2
10
23
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/331669cd5d7e7af9da76f68b2344feb3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=fLkE7%7ENuBoThX-BSkiRmQlZdOg4iPkuk3xbQelbwdikR6sMexGj-eTQq08%7EGL1oIAZLhGdLtfa04O2sDMhHrn9g9B0jDYqOakn6Q4CQWwfgXJBxwzC346Uzewj%7E%7EErnh3aUSkZ5-KakeiAolJCc2k1aC-6X-G1ds68lDLqDCvNQqyJpDX2ZyHGhlu1fDPZRU0o4KVDtWRj627yV4E0EKxAHQNSpYtmJwsQMbkFZiCvemJkTkRGK8zr51tDBPH1NpoF4cjE1utlFJelgWZtrkDQq8wto-fJU6hmhfrDDK5Eu7FG-TGtZEPqhqdY3wkPrxqsoJSFsE9vPvTWXDC83fmg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
07499ca6b904827b1b5807836164cbed
PDF Text
Text
2SZ-l> mag
OUR CAUSE AND
ACCUSERS.
ITS
A DISCOURSE
GIVEN AT
THE ATHEN/EUM, CAMDEN ROAD,
UNE
1 1TH,
1876.
BY
MONCURE D. CONWAY, M.A.
��OUR CAUSE AND ITS ACCUSERS,
It is not because the believer in rational religion has
not clear convictions that he will not shape them into
a creed. It is because the experience of the world
has proved that however well a creed may express the
thought of one generation it is very certain to impede
the thought of another. An oriental Prince once sent
his servant some miles to get a bit of salt for his meal
while out hunting; but when he found that his
messenger had not paid for the salt he sent him all
the way back with some money; for, he said, though
the pinch of salt is a trifle, precedent is not a trifle,
and if he should take even so little without payment
the custom might grow until some prince of the
future might desolate the country. As great despotisms
have grown from small beginnings, so have oppressions
�4
for the human mind and conscience grown out of the
bad habit which our ancestors had of putting their
opinions into dogmatic shape. For when a creed is so
made they who believe it commit their pride of
opinion to it; they get a party to build schools and
churches to teach that creed ; then many people have
pecuniary interests invested in such schools and
churches, are furious with those who question the
creed which props their power and wealth, and do
them all the mischief they can. This is why the
church never burned people for immorality, but only
for doubting or denying their creed. All this amounts
to systematic discouragement of thought; and, as the
rationalist desires to encourage thought, he refuses to
formulate his opinions as dogmas or creeds, or to
build his organisation on any corner-stone which may
crush intellectual liberty beneath it. I have no claim,
therefore, to commit those who have for many years
honoured me with their confidence to any belief
except belief in this liberty of mind and conscience.
We are aiming to build a science of religion and of
morals, based upon the facts of consciousness, the
history of man, the laws of nature,- and in science
there can be no finality, no authority. In stating the
views of rationalists, I speak only as one who has had
long acquaintance with such, and has devoted his life
to study of their principles.
Occasionally, indeed, some few liberals—not exactly
�5
rationalists—have wished for something like a set of
articles; but I think we are justified in our repugnance
to everything of that kind not only by the history
of persecution for opinion’s sake, but by what is now
occurring around us, even here in the most enlightened
metropolis of the world. The transfer of our little
Society to a larger hall than that in which we have
gathered for near ten years in quietness, has been the
occasion of denunciations which could not have been
more fierce had we during those years demoralised
the whole neighbourhood. We have been vilified,
accused, misrepresented, and for what offence ? For
inability to subscribe to a creed framed in an age
when science did not exist, by men who believed more
childish superstitions than the Church of Rome,
a creed which our assailants themselves could not
and would not believe were their faculties unfettered.
Here are two printed sermons directed against us, and
all who tolerate us, by the Vicar of St. Luke’s, West
Holloway. One is entitled “ The Lord’s Derision of
Opposer’s Schemes;” and in it he describes his God as
laughing, but with an awful angry laugh, at our opposi
tion to the Vicar’s creed. The other is called “ The
Lord’s Question to those who harbour his enemies,”
the question being that which Jehovah is said to have
asked Balaam, “ What men are these with thee ? ” The
Vicar talks about his God in this way :—“ First, then,
it is a question of Surprise. It is asked even by God
�6
in a tone of surprise and of startled wonder. What!
God seems to say ; is it possible ? ” And again “ the
question is also one of anger and high indignation"
He also represents Balaam as being killed in battle
because he had joined Jehovah’s enemies.
Now this so-called deity is familiar to all students
of superstition. The God that laughs at the calamity
of his own creatures and mocks when their fear
cometh, and sends into the world opposers only to
deride and then kill them,—even as he hardened
Pharaoh s heart in order, as he said, that he might
show his own glory upon him,—this fearful phantasm
of a semi-barbarous Syrian tribe, is known to us. But
how comes it that he is held up as a real god here in
London, in an age of refinement and culture ? How
comes it that the graduate of a University is prepared
to bid men love their enemies in one breath, and in
another bid them worship a God who derides, mocks,
pursues, and slays his enemies, even though he made
them himself voluntarily ? Why the reverend gentle
man himself shows us how it has come about. He says,
ii There is a false and mock liberality which says that
we may allow people to think and do as they like I
Now that might be true if God had given us no rule,
no law to guide us ; but as He has, men have no such
liberty.” I honour that clergyman’s candour. He
confesses that what he preaches is not his own thought,
not what he might like or believe if he should indulge
�7
in the wickedness of reasoning without prejudice. He
thinks only as authority has prescribed; and because
for ages men like him have laboured not to discover
what is true but to defend the incredible creeds of the
world’s infancy, around which temporal interests and
institutions have grown, we find this idol of the Stone
Age artificially preserved to disgrace the Age of
Reason. This clergyman says our God is “ a clot on
the brain.” I can assure him that I do not believe his
startled, angry, jealous, plotting god is a clot on the
brain : it is the yet uncrumbled fragment of an ancient
cosmogony occupying the place where a brain ought
to be at work in the life that now is, and in the light
shining for its direction.
It is a formidable thing for a man to take such a
conception of God into his mind, and set it up on the
tomb of his freedom; for the day has passed by in
which it can be maintained by fair and honourable
means. As the angry, jealous, mocking god gives no
sign or miracle to attest his existence at a moment
when in all the ranks of literature and science no un
professional defender of that existence is discoverable,
they whose all is based upon that superstition are
tempted to support it by intemperate language, by
personal misrepresentations, and foul aspersions. I
do not feel animosity towards the Vicar on account of
the injustice he has done my friends and myself,
because his sermons reveal the earnestness of his
�8
feeling. His pain and alarm are at least more creditable
than the hypocrisy of the hirelings who flee when they
see the wolf approaching their fold. The only sorrow
I have is that so candid and earnest a gentleman should
mistake me for a wolf, for he cannot help fighting me
as such, without being particular as to his weapons.
Not being a wolf, and indeed trying to watch
beside a flock of my own, I am compelled to
remonstrate against his misrepresentations.
He
tells his people that I call their Lord and Saviour
“ a dead Jew.” That is not true. This phrase,
il a dead Jew/’ is taken from a book of mine,
*
and by detachment is made to seem like an epithet
on Christ, instead of a rebuke to those who ignore
his grand humanity. I remember once to have had
a fear that some one might fancy that sentence was a
slur upon the Jewish race, which I honour for its
genius and its high record in art and philosophy ;
but it did not occur to me that it would ever be so
hopelessly wrested from its meaning as it has been by
the Vicar of St. Luke’s. In the preceding sentence I
speak of laying my “ palm before the heroic prophet
of Jerusalem,” and immediately after on the same
page of “the brave reformer” sacrificed to “the High
Church of Palestine.” When, therefore, I asked in
that connection, “ What shall we say of the cultivated
* The Earthward Pilgrimage. Chatto and Windus, 74,
Piccadilly, W. The reference is to p. 240.
�9
Europeans whose god is a dead Jew ?” I was plainly
not expressing my conception of Christ, but that of
the Churches generally. I heartily wish it were
otherwise. I wish that the sweet humanity of Christ,
his heroic struggle with the Established Church of his
time, his poetry and eloquence, were recognised by
the orthodox; but unhappily it is untheological to
dwell on the human characteristics of Christ. They
insist that he was going through a prescribed routine
in a perfunctory way; his temptations, difficulties, all
unreal, as, being God, he could not sin, and was never
in any danger of failing. So there is no man there at
all. According to that view, so far as his humanity
is concerned, he is merely a dead Jew, his death
being the only seriously important thing about him.
Again, my reverend critic writes as follows :•—“ Can
you ‘ receive into your house’ men who speak thus
of the sacred mystery of the Incarnation. . .
