sometimes raised
them to the command of cities and provinces. Saladin,
on recapturing Jerusalem from the Crusaders, treated
the Latin Christians as foreigners, and therefore as cap
tives of war ; but he regarded the Greek and Oriental
Christians as inhabitants of the locality, and there
fore permitted them to remain as his subjects, and
to worship their gods in their own fashion. Nor has
this tolerant tradition ever been violated. Many a
fugitive from Christian bigotry has found shelter in
Turkey. Jews and Christians enjoy equal liberty of
conscience throughout the Turkish Empire. Latin
and Greek Christians are both allowed to worship in I •
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. Yet| *
their hatred of each other is still so great that a line ||
of Turkish soldiers stand between them to prevent i;
their flying at each other’s throats. What a spectaele ! And how the Turk, who worships one God, ||
without a rival or a partner, must look down with *|
contempt on these quarrelsome superstitionists !
III.
With regard to the Turks in particular, it is a
common Christian notion that they were always
brutal conquerors, who upheld and extended their
religion simply by the sword. This is a very mis
taken notion. When the Turkish power was flourish
ing, before it began to decay under the attacks and
diplomacy of Russia, and the general pressure of the
�28
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
European governments, it was renowned for its
liberality.
Let us pause here to tell a story—a true one.
During the bitter persecution of the inoffensive
Quakers in England in the seventeenth century, many
women were stripped and flogged on their naked
backs in public places. This suffering and indignity
was inflicted upon them by their fellow Christians ;
not tumultuously, but deliberately, in the name of the
law, and by the order of the authorities. One simple
young woman was flogged from town to town, and
frequently imprisoned under shocking conditions.
Being an invincible enthusiast, she took it into her
head to go off to the East and speak to the Sultan
of Turkey. She succeeded in making her way there,
and found the Sultan encamped before Adrianople.
She was brought before him, and he listened
courteously to her “ message from God.” When she
had finished he told her that what she had said was
very good, and thanked her for her trouble, although
he could not quite believe all that she did. He then
asked her how she came so far alone. She replied
that she trusted in God. Whereupon he smiled, and
said he hardly thought this protection enough for a
lonely maid. He saw that her wants were supplied,
and appointed a guard to conduct her safely through
his own dominions.
What a fine gentleman ! If men must have kings,
this is the sort they should have. We could do With
a few like him in modern Europe. And just think of
the two different experiences of that Quaker maiden.
Brutally ill-treated in her own country by her fellowChristians, and treated with the noblest courtesy by
a Mohammedan ruler in a foreign land !
The spirit displayed by that Sultan was far from
singular in the great days of the Turkish Empire.
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
29
There was, indeed, a tradition of magnanimity in the
Mohammedan world. It was remembered how finely
the Caliph Omar had acted after his capture of
Jerusalem ; how the lives, liberties, possessions, and
churches of the Christians were respected. It was
remembered how the Crusaders, hundreds of years
afterwards, recaptured Jerusalem, and turned it into
a slaughter-house. It was remembered how, in spite
of this terrible provocation, Saladin listened to the
voice of humanity when he won Jerusalem back from
the Christians ; how he shed no unnecessary drop of
blood, and showed the tenderest compassion to his
captives. Never had the great Mohammedan rulers
dealt with the Christians after the method so often
employed in Europe. They could have swept Chris
tianity out of their dominions as easily as Ferdinand
and Islam drove Islam out of Spain, or as Louis XIV.
drove Protestantism out of France. But they did
nothing of the kind. If they had, there would have
been no Christian Churches, or Christian provinces,
left to give rise to the present-day troubles in the
Turkish Empire.
When the Turks took Constantinople, in 1453, the
first thing Mohammed did, after re-establishing order
in the city, was to issue a decree of toleration to the
Christians, who were practically allowed to regulate
their own affairs. Indeed, the majority of them found
the change a welcome relief, after their experience of
Christian misrule.
Mohammedanism spread in South-east Europe sub
sequently without compulsion. The fact is that free
dom and toleration were only to be found under the
Sultan’s government. Jews fled to it from persecution ;
persecuted Protestants looked towards it with longing
eyes. Even the Russians praised it when the Catholic
Poles, in the seventeenth century, inflicted frightful
�30
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
atrocities on the members of the orthodox Eastern
Church. It was in reference to these horrors that
Macarius, the Patriarch of Antioch, exclaimed “ God
perpetuate the empire of the Turks for ever! For
they,” he added, “ take their impost and enter into no
account of religion, be their subjects Christians or
Nazarenes, Jews or Samaritans.”
It may be objected that the Turks carved out an i
empire with the sword, and that this is tantamount
to the spread of Mohammedanism by the same means.