‘ His infant head, (said the poets)—alluding thus, it
would appear, to that most reverent and devout
hymn of good Bishop Heber—and where can
Rationalism find among its disciples such a specimen
of pure high morality, to say nothing of heavenly
spirituality, as we can present it with in Heber ?—
£ Low lies His head, mid the beasts of the stall ’:—‘ His
infant head was laid down amid the beasts of the
stall.’ And now listen to the way in which the Son
of God, your Saviour, and His holy Gospel are
�IO
spoken of: ‘Its helpless infancy must be confided
to donkeys, who shall mingle many a bray with this
new Gospel.’ ”
Such is the fate of my honest effort to save faith in
the wisdom and the greatness of Christ from being
hid and lost for rational people by reason of the stu
pidity and bigotry which for ages have been taking
him under their fatal protection, making him into
their own image, until it is almost impossible to con
vince able men that there was any grandeur in him
at all. In charity I must suppose that some one
must have handed the Vicar the extract, for if he had
read it in its connection he must have known that he
was conveying to his people an impression widely
different, and, so far as related to Christ, exactly the
reverse of what is said in my book. I must now ask
you to listen to what I there wrote:—“ Who is he that
overcometh the world, but he that can pierce through
its glittering shows, and see this Nazarene peasant to
be the Son of God? From that moment the old
heavens begin to fade: on the soul’s eye shines
already the new heaven to whose every tint the new
earth must respond. ... A thousand revolutions ger
minated when the people knelt before a right and
true, and a poor man. He was born amid the wild
winter, said the poets; his infant head was laid low
amid the beasts of the stall; his cause must struggle
with the hostile elements of an icy conservatism; its
�II
helpless infancy must be confided to donkeys, who
shall mingle many a bray with this new gospel. All
the old fables about Jahve, Zeus, and the rest, shall
swathe this babe. Nevertheless, to us this child is
bom; where he enters idols shall fall, oracles be
struck dumb, and all the signs of the heavens hold
themselves honoured in weaving an aureole about
the brow of a Man. This babe shall consecrate
every babe; this mechanic shall establish the dignity
of labour; this pauper shall liberate slaves and strike
off the burdens of the poor.”
Such is the page in which the Vicar detects blas
phemy. I have given it at length, because it is of
very serious importance to me that I shall not be
held up before this community as falling beneath any
man living in my homage to Christ. In a ministry
that has now lasted a quarter of a century no word
concerning that great soul has yet fallen from my
tongue or pen that was not inspired by reverence,
love, and even enthusiasm.
•So much in self-defence. The next point in the
Vicar’s attack is a more serious one, and it involves
the whole Rationalistic community. He virtually
charges it with sensualism. He tells his hearers
■that if they even tolerate us God will withdraw his
light from their mind and his grace from their heart.
“ You will become,” he says, “ first a sceptic, and
then an infidel, and then a scoffer, and then, at last
�12
the openly immoral sensualist!” What is a sceptic?
It is a Greek word, meaning a man who “ considers.”
What is infidel? It means a man who disbelieves
what the majority^believe. It was what Paul con
fessed to when he said, “ This I confess, that after
the way they call heresy so worship I the God of
my Fathers.” According to the Vicar, to consider
(o-KeTTTeiv), and to adopt an individual opinion, in
religion, is the sure path to immorality. Well, Christ
was called a blasphemer and a friend of sinners, and
in league with Beelzebub ; and if priests spoke so of
him we need not be disturbed when priests say hard
things of us. But we have the right to ask the Vicar
to prove his case. The Liberal religious body is of
respectable age, and the Vicar should point out the
examples of immorality in its record of eminent men.
Will he select Channing, or Belsham, or Priestley—
whose house a Christian mob tore down—in the past,
or Martineau and John James Tayler, Dr. Carpenter
and Miss Mary Carpenter of recent years ? Or,
taking more pronounced rationalism, will he name
as sensualists Professor Newman, or Miss Cobbe, or
Sir Charles Lyell, or Mr. Justice Grove, or Lord
Houghton, or the Duke of Somerset, or the poet
Tennyson, or Matthew Arnold, or Herbert Spencer?
These are men who have carried scepticism and
rationalism to its fullest logical results. Are they
known as sensualists, or even as men who bear false
witness against their neighbours ?
�r3
I think most persons will agree that Mr. Gladstone
is about as good a judge of the religious world as the
Vicar of St. Luke. In his article on “ Modern Reli
gious Thought,” Mr. Gladstone speaks of those whom
the Vicar calls Sensualists, in the following terms :—
“ There are within it,” he says, speaking of the
Unitarian, theistic, and rationalistic class generally,
“ men not only irreproachable in life, but excellent;
and many who have written both in this country and
on the Continent with no less power than earnestness,
in defence of the belief which they retain. Such are,
for example, Professor Frohschammer in Germany,
and M. Laveleye in Belgium ; while in this country,
without pretending to exhaust the list, I would pay a.
debt of honour to Mr. Martineau, Mr. Greg, Dr. Car
penter and Mr. Jevons. . . . They are generally men.
exempt from such temptations as distress entails, and
fortified with such restraints as culture can supply.
. . . We should not hastily be led by antagonism of
opinion to estimate lightly the influence which a
School, limited like this in numbers, may exercise on
the future. For, if they are not rulers, they rule those
who are. They belong to the class of thinkers and
•teachers ; and it is from within this circle, always, and,
even in the largest organisations, a narrow one, that
go forth the influences which one by one form the
minds of men, and in their aggregate determine the
course of affairs, the fate of institutions, and the hap
piness of the human race.”
�14
Such is the judgment upon the men and the influ
ences at work in the rationalistic movement uttered
by one who has given as much attention to religious
subjects as any man of our time.
The Vicar challenges us to show in the ranks of
rationalism any man so moral and spiritual as Bishop
Heber. That kind of argument is more absurd than
if I were to ask him to point out among rationalists
one so coarse as the present Bishop of Gloucester
and Bristol, who advised the landlords, when Joseph
Arch and other leaders of the Agricultural Unions
came, “ to duck them in the nearest horsepond.” It
is at least more pertinent to illustrate the character of
an existing belief by living examples than by going
back to one dead over fifty years. There was a time
when the saintliest souls in Europe were Roman
Catholics. The falsity of the system had not then been
exposed: Since Bishop Heber died the religious
mind of England has been revolutionised by the great
discoveries of science, the generalisations of philo
sophy, and the opening to us of the religions of the
East. It is under such influences as these that the
Hebers of the past have become the Thirlwalls, and
Colensos, and Temples of the present. For the ra
tionalist movement in England has been fed at a
fountain which is now the most living in the English
Church. Possibly the Vicar of St. Luke’s may have
excommunicated the late Bishop of St. David’s, when
�he refused to act as a reviser of the Bible translation,
if a leading Unitarian were excluded from the Com
mittee ; and perhaps he is ready to excommunicate,
the rationalist Bishop Colenso, and the Bishop of
Exeter, and Dean Stanley, and Stopford Brooke who
extols the poet Shelley, and the Rev. Mr. Haweis whodeclares that prayer can have no possible effect on the
unalterable course of Nature.
Nevertheless, I
will venture to suggest that it is not one of
the thirty-nine articles that the neighbouring Vicar
shall represent all the wisdom in the Church,
of England. At any rate, it is plain that he
can hardly expect to exterminate our humble society
here until he has dealt with those who in his owrL
Church are fraternising with heretics. We may return,
upon him “the Lord’s question” to Balaam—“What
men are these with thee ? ” Here, for instance, is the
Rev. Dr. Mark Pattison of your own Church, who
answers for us your threat of endless despair, telling us.
that to act in any way “ because God is stronger than
we and able to damn us if we don’t,” argues “a sleek
and sordid epicurism.” Here is the late Professor
Baden Powell who tells us that “ in nature and from
nature, by science and by reason, we neither have, nor
can possibly have, any evidence of a Deity working
miracles.” Here is the present Bishop of Exeter who
declares that men who do not use their reason in perfect
freedom without restraint from any external authority,.
�i6
are “under the law.” “Such men,” he says, “are
sometimes tempted to prescribe for others what they
need for themselves, and to require that no others
should speculate because they dare not. They not
•only refuse to think, and accept other men’s thoughts,
which is often quite right, but they elevate those into
•canons of faith for all men, which is not right.” And
finally I will quote from a man who occupies the
highest educational position in Great Britain,—a man
•to whom this nation has entrusted a position of in
fluence in the training of young men, second to none
<on earth. I refer to the Rev. Professor Jowett, the
Head Master of Balliol College, Oxford. In words
that should have their weight for every mind that hears
•me, he says:—“ The suspicion of Deism, or perhaps of
, Atheism, awaits inquiry. By such fears a good man
refuses to be influenced; a philosophical mind is apt
to cast them aside with too much bitterness. It is
better to close the book (the Bible), than to read it
•under conditions of thought which are imposed from
•without. Whether those conditions of thought are
-the traditions of the Church, or the opinions of the
religious world—Catholic or Protestant—makes no
•difference : they are inconsistent with the freedom of
■the truth and the moral character of the Gospel.”
Do not imagine that I have got these testimonies
-from the Vicar’s clerical brethren by garbling their
»thoughts as he garbled mine : you will find such
�thoughts the main burden of the “ Essays and Re
views,” from which I have taken them. I supposeour accuser does not wish his Church to monopolise
rationalism, nor think that such thoughts become'
sound if one only wears a surplice. Consequently I
have a right to ask him, “ What men are these with
thee ? ” Are you quietly submitting to them, frater
nising with them, getting your living from a church
that exalts them, and then denouncing as blasphemers
and sensualists humbler people who are animated by
the same spirit and honestly carrying out the same prin
ciples? Is it the high Christian spirit to hush up the
heresies of a Bishop or a Dean, and then turn with
fury on the press that gives their views fair play ; to
threaten with vengeance from Heaven English gentle
men who refuse to aid in barring freedom of speech
out of this Athenseum; or is it Christian to conspirefor the injury of an institution because it will not turn
itself into a prison to restrain and punish thought and.
inquiry ?
It may be Christian, but it is not like Christ. It is.
not the spirit of him who said, “ Of yourselves judge
ye what is right,” and “ The truth shall make you free.”
It is not that of his early followers, who said, “ Try
the spirits; prove all things, hold fast that which is.
good; where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty.” Intolerance burned the books of Copernicus,,
and the bodies of scholars, in the past, and it may
�i8
•still trample on the book it cannot answer, and doom
to hell-fire those whom it can no longer bum with
earthly fire; but it is in sharp discord with the civili
sation of our age, which protects the freedom which
is essential to the elucidation of truth, and inhar
monious with that spirit of inquiry which is the great
need of our time, and the charity which is the need
of every time.
Of these tendencies of our age our Society is one
result among many,—an inevitable result. We are
not prepared to adopt any sectarian shibboleth what
ever. We admit ourselves unable to comprehend the
•divine existence, while we feel the reality of that
supreme influence which is expressed by humanity in
the word God. We find in the Bible a sacred reve
lation of the human heart—able to stimulate into
activity our own hearts, but we cannot call that book
the Word of God in any sense that would localise or
limit the spiritual sunshine which has illumined every
race and period. While we love to think upon Christ,
•and study his words, and recognise his unparalleled
•grandeur, we decline to call ourselves “ Christian,”
technically, because, in the first place, we do not wish
to separate ourselves from those brought up in other
religions—Israelites, Hindoos, Mahommedans—among
whom Christianity has for ages carried fire and sword,
unwilling to raise any name by them historically as
sociated with their subjugation and suffering, as a bar
�I9
to that common Religion of Humanity for which we
long and hope. Nor do we wish to raise any sectarian
name, like Christian, which would imply that the
religious culmination of our race has already taken
place in the distant past. We believe that in religion,
as in knowledge and civilisation, the law is progress.
That indeed is the essence of our faith in God. Jesus
called himself by the name of no preceding religion
or sect; neither did the disciples or apostles call
themselves Christian; that word has no sanction
in the New Testament. In the day when souls
are breaking their ancient bonds they cannot
live on memories of days that have set, but keep
their faces ever to the sunrise. There shines the
light that can alone transfigure the life of to-day, and.
in its glory Moses and Elias will again ascend, in it
Christ and all the Prophets and Saviours of the world
shall be glorified.
This is our cause. We have no fear for it. We
love it, for it means to us reverence for all that is
sweet in the past and pure in the present; we have
faith in it, for it means to us pursuit of truth and
fidelity to it; we rejoice in it, for in it we see germi
nating the freedom and fraternity of man, and in it
all the great hopes of Humanity climbing to fulfilment.
�NOTE.
Without undertaking to speak for the Committee
of the Athenseum, who are able to speak for them
selves, it may be well enough to say here that
our
Society regards the
contract for the hall
as purely a business arrangement, made in accord
ance with the usage under which the building
is let for orderly meetings of various characters, and
not in the least as implying any sympathy with our
opinions on the part of that Committee.
�
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
Our cause and its accusers: a discourse given at The Athenaeum, Camden Road, June 11th 1876
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway, Moncure Daniel, 1832-1907 [1832-1907]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 19, [1] p. ; 15 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 1. Includes a bibliographical reference.
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
[1876]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3333
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rationalism
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 (Our cause and its accusers: a discourse given at The Athenaeum, Camden Road, June 11th 1876), 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
Morris Tracts
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/66a2f46d8540c3504ff366e7ff124453.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ptLoORQP7kqQVO06bLmIooxjAgvghM3OYmz509SQoSczNTVHG5EERQsDQgTvosXV6oLQyRHHvHjTPyyrRVw8OdIV0D3xRPo6ax9YELAIAP3Zb2e1lVIfD44Bagu64Mi1mg-vnjslW5X5lGw3Xg%7EExaa%7E-dFZPaaLmWzpiMhOHn9uWy7HL-pxMUICyNeh3bbMcKdGMtKvGH28e9HXijGcub0Btq04LdIdZKykpFIQz3CbSdfpuEr-arzqpLmBKUDr8-MD-z1OqOr6RuW1bmOSD0O90sjXVxtFOkcQuuhS%7EOlJMcSx819WLw6xNbi7TE38XUQ2cyIujtPT24EDYEbWqg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f827b7b2cc9c0c5a93354e8080c50b96
PDF Text
Text
PROFESSOR TYNDALL’S
INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
[From The Inquirer of September 5, 1874.]
HE Inaugural Address delivered at Belfast, on
August 19, by Professor Tyndall, President of
the British Association, has probably come like a
thunder-clap to thousands who have read it or heard
of it. For here is one of the strongest, one of the
most generally acknowledged, representatives of
science, the chief, indeed, of the highest scientific
society in the world, from the very throne of science
—the presidential chair—speaking what will seem to
multitudes no other, than the most undisguised
Materialism, which to them will also be the blankest
Atheism. For it will seem the burden of the Address,
that matter alone is the mother and cause of all things,
and that beside it there is no other cause. No God,
no human soul.
When so intelligent a journal as the Spectator thus
interprets the Address in the issue immediately after
its delivery, we may be sure that thousands of persons
will thus interpret it also. And this word of Tyndall,
coming from such a source, supported by such pres
tige and such authority, will make the hearts of many
quail and sicken with fear and sadness. They will
feel a great darkness falling on them. The same
doctrine they will no doubt have often heard before,
but not from such a quarter, with such distinctness,
and coming with such terrible weight. They have
T
�2
thought of it hitherto as the craze of individual and
eccentric scientists, but now it comes as the testimony
of the whole spirit of science, past and present,
spoken through the mouthpiece of one of her latest
and greatest sons. And the thought cannot but
whisper itself: “ Is it, then, really true, or, if not
true, is science going to be all-powerful and make it
seem true, and so make it ultimately prevail ? If so,
then hope and faith must fade. Religion will have
no place. Prayer and preaching will cease. All the
various creeds through which we believe and about
which we contend will equally vanish. Religious
societies will be dissolved, and the whole spirit of
our civilisation must be changed, so that it is terribleto think what the future ages may be.”
We cannot wonder that already the tocsin of alarm
has resounded from many a pulpit. We may be sure
that for months, perhaps years to come, there will be
heard from thousands of pulpits protests, arguments,
denunciations, pleadings, intended to lay the terrible
ghosts which this memorable Address has raised.
But what is it that Dr Tyndall has really said to
cause such sensation and such fear ? He has simply
said out boldly what science has been really saying,
though often with timid, hesitating speech, for many a
year, we may say for many an age. It is this : that
matter, as we become more and more acquainted with it,
shows itself to us as capable, by its own inherent laws
and forces, of developing into all the forms and causing
all the phenomena in the universe that we witness or
experience. And so with matter given to begin with,
existing it may be in its crudest form, but still with
all its inherent laws and forces, there is no need of
any other Being, any Creator, any God to mould it,
for it will infallibly mould itself. It is but the same
thought with a wider extension which Laplace
uttered : “ I ask no more than the laws of motion,
heat, and gravitation, and I will write you the
nativity and biography of the solar system.”
�3
Yet do not let us be alarmed through mistaking
the real force and bearing of this apparently most
materialistic affirmation. Observe at the outset the
expression, that matter being given with its inherent
laws and forces, no other creator is necessary to
mould it. Surely not, we, too, say, because the
Creator, the eternal former and sustainer, is in the
laws and forces : they are but the expression of his
action. It is not, then, against the idea of God
Himself that the hostility of science, as represented
by the President of the British Association, is
directed, but against a form of thought in which
men in general have clothed God and presented him
to their minds. They have thought of Him under
the image of a Great Artificer, one who, using matter
as his raw material, worked it up by his power and
skill into the forms which we behold. It is this
thought of an Almighty Artificer, separate from
matter, that science cannot tolerate. But the de
struction of this form of thought, instead of plunging
us into the darkness of Atheism, opens upon us the
light of true Theism. It leaves us free to form
another far grander and worthier thought of God,
that of the In-dwelling, all-forming, and all-sustaining
Spirit of the Universe, which it is clear that Dr Tyndall
recognises under what he calls a Cosmical life—that
is, a life of the Universe.