But is not this objection nonsensical ? With what,
pray, did the British carve out an empire in India ? ,
And is that empire, won as it was, a proof that Chris- /
tianity is spread by the sword ?
IV.
Now, if Mohammedanism has, as a matter of fact,
been far more tolerant than Christianity, there must
be something wrong somewhere when Christians
stand up and address Mohammedans as persecutors,
represent them as being under a fatal necessity of
propagating their religion by the sword, and accuse
them of being a perpetual menace to all their
neighbours.
Mohammed distinctly says in the Koran, “ Let there
be no compulsion in religion.” “Wilt thou,” he asks, _
“compel men To become believers? No soul can j
believe liut by the permission of God.” The Prophet
of Islam never said anything really contrary to this.
All the texts that are cited about war with unbelievers
were, as we shall see presently, of local and special
application.
That the Mussulman faith never forced consciences
was emphasized by one of the Spanish Mohammedans
who was driven out of Spain in the last expulsion of the
Moriscoes in 1610, at the instigation of the bloody
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
31
Inquisition. Here are some of his words :—
Did our victorious ancestors ever once attempt to
extirpate Christianity out of Spain, when it was in
their power ? Did they not suffer your forefathers to
enjoy the free use of their rites at the same time that
they wore their chains ? Is not the absolute injunction
of our Prophet, that whatever nation is conquered by
Mussulman steel, should, upon payment of a moderate
annual tribute, be permitted to persevere in their own
pristine persuasion, how absurd soever, or to embrace
what other belief they themselves best approved of ?
If there may have been some examples of forced con
versions, they are so rare as scarce to deserve mention
ing, and only attempted by men who had not the fear of
God, and the Prophet, before their eyes, and who, in so
doing, have acted directly and diametrically contrary to
the holy precepts and ordinances of Islam, which cannot
without sacrilege, be violated by any who would be held
worthy of the honourable epithet of Mussulman...... You
can never produce, among us, any bloodthirsty, formal
tribunal, on account of different persuasions in points of
faith, that anywise approaches your execrable lnquisition.
•Our arms, it is true, are ever open to receive all who are
disposed to embrace our religion; but weji-are [not
allowed by our sacred Kuran to tyrannise over con
sciences.”
This very toleration was urged against them as
one of their principle crimes by the Archbishop of
Valencia, who presented Philip III., in 1602, with an
account of the “ Apostacies and Treasons, of the
Moriscoes,” with a view to their expulsion from the
Christian soil of Spain. One article against them was:
“ That they commended nothing so much as liberty
of conscience, in all matters of religion, which the Turks,
and all other Mohammedans, suffer their subjects to
enjoy.”
- In spite of all this it is urged that the Jihad, or Holy
War, is taught in the Koran, and is a part of the law
�32
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
and faith of Islam.
Professor Arnold, who devotes a chapter to this
subject, shows conclusively that the meaning of the I
verb jahada is really to “ strive, labour, toil, exert one- 1
self, take pains, be diligent.” “ Primarily,” he says,
the word bears no reference to war or fighting, much y
less to fighting against unbelievers or forcible conversion of them, but derives its particular application
from the context only.” This he proves by citing
all the passages in the Koran in which the word occurs.
There is no higher English authority than Lane, and 11
fei his verdict is clear and decisive. “No precept,” he
j| says, “is to be found in the Koran which, taken with
' the context, can justify unprovoked war.”
Professor Arnold’s summary of the whole matter
is as follows:—
1“
Hi
It is due to the Muhammedan legists and commen
tators that jihad came to be interpreted as a religious
war against unbelievers, who might be attacked even
though they were not the aggressors ; but such a doctrine
is wholly unauthorised by the Qur’an, and can only be
extracted therefrom by quoting isolated portions of
different verses, considered apart from the context and
the special circumstances under which they were
delivered and to which alone they were held to refer,
being in no way intended as positive injunctions for
future observance or religious precepts for coming genera
tions. But though some Muhammedan legists have
maintained the rightfulness of unprovoked war against
unbelievers, none (as far as I am aware) have ventured
to justify compulsory conversion, but have always vindi
cated for the conquered the right of retaining their own
faith on paymeut of jizyah.
The only point to be added is that “ some legists ”
are not all legists. As far as we can. ascertain, the
majority of Mohammedan legists have been against
unprovoked war on unbelievers.
4^
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christianity and progress
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.n.]
Collation: 32 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Extensively marked in pencil. Includes bibliographical references. Inscription on front leaf: "B.G. Ralph-Brown, Houlle, France, Oct. 1918."
Contents: Christianity and progress (p.1-16) -- Mohammedanism and the sword (p.[17]-32).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.pub.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N230
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Christianity and progress), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
NSS
W.E. (William Ewart) Gladstone