The truth is, that this conception of God as the
Great Artificer has been inadequate and erroneous
from the beginning. We can now see that it was an
idol, because not the highest conception that we can
form, though perhaps inevitable to the times of
ignorance at which God has winked. And science,
like a young Abraham, has sought from its very
youth to break the idol in pieces. This is why
science has seemed so Atheistic in its tendencies.
The legend of Abraham preserved in the Koran is,
that when he was a young man he went into one of
the temples of his people in their absence and broke
�in pieces all the idols except the biggest there.
Abraham’s hostile feeling towards the idols was
known. He was arrested and brought before the
Assembly. “ Hast thou done this unto our gods,
O Abraham ? ” they inquired. “Nay, that biggest
of them has done the deed : ask them, if they can
speak.” For a time the people were confounded
with his reply, but soon recovered to say to oneanother, “Burn him, and avenge your gods.” The
young Abraham, science, conceived from the first a
hostility to the idol of an artificer God set up in the
temple of man’s mind, and sought to destroy it.
Dr Tyndall’s Address is partly a history of these
endeavours of science to break in pieces the idol.
He tells how in the infancy of Greek science Demo
critus, the laughing philosopher, declared his uncom
promising antagonism to those who deduced the
phenomena of nature from the gods. Empedocles,
who probably met death in his zeal for science in the
burning crater of Etna, and then Epicurus, followed
in the footsteps of Democritus. In the century
before Christ the Roman poet Lucretius boldly
announced the doctrine that Nature was sufficient for
herself. “If,” said he, “you will apprehend and
keep in mind these things, Nature, free at once and
rid of her high lords (the gods and demons), is seen
to do all things spontaneously of herself without the
meddling of the gods.” Whilst science slept, during
the Middle Ages, the voice of protest was not heard;
but when she awoke again, in the era of the Refor
mation, Giordano Bruno, once an Italian monk, again
raised the old witness, and declared that the infinity
of forms under which matter appears were not
imposed upon it by an external artificer. “ By its
own intrinsic force and virtue f he said, “ it brings
these forms forth. Matter is not the mere naked,
empty capacity which philosophers have pictured it,
but the universal mother who brings forth all things
as the fruit of her womb.” And the devotees of the
�5
idol, an artificer god, which he sought to break in
pieces, said, “Burn him, and avenge your god.” And
the Venetian Inquisitors did burn him at the stake.
Taking up Tyndall’s thought, we can now see that
the whole progress of science has seemed to strengthen
the protest and to give more strength to the doctrine
of Lucretius and Bruno, that “ matter, by its own
intrinsic force and virtue, brings these forms (of
nature) forth.”
Newton’s “Principia” went to show that, given,
in matter, the force and law of gravitation and the
laws of motion, there needed no artificer now to
conduct the solar system. The nebular hypothesis
of Kant and Laplace set forth that matter originally
needed no artificer to mould it into worlds, if we
suppose its particles scattered abroad in space
endowed with repulsion and attraction. They would
of themselves form rings, planets, satellites, and sun.
Dalton’s Chemistry showed that if we suppose a few
kinds of primordial atoms of different magnitudes, or
endowed with different forces and possessing certain
laws of attractive affinity, no artificer is necessary to
combine them into the innumerable compounds and
endow them with the qualities with which we are
familiar.
Darwin’s “ Origin of Species ” and
“ Descent of Man ” suggested that, given certain
organic forms of lowly type, no artificer was needed
to construct all the countless forms of organic nature.
For there were in these lowly forms intrinsic force and
virtue, by which they develop into higher forms, and
these into higher, until the ascidian becomes the man.
Herbert Spencer, and now Tyndall, suggest that even
in the inorganic forms of air, water, phosphorus, and
a few other elements, there are intrinsic force and
virtue to make them at some period or other of the
world’s history—Bastian says to make them now—of
themselves combine and form organisms of low type,
which develop, according to Darwin’s idea, even into
higher type ; therefore these inorganic atoms possess
�6
a latent life. Huxley would persuade us not only
that these inorganic atoms come in organic forms to
live, but that in the human brain they think and feel
and will. Thus every line of scientific inquiry seems
to have led to larger and larger belief in Bruno’s
intrinsic force and virtue of matter, making more
and more needless the conception of a Supreme
Artificer.
But we shall be mistaken if we suppose that this
antagonism between matter and God—that is, God
as the Artificer—has been felt only in the world of
science. It has been felt, too, though with less open
confession, in the world of religion. It has been
felt, it may be, where ignorance was bliss. As long
as science was unknown or ignored in the Church,
as during the Middle Ages, religions minds could
hold the belief in an artificer God without misgiving.
But as soon as science began to creep into the Church,
the paralysis of faith began. From that moment was
acted over again the story which the Greek poets
give us of the Theban Sphinx, the beautiful monster,
half-maid, half-lion, who, sitting on a rock, proposed
enigmas to the passers-by, and those who could not
answer them destroyed.
Beautiful but terrible science became the Sphinx.
She was always proposing to those who came near
her the enigma, “How can matter, which seems to
have force and virtue in it sufficient to account for
all things, have any need for an artificer Creator ? ”
And those who could not answer the question were
lost as to their faith in God. This, we believe, is
partly the explanation of the coldness and deadness
that came upon our Churches, especially our Pres
byterian Churches, during the last century. Ministers
and people had become more educated, they had
learnt something of the new science that was rising;
and then they heard the enigma of the Sphinx and
were troubled. Thenceforth it was a struggle with
them to believe. They had lost the child-like faith of
�7
their fathers. The old heartiness of prayer was gone.
Ministers and people began to be shy of strictly reli
gious topics, and to fall back on these ethical common
places of which they were more sure. And if this
same coldness and deadness has lasted on in some of
our churches till our own day, we suspect it has been
because there the old conception of God as the Arti
ficer has been maintained, whilst all the while the
Sphinx has been putting the question which has made
it unbelievable ; and that it is chiefly where the new
conception of the In-dwelling God has been introduced
through the influence of men like Dr Channing,
Martineau, and Theodore Parker, that the devotional
life has been again quickened and deepened.
Truly, then, men like Tyndall and Huxley, Spencer
and Darwin, with the terrible weapons of their
materialism, do but break down an old and much
battered idol which has long been the cause of dread
ful doubts, even to its own devotees, and has set
religion and science at bitter variance. But in
breaking down the idol they are doing us the greatest
service. They are letting in the light; they are
leaving us face to face with a conception of God
before hidden from us by our idol, but which presents
him to us not only in a form which science will allow
—before which, indeed, science and religion become
one—but in a form which is immeasurably grander,
more beautiful, and every way worthier of God than
that which has been broken down. Let us clearly
recognise that, when Tyndall claims for matter that
it is sufficient for everything, he is not thinking of
matter as that dead brute thing which the mass of
men suppose it. To him, as to Herbert Spencer,
matter is but the manifestation of a Great Entity, in
itself unknown and unknowable. It is but the
garment of what Tyndall calls the great cosmical
life—the great life of the cosmos—the Universe.
What is this Great Entity, what is this Great
Cosmical Life, but the Eternal God Himself, of whom,
�8
and through whom, and to whom are all things, who
“besets us behind and before,” and “ in whom we
live and move and have our being ” ? What is this
■conception suggested of the relation of God to the
world but that of the Psalmist—“The heavens shall
wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt
thou change them ” ? And what is this doctrine of
the unknown and unknowable life but that of Job?
“Lo ! these are parts of his ways, but how little a
portion is heard of him ! but the thunder of his power
who can understand ? ”
T. E. P.
FRITTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTEKEY 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
Professor Tyndall's inaugural address
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 4 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Signed 'T.E.P.'; possibly Thomas Elford Poynting. The Address was given in Belfast to the British Association for the Advancement of Science on August 19, 1874. Reprinted from 'The Inquirer', September 5, 1874. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. "The address before the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science was an occasion to state the aims and concerns of the premiere body of elite men of Victorian science. It was consequently one of the most prestigious places from which to pronounce on what men of science should be doing. John Tyndall famously used his address in 1874 to argue for the superior authority of science over religious or non-rationalist explanations. By the time of this address the Association had largely been taken over by the young guard, men like T.H. Huxley and Tyndall. Nevertheless, Tyndall's bold statement for rationalism and natural law was made in Belfast, a stronghold of religious belief then as now and so it was taken as an aggressive attack on religion. The address was popularly believed to advocate materialism as the true philosophy of science. It remains a powerful call for rationalism, consistency and scepticism." From Victorianweb: http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/belfast.html [accessed 12/2017].
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
[1874]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5529
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philosophy
Rationalism
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 (Professor Tyndall's inaugural address), 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
Materialism
Natural Law
Philosophy and Science
Rationalism
Science and Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/217c4e688993e1b54eea985ec2c738aa.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=geR8-P%7EWmjUWJWusUG9wJxnegX1hyuWj5zMIujfmV4gejkFwSbhdMHBMxLBq%7EWQ47R9yBOrWzP8H%7EoPAxmgqXDxsYxE2WthBhMxfD7rtVn-fc2vQT2D6ZBdDTFJ8ua5zxigXUikh3aGPh9SzY%7EaBhRR4YfVr1ynNEshGpFZW96yFHuKmNPCseXmk1F5Cy3N1ypdKDbqkXrhIl4%7EUFP8Ic4P3xbR8niomZTD0QE6k1UecsjfapmKS-N6Ievod8aXOXV8h%7EjnErMtZJE19K2n8UrZCs5hJaExN31SzYVjVpaYhY80Z9JIP3H9noELheRFTBQ5LVrbz1ShY7dm2bAJJQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4176c090c29eb02cc7b1170f5a8cf0f8
PDF Text
Text
1
t
tv.
AND
'f:
Thought Transference:
THEIR MEANING AND RECENT HISTORY
M. EDEN PAUL, M.D.
[issued
for the rationalist press association, limited]
London *
WATTS & CO.,
17 JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Threepence
��NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
PSYCHICAL RESEARCH
AND
THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE:
THEIR MEANING AND RECENT HISTORY
BY
M. EDEN PAUL, M.D.
[issued
for the rationalist press association, limited]
London:
WATTS & CO.,
17 JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C
1911
��Psychical Research and Thought
Transference
NT EARLY thirty years have elapsed since the foundation,
1
in 1882, of the Society for Psychical Research, whose
purpose it was, as stated in its first manifesto, to make “ an
organised and systematic attempt to investigate that large
group of debatable phenomena designated by such terms
as ‘mesmeric,’ ‘psychical,’ and ‘spiritualistic.’” Six
committees were appointed to deal with different sections of
the inquiry; the references to these committees will be
given in the sequel. The “ occult ” phenomena for whose
study the Society was founded exhibit a relationship and to
some degree a historic continuity with three others that have
played a great part in certain stages of human history—viz.,
magic, witchcraft, and miracle.
The belief in all three of
these latter still persists in many parts of the world ; in
Western Europe a belief in magic and miracle was dominant
throughout the period known as the Dark Ages ; the belief
in witchcraft—which is but another form of the other beliefs
—was widely prevalent in Europe during the two centuries
that followed the Protestant Reformation, and will be found
lingering in out-of-the-way corners even in our own day.
(In the Island of Alderney, where I lived from 1903 to 1905,
the belief in witchcraft was certainly still maintained among
those belonging to the old island families, and occasionally
gave rise to scandals ; but the people were shy of exposing
their credulity to strangers.) Among the half-educated
peasantry of Southern Europe a belief in the power of the
Evil Eye is said to be still almost universal.
With the spread of Rationalism, and the gradual growth
of a reasoned belief, based on positive science,in a universe
subject to invariable laws, the belief in the occult powers of
magicians, witches, and miracle-mongers gradually declined.
3
�4
PSYCHICAL RESEARCH
Ghosts, frequently seen as long as people believed in their
existence, seemed to wither and vanish before the chill blasts of
incredulity. But, notwithstanding the general decay of belief
in the occult, revivals have from time to time occurred,
displaying all the vigour and expansive energy of new
religious faiths. It will suffice to mention three of these,
(i) Mesmer (1734-1815), an inspired charlatan, discovered or
rediscovered certain obscure powers and peculiarities of the
human mind ; and his work, notwithstanding all the follies,
delusions, and impostures with which “mesmerism” has
been associated, was the starting-point of the science now
known as hypnotism, and of the practical methods of healing
which we shall subsequently consider under the name of
“psychotherapeutics.” (2) In 1848, at Rochester, New York
State, were living certain girls named Fox, in whose presence
there occurred curious rapping noises, widely known at the
time as the “Rochester knockings.”
“From this small
beginning,” writes Mr. Podmore, in his Studies in Psychical
Research, “ the occurrence of mysterious raps betraying an
intelligent source, and referred by some to the agency of
spirits, by others to supernormal powers exercised uncon
sciously by the ‘mediums,’ and by a few scientific men who
investigated the occurrences at the time to voluntary
‘cracking’ (i.e., partial dislocation) of the knee-joints on the
part of the girls concerned, arose the whole movement of
modern Spiritualism.” (3) Finally, the last twenty-five years
have witnessed the origination, also in the United States of
America, of the latest of that country’s numerous new religious
faiths, “ Christian Science ” (so called, apparently, on the
lucus a non lucendo principle, because it attempts to reconcile
the irreconcilable—Christianity and science—without having
anything to do with either). The historical continuity with
mesmerism of this strange creed—whose founder, Mrs. Eddy,
died only a short time ago—has been lucidly traced by
Mr. Podmore in his work on Mesmerism and Christian
Science.
In an article on “ Mysticism and the Reputed Reaction
from Naturalism,” published in the Literary Gttnde for
March, 1911, the present writer endeavoured to show how
�AND THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE
5
the very spread of Rationalism, which has led to the over
throw of the earlier forms of occultism—magic, witchcraft,
and thaumaturgy, or miracle-mongering — and has at the
same time undermined the faith of many in the olderestablished religious beliefs, is, in a sense, responsible for
the appearance of the luxuriant crop of neo-occultisms
and neo-religions for which the nineteenth century will be
memorable in the history of human error. Their aim has
been, either to restore the belief in immortality, which had
been associated with a belief in the dogmas of one of the
older religious creeds, but which had been shaken in con
sequence of a loss of faith in these dogmas ; or else, to find
some means of curing or preventing disease more speedy
and certain than the methods of ordinary medical science. I
shall hope to show that, while the primary object of search
has in neither case been attained, yet, as often happens, a
by-result of the search will prove of greater interest and
perhaps of greater value to humanity than the original aim.
Now let us ask what was the general attitude of able men
whose minds had been rigorously trained to a belief in what
is called “ the uniformity of nature ” by means of the prolonged
study of science, and especially of physical science, towards
the phenomena which the Society for Psychical Research set
itself to investigate. It was, as a rule, one of rather obstinate
incredulity. And there was no small justification for such an
attitude. Professional mediums, persons who gained a live
lihood by means of the demonstration to the credulous of
such phenomena as those exhibited by the above-mentioned
Fox Sisters, of Rochester, U.S.A., had again and again been
detected in gross frauds ; and yet these proved cheats never
failed to find ardent defenders and fresh victims. To the
physicist, as to Robert Browning, they were all in the same
class with “Mr. Sludge, the Medium.” As regards the amateur
experimentalists, playing at the fashionable game of “table
turning” in their drawing-rooms after dinner, when Faraday
came with a cleverly-devised “ indicator ” and proved beyond
the possibility of reasonable doubt that the motion of the table
was solely due to the unconscious muscular action of the per
formers, many of the table-turners refused to accept the proof.
�6
PSYCHICAL RESEARCH
“ Faraday may have proved,” said A, “that B and his circle
moved the table with their hands ; but we know that we do
not." Yet, when A was asked to test the value of his belief
by the use of the same indicator, he declined to do so, for he
would not be so “ irreverent” as to show any “distrust ” of
the source of the wonderful “spirit-communications” his
table had rapped out (see Carpenter’s Mental Physiology,
4th ed., pp. 293-6). It is hardly surprising that such a man
as Tyndall, after attending a spiritualistic sitting and detect
ing what to him was satisfactory evidence of conscious or
unconscious fraud, should write {Lectures and Essays—
“ Science and the ‘ Spirits ’ ”) : “ The victims like to believe,
and they do not like to be undeceived. Science is perfectly
powerless in the presence of this frame of mind......... Surely
no baser delusion ever obtained dominance over the weak
mind of man.”
A psychologist like Carpenter, one of the first scientific
elucidators of the activity of the sub conscious mind, having
made a detailed study of the phenomena of mesmerism and
spiritualism, naturally took a more cautious and less dogmatic
view than a pure physicist such as Tyndall. Witness, for
example, Carpenter’s admirable summary of the various
mental attitudes towards the phenomena in question {Mental
Physiology, p. 611 et seq.} :—
Some persist in the determination to disbelieve in the genuineness
of all the asserted facts, designating them as “all humbug,” and
maintaining that none but fools or knaves could uphold such non
sense......... Others, again, admit such of the facts as seem to them the
least repugnant to common-sense ; but, without attempting to give
any rational explanation of these, consider they have sufficiently dis
posed of them by characterising them as “ all imagination.”....... The
members of the medical profession have too generally satisfied them
selves with the phrase “ all hysterical ”—a reply which affords no
real information......... Then there is a class of partial believers, who
admit there is “ something in it ”—they cannot exactly tell what.........
And the ascending series is terminated by that assemblage of thorough
going believers who find nothing too hard for “ spiritual ” agency,
nothing improbable (much less impossible) in any of its reputed per
formances......... It is a phenomenon of no small interest to the student
of human nature that from the first of these classes the transition
should often be immediate and abrupt to the last. It is, in fact, from
the very same disposition to jump at important conclusions without
�AND THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE
7
due examination....... that a large proportion of mankind become utter
sceptics on the one hand, or thoroughgoing believers on the other.
A feather’s weight will often turn the scale when it is vibrating
between these two states.
Referring to the class of cases in which a number of more
or less credible witnesses combine to testify to some apparently
incredible occurrence—such as the “ levitation ” of the human
body ; that is, the raising of a human being from the ground
without any evident or adequate physical means—Carpenter
shows that similar occurrences were reported in connection
with witchcraft. “Thus” (p. 634), “ in 1657, Richard Jones,
a sprightly lad of twelve years old, living at Shepton Mallet,
was bewitched by one Jane Brooks. He was seen to rise in
the air, and pass over a garden wall some thirty yards ; and
at other times was found in a room with his hands flat against
a beam at the top of the room, and his body two or three feet
from the ground, nine people at a time seeing him in this
position. Jane Brooks was accordingly condemned and
executed at Chard Assizes, in March, 1658.”
Before we dismiss this brilliant and original writer (Dr.
Carpenter), let us study the canons he laid down for
investigations in this obscure and debatable field of inquiry.
He considered that reports of occult phenomena which appear
to conflict with the generally accepted acquirements of positive
science must all be rejected, “save those” (p. 626) “which
shall have been carefully, sagaciously, and perseveringly
investigated, by observers fully qualified for the task, by
habits of philosophical discrimination, by entire freedom
from prejudice, and by a full acquaintance with the numerous
and varied sources of fallacy which attend this particular
department of inquiry. These being the rules of other
branches of scientific research, there is no reason why they
should be departed from in one which so pre-eminently
needs a constant reference to the canons of sound philo
sophy.”
Now, it must be noted that it is precisely on the lines
thus wisely and carefully formulated that the Societies for
Psychical Research in England and America have, during
the last thirty years, conducted their investigations ; and it is
�8
PSYCHICAL RESEARCH
to this fact that they owe the attainment of certain results of
enduring value. Let us consider some of these results. The
first committee of the English S. P. R. was appointed to
examine “the nature and extent of any influence which may
be exerted by one mind upon another, apart from any generally
recognised mode of perception.” This has been one of the
most fruitful branches of inquiry, and, in conjunction with
several of the other lines of research, it has led, in the opinion
of many of the most cautious and unprejudiced members of
the Society, to the adequate proof of the existence of the
faculty of thought-transference or “telepathy.” This will be
discussed in some detail presently.
The second committee was appointed for “ the study of
hypnotism, and the forms of the so-called mesmeric trance,
with its alleged insensibility to pain ; clairvoyance, and other
allied phenomena.” At the date of the foundation of the
Society, notwithstanding the work of Elliotson, Esdaile,
Braid (all Englishmen), and other early students of “animal
magnetism,” hypnotism was in England a neglected
branch of psychic inquiry. On the Continent also, owing to
the early association of “mesmerism” with charlatanry, the
subject had fallen into disrepute. But in the last thirty years
the science of hypnotism has been placed on a sure foundation ;
its study has greatly increased our knowledge of the workings
alike of the normal and of the abnormal mind ; and psycho
therapeutics has become an accredited branch of the healing
art. The advance of knowledge has thus taken the study of
hypnotic manifestations largely out of the hands of the
Society for Psychical Research ; and all that is necessary
here is to detail briefly the historic lines of development of
mesmerism or animal magnetism.
“Trance,” apart from
hypnotism, will be considered later.
Through its appeal, on the one hand to the perennial
interest in healing of a suffering humanity, and on the other
hand to the love of the marvellous of a bored and inquisitive
humanity, mesmerism became the historic parent of two
divergent tendencies. The love of the marvellous and the
development of the more occult aspect of mesmerism gave
birth to modern spiritualism ; the desire for a better means of
�AND THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE
9
treatment of numerous chronic and apparently incurable
diseases gave rise to “mental healing,” “faith-healing,
“Christian Science,” and on the scientific side to psycho
therapeutics. The mental healers, mind curers, etc., fastened
from the first upon the psychical side of mesmerism. Had
the medical profession not been so slow to adopt “ suggestion
(always a large unconscious element in the physician’s
success) as a recognised part of the medical art, it is likely
that such faith-healing shrines as Lourdes and such new
quasi-religious cults as Christian Science might have been
less successful. But the profession is slow to move out of
its old grooves, and therefore deserves to suffer at the hands
of its rivals. Whatever the causes of the success of Christian
Science, that success is greatly to be regretted—more to be
regretted than the growth of most other superstitions, evil as
they all are. For the disciples of Mrs. Eddy are taught to
believe in what is called “ malicious animal magnetism ;
and this involves, in effect, a revival of the belief in witch
craft, of which our race has rid itself with so much difficulty.
In the second place, the Christian Scientists do much harm
by the application of their doctrine that “ disease is a delusion ”
to illnesses in which the psychic element is slight—as, for
instance, to broken legs and typhoid fever.
Finally, it is
assuredly a distressing fact that in our day, and among a
people claiming to lead the van of civilisation, a new creed
should gain millions of adherents, when that creed is utterly
devoid, as is Christian Science, of all humanist enthusiasm.
The third committee was appointed for the study of
“sensitives,” and to ascertain if they have any “powers of
perception other than a highly exalted sensibility of the
recognised sensory organs.” Here, also, the work of the
Society has tended to convince its members of the reality of
thought-transference. The same is true of their study of
what is called “clairvoyance,” or “ second-sight ” (a sub
section of the work of the second committee). In so far as
alleged cases of clairvoyance, crystal-gazing, and the like,
are not due to misrepresentation, illusion, or deliberate fraud,
the results of this inquiry tend to strengthen the evidence in
favour of a belief in the reality of thought-transference.
�IO
PSYCHICAL RESEARCH
The fourth committee was to undertake “a careful
investigation of....... reports........ regarding apparitions at the
moment of death, or otherwise, or regarding disturbances in
houses reputed to be haunted.” As regards “haunted”
houses, of which I shall write very briefly, the Society has
examined a large mass of evidence, much of it of little true
evidential value. Some of the residual evidence, after the
most thorough sifting, would appear to demand for its
explanation the existence of some hitherto unknown or
“occult” force—if not “haunting” by a demon or dis
embodied spirit, at least the occurrence of telepathic hallucina
tions. “ Rats ” and “ lies ” will not explain all the evidence
in this department 1
As regards the accounts of “death-visions” or “ phantasms
of the dying,” there are few who have not heard some such
story, at least at third or fourth hand. I will give here an
example of the kind of case of which an enormous number
have been reported to the Society ; choosing this case, not
because it is what is called a “strong ” one, but because it is
rather typical, and because I have first-hand knowledge of
the facts.
“ On Friday, December 8, 1893, an English lady, living
in Japan, woke with a start at 11.5 p.m., after a very brief
sleep, saying she had seen her father fall dead in a shop.
She thinks he had just gone in, but is not clear what gave
her this impression ; she saw him clutch the counter, stand
in this position for a short time, and then fall dead. It was
a very real image, a vision rather than an ordinary dream,
and frightened her very much. But she admits that it is
most likely all nonsense.” (The above is a transcription of
the actual note, written down thirty minutes after the
awakening from the “vision” by someone who was present
when it took place—not by the person who had the vision.)
Now at this time Mrs. X. had no definite knowledge that
her father was dangerously ill ; nor had she any knowledge
of his death (other than that conveyed by the vision) until
she received a letter towards the end of January, 1894,
telling her that he had died in Glasgow at 4 a.m. on
Saturday, December 9, 1893. This is the sort of material
�AND THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE
11
out of which most of these “ death-visions ” are constructed.
They are common enough ; what is rather exceptional about
this “ vision ” is that we have a precise record made at the
time of the occurrence, and that the record is corroborated
to some extent by further knowledge of the facts. In the
absence of such a record, and in the hands of uncritical
lovers of the marvellous, discrepancies would have been
forgotten, and that there had been a highly dramatic vision
of the actual death at the actual time of its occurrence would
have become a legendary belief in the families of those
*
concerned.
As a matter of fact, Mrs. X.’s vision occurred,
by Greenwich time, about nine hours earlier than the time
stated above. That is to say, when the vision occurred in
Japan at 11.5 p.m., it was, in Glasgow, 1.45 p.m. on the same
day, Friday, Decembers. The father died at 4 a.m. on the
Saturday morning, fourteen hours later. Moreover, as the
hour suggests, he was not in a shop, but in bed, when he
died, and he had been in bed, profoundly unconscious, since
the previous Sunday. The vision may have been suggested
by thought-transference from someone at the bedside of the
dying man ; but it is to be noted, first, that Mrs. X., before
she had the vision, was aware that her father suffered from
chronic heart-disease, and that she had had several recent
letters indicating increasing anxiety about his health ;
secondly, that some years before, when Mrs. X. was in a
hairdresser’s shop in Glasgow, in a room off the main shop,
a man came into the latter, and suddenly dropped dead
while standing at the counter. It seems more probable that
her vision was constructed out of a combination of her
apprehensions for her father with memories of this earlier
experience than that there was any telepathic communication.
In this way many of the stories of “death-visions” in
which there is a precise and trustworthy record (and no
others have any evidential value) prove, on close scrutiny,
to be explicable without recourse to any “occult” influences
* Such was, in fact, the belief of the lady herself, when spoken to about
the matter a few days ago, and the production of the contemporary record
was necessary to convince her that her 11 mythopceic faculty” had been
at work !
�12
PSYCHICAL RESEARCH
whatever. But there are others among the large number
studied by the Society which, provided there is neither
deliberate nor unconscious misrepresentation, can be ex
plained only by thought-transference—either from the dying,
or else (especially in those cases in which the vision occurs
shortly after the death) from those who have stood beside
the death-bed. Unless, indeed, to account for manifesta
tions of the latter order, we prefer the hypothesis (which to
me seems to involve far greater difficulties) of the influence—
telepathic or other—of a disembodied spirit.
Besides dealing with visions of the dying, the S. P. R.
undertook an investigation of the very numerous cases in
which visions, simultaneous or deferred, of living persons at
a distance were perceived ; in some cases these are stated to
have been experimentally produced—i.e., the experimenter
deliberately willed to appear in a vision before some absent
friend, and succeeded in doing so. Evidentially, the most
valuable cases of the last-named kind are, of couse, those in
which the vision is produced unexpectedly, in the entire
absence of pre-arrangement. A number of these “telepathic
hallucinations,” as they are termed, have been published in
the well-known volumes by Gurney and others, Phantasms
of the Living. It need hardly be said that telepathic hallu
cinations, when accurately recorded, and when the good
faith of the experimenters and percipients is beyond question,
afford the strongest possible evidence of the reality of the
alleged faculty of telepathy.
The fifth committee of the S. P. R. was formed to under
take “ an inquiry into the various physical phenomena
commonly called spiritualistic, and to attempt to discover
their causes and general laws.” In the introduction to the
last work finished by Mr. Podmore before his death, The
Newer Spiritualism, the author points out that prior to the
days of Swedenborg the “ spirits ” with whom people believed
themselves to hold converse were spirits sent by God or by
the powers of darkness, and that Swedenborg appears to have
been the first to claim that he held intercourse with pvyal in
the sense of Homer—with the souls or spirits of the departed.
This is a point of the first importance, for the following
�AND THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE
i3
reason. In his brilliant volume on The Churches and Modern
Thought, Mr. Vivian quotes Mr. Lowes Dickinson upon the
subject of religious “ conversions,” based upon direct personal
revelation, as follows :—
The truth supposed to be revealed at the moment of conversion is
commonly, if not invariably, the reflection of the doctrine or theory
with which the subject, whether or no he has accepted it, has hitherto
been most familiar. I have never heard, for example, of a case in
which a Mohammedan or a Hindoo, without having ever heard ot
Christianity, has had a revelation of Christian truth. Conversion,
in fact, it would seem, is not the communication of a new truth ; it
is a presentation of ideas already familiar in such a way that they
are accompanied by an irresistible certainty that they aie true.
There is a strong analogy here with the supposed com
munications with extra-human intelligences. In the Middle
Ages, when people had a vivid belief in the existence of
angels and devils, it was with angels and devils that they
held communion. Martin Luther not only saw the devil,
but even threw an inkpot at him (perhaps a better use than
he ordinarily made of his writing materials). Japanese and
Chinese peasant girls, who have a firm belief, in evil spirits
in the form of foxes, will talk freely to hallucinatory demon
foxes. Similarly, Swedenborg and his spiritualistic followers
communicate with the spirits of the kind they believe in the
souls of the departed. Communications are occasionally
made at spiritualistic sittings which appear at first sight to
involve a preternatural knowledge on the part of the medium ;
but of such communications few will bear strict criticism, and
of those that do the great majority, if not all, find their readiest
explanation by the hypothesis of thought-transference. The
trance-personality (for the medium, when not a vulgar cheat,
is commonly entranced when such communications are made)
would appear at times to have an exceptionally powerful
telepathic faculty. But most of the mysteries at the ordinary
spiritualistic sitting would appear to be explicable by the
extreme credulousness and by the unwitting self-deception of
those who take part in them. Hodgson, of the American
S. P. R-, has laid especial stress on this fact, and has pointed
out that the medium’s art, like the conjurer’s, consists in
�PSYCHICAL RESEARCH
diverting the sitter’s attention at critical moments in such a
manner that he himself remains unaware of the momentarylapse. This “dissociation of consciousness,” or “unrealised
break in attention,” explains much that would otherwise be
puzzling. It is often maintained that there must be a great
deal more in spiritualism than is commonly admitted, because
of the attention paid to spiritualistic phenomena by such
leading men of science as Wallace, Lombroso, Richet,
Crookes, and Lodge—men accustomed to precise observation.
.Those who take this line forget that neither in biological nor
in physical experimentation is unremitting attention required,
and that the men I have named can be as easily deceived by
a clever conjurer as anyone else (as Sir Oliver Lodge himself
would probably be the first to admit).
Of the mediums producing “ the physical phenomena of
spiritualism, the one who in recent years has attracted most
attention is the Italian peasant woman, Eusapia Palladino.
After an exhaustive study of the records of her sittings, Mr.
Podmore comes to the conclusion that to explain her results
it is only necessary to assume on the part of the sitters
hallucination of the sense of touch and occasional lapses of
attention. Apart altogether from the question of “spirit
agency,” these assumptions are surely simpler than the
assumption of the quasi-spiritualists, that the “ physical
phenomena ” of spiritualism are “ manifestations of a new
and unknown force of nature.” As long ago as 1874 Crookes
pointed out that, to establish the existence of such a hypo
thetical “new force,” all that would be necessary would be
(under test conditions) (1) to deposit no more than tWt of a
grain of matter in the pan of a locked balance, or (2) to carry
tAt of a grain of arsenic into the interior of a sealed tube.
No such evidence has ever been obtained. Eusapia has
actually been detected in deliberate trickery ; and although
this perhaps cannot be said of all “ professional mediums,”*
Mr. Podmore’s conclusion is that, “as the case stands, it may
fairly be claimed that the occurrence of physical phenomena
is frima facie evidence—I had almost said of fraud, but the
Daniel Dung'las Home appears to be the solitary exception.
�AND THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE
*5
word does not fit the facts—of the production of things which
are other than they seem.”
Mr. Podmore makes this reservation (as to the use of the
word “ fraud ”) for an important reason related to the
peculiarities of the trance personality. Sometimes in con
nection with the production of physical phenomena, but
above all in connection with automatic writing (by means of
which the famous—non-professional—medium, Mrs. Piper,
produces her often mysterious revelations), the medium is apt
to pass into a trance state, allied to, but perhaps not identical
with, the hypnotic trance. Now this is one of the cases in
which the direct study of hypnotism has thrown much light
on the phenomena. The medium in the waking state may
be a person whose honesty is above suspicion ; but the trance
state is one of what is called “ secondary consciousness,”
which may be very different from the primary or waking
consciousness ; and “ the presumption of honesty based on
the character and conduct of waking life counts for nothing
in the case of a medium who is liable to pass into spontaneous
trances.” The secondary consciousness is generally a maimed
and mutilated form of the primary consciousness which is
our friend ; it is commonly non-moral, so that it does not
respect what is, and still less what ought to be. It has few
scruples, and does not distinguish between fact and fiction ;
it has a strong dramatic faculty, being inclined to cultivate
“ art for art’s sake
it cannot say “ I don’t know
it is very
cunning, and at the same time it probably possesses exalted
sensory and perceptive powers—powers altogether in excess
of those possessed by the same person in the primary or
waking state ; and “ in many cases we have proof of a faculty
by which this uncanny monster can on occasion read secret
thoughts.” To sum up, in addition to its increased sensory
and perceptive powers and to its endowment with a mysterious
telepathic faculty upon which no certain limits can be placed,
the secondary personality is “an actor whose mimicry is as
subtle as it is unscrupulous ”; and at the same time it is not
a social being, so that it cannot be relied upon to observe the
ordinary social and moral conventions in respect of truth and
honesty.
�i6
PSYCHICAL RESEARCH
Before passing to the consideration of some of the latest
evidence, and to the final discussion of the bearings of all the
evidence, a few words may be given to the literature of the
subject. Few will have access to, and only the enthusiast is
likely to struggle through, the vast bulk of the Proceedings of
the Society for Psychical Research. The most valuable
summaries of the evidence and critical discussions of its
interpretation are to be found in the writings of Mr. Podmore;
and to read all even of these, interesting as they are, is no
mean labour. Mr. Podmore, accidentally drowned last year,
was a member of the Society from the early days; he
approached the matter from the first in a scientific, dispas
sionate, and truly critical spirit; and it is most interesting
to trace his growing conviction that, while many of the
phenomena cannot be explained without invoking the power
of thought-transference, the need for any really “occult”
explanation (in the “spiritualistic” sense) does not exist.
Most of his principal works have already been mentioned ;
they are, Studies in Psychical Research, Apparitions and
Thought-Transference, Mesmerism and Christian Science,
and The Newer Spiritualism. The works of Gurney, Myers,
and Lodge are also of great value, and are all written in the
scientific spirit, though the two last-mentioned authors incline
rather to accept the view that the mundane activity of dis
embodied spirits has been established by the evidence.
Essays in Psychical Research, by Miss Goodrich-Freer (the
“ Miss X ” of the S. P. R.), is also useful. There are works
by more fervent believers in the spiritist theory, too numerous
to mention, which those who wish to make an exhaustive
study of the subject will do well to read. Anyone with access
to a good library of fiction will find in The Tyranny of the
Dark, by Hamlin Garland, a talented American writer, a
novel which presents the facts and problems of the newer
spiritualism as fairly and picturesquely as Howell’s The
Undiscovered Country presented those of the spiritualism
of an earlier day.
The main fruits of the work of the S. P. R. have been
twofold. In the first place, the Society’s study of abnormal
psychic manifestations, in conjunction with the scientific
�AND THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE
i7
study of hypnotism altogether apart from the work of the
S. P. R., has thrown much light upon the nature of human
consciousness. To the newer experimental psychology, as
Mr. Podmore says, the “ unity of consciousness ” is an
illusion ; like the elementary nature of air, fire, earth, and
water, it is the fruit of youthful ignorance. The laboratory
and the alienist’s clinic show that consciousness, in the last
analysis, is but the casual and transitory co-ordination of
countless ill-defined and variable elements.
And, he
continues, “to found an argument for the survival of the soul
on the supposed unity and indissolubility of this shifting
aggregation must seem, indeed, the building of a house upon
the sand.” In the second place, we owe to the Society the
rescue from the hands of charlatans of the mysterious faculty
of telepathy.
But before passing to our final conclusions on the subject
of thought-transference, let us consider some of the latest
evidence, obtained largely from the automatic writings of
Mrs. Piper, but also from several other automatic writers—
Mrs. Holland, Mrs. Verrail, etc.—who have been engaged in
a lengthy series of experiments.
The most remarkable
features of these experiments have been what are termed
“cross correspondences.” From November, 1906, to June,
1907, Mrs. Piper was in England, and gave a number of
sittings, producing large quantities of automatic writings.
During the same period Mrs. Holland was in India, knowing
nothing then about the Piper sittings being held simul
taneously in England, but conducting independent experi
ments in automatic writing. Mrs. Verrail, at the same time,
was practising automatic writing. Now, when these various
automatic scripts are collated, certain correspondences appear
in their subject-matter; and, what is still more extraordinary,
the different writings contain certain allusions which, when
studied separately, seem unmeaning, but which become explic
able by the light they throw each upon the others ; just as if—
as, indeed, the trance personality of Mrs. Piper maintains to be
the case—some disembodied consciousness, independent ot
our limitations of space and time, were endeavouring to
demonstrate its reality by this means. It is not possible here
�i8
PSYCHICAL RESEARCH
to give details, but I have carefully studied Mr. Podmore’s
collation of the evidence. As he says, there are coincidences
of thought and expression much too numerous to be accounted
for by chance.
There is something extraordinary to be
explained. It may ultimately be proved that there is no
indication of disembodied spiritual agency ; but to prove that
it is necessary to assume the action of living minds upon one
another of an altogether unprecedented kind.
In the present state of the evidence it is not possible to
dogmatise as to its bearing.
Provisionally, those who
examine it will accept a working hypothesis coincident with
their general opinions regarding the existence or non
existence of disembodied intelligences, and the probable
powers and occupations of these if they do exist.
For
example, the late William James, the great American
psychologist, speaking of the whole record of spirit posses
sion in human history, writes: “The notion that so many
men and women, in all other respects honest enough, should
have this preposterous monkeying self annexed to their per
sonality seems to me so weird that the spirit theory takes on
a more possible appearance.”
But, then, the existence of this “monkeying” secondary
self is proved by hypnotic data ; and the faculty of telepathy
must apparently be assumed to exist in order to explain many
of the obscurer manifestations of psychical activity. Is it not,
then, better to accept the explanation which these two
hypotheses afford, without superadding the enormous im
probabilities involved in the claim that “spirit-control” is a
reality? Entia non sint multiplicanda prceter necessitatem.
It must be remembered that the sympathies of the trance
personality are usually on the side of the “occult”; that,
in the search for “spirit communications,” the history of the
subject shows that demand creates supply ; and that “ distant
telepathy by a disembodied spirit is just as improbable as
distant telepathy from the mind of a living person, with the
superadded gross improbability that the disembodied spirit
exists at all 1 I, at any rate, agree with the view taken by
Mi. Podmore.
He holds that the results of the “ cross
correspondence experiments add considerably to the strength
�AND THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE
i9
of the case for the existence of supernormal faculty of some
kind, more especially because the other experimental evidence
indicates that telepathic influences act most freely in the
sphere of the automatic or dream consciousness. These
experiments furnish us, in fact, with yet another illustration
of the readiness of our mysterious inner self to meet any
demands that may be made on its dramatic powers.
So
far,” concludes Mr. Podmore, “as my analysis of the complex
cases of cross correspondence has gone, there has been no
coincidence of thought and expression not adequately
explained by the natural association of ideas in minds
occupied by the same themes, aided by occasional telepathic
interaction among the automatists themselves.
Thus the work of the S. P. R. seems, in a sense, to have
been justified by results. If it has not provided the scientific
proof (for which some have hoped, though to me it appears
extremely undesirable) of the reality of conscious life after
death, it has thrown much light on the dark places of
psychology, and it seems to render necessary at least a
provisional belief in the reality of thought transference.
Of the physical or physiological basis of thought trans
ference we know nothing at present; for to speak of “ brain
waves,” or “etheric thought waves,” is to speak of that of
which we know absolutely nothing. But from another point
of view it is permissible to ask what is the nature of the
faculty. Is it, as some suppose, the germ of a developing
faculty destined to play a great part in the future of the race?
Or is it merely the decayed vestige of a primitive faculty of
communication which has been superseded by the develop
ment of articulate speech? To me, indeed, the latter view
seems far more probable. There is considerable evidence
suggesting that a faculty of the nature of telepathy exists
among some of the lower animals. AVatch, for example, a
flight of pigeons wheeling in the sunlight; do they not seem
to turn, now in one direction, now in another—not as if
following a leader, but rather as if in obedience to an impulse
communicated simultaneously to the nervous systems of all
the birds? In the present state of our knowledge the matter
must be left open ; and I will conclude by saying that, if
�20
PSYCHICAL RESEARCH
thought transference is a developing instead of a decaying
faculty, there are obvious inconveniences, as George Eliot
has shown, attached to this notion of “The Lifted Veil ” 1
But in this matter our descendants will have to bear their
own burden, if it should ultimately be placed upon their
shoulders.
PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO.,
court, fleet street, e.c.
Johnson’s
��OVER 800,000 SOLD.
R.P.A. Cl>eap
(WITH PORTRAIT IN
L HUXLEY’S LECTURES AND
ESSAYS. (A Selection.) With
11. THE
By C
Autobiography.
2. THE PIONEERS OF EVO
LUTION. By EDWARD CLODD.
tion
3. MODERN SCIENCE AND 13. ON
MODERN THOUGHT. By
SAMUEL LAING. With Illustrations. 14.
4. LITERATURE AND DOGMA.
By MATTHEW ARNOLD.
15. AN
LO
5. THE RIDDLE OF THE UNI
VERSE. By. Professor ERNST
HAECKEL.
6. EDUCATION :
Moral, and
Intellectual,
Physical. By
.HERBERT SPENCER.
>. THE EVOLUTION OF THE
IDEA OF GOD. By GRANT
17. A
A
18.
ALLEN.
8. HUMAN ORIGINS.
LAING.
By SAMUEL
9. THE SERVICE OF MAN.
J. COTTER MORISON.
By
20.
10. TYNDALL’S
LECTURES
AND ESSAYS. (A Selection.)
6d. each, by post 8d.; Nos. 1 to
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
post is. 3d.; or the. 17 post paid, 17s.
R. P. A, EXTRA
1. JESUS CHRIST i
His Apostles and
Disciples in the Twentieth; .jCentury.
By Count CAMILLE DE RENESSE.
2. HAECKEL’S CRITICS AN
SWERED. By JOSEPH McCABE.
3 SCIENCE AND SPECULA
TION- By G. H. LEWES.
6d. each, by post 8d.; Cloth,
(The seven post free, in paper covers, 3s. 6d.; cloth,
AGENTS FOR THE RATIONALIST PRESS
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FL
printed BV WATTS AND CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT
' •Re
�
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
Psychical research and thought transference : their meaning and recent history
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Paul, Eden [1865-1944]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Issued for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1911
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N537
Subject
The topic of the resource
Spiritualism
Rationalism
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 (Psychical research and thought transference : their meaning and recent history), 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
NSS
Psychical Research
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9d11d30072eae929ee5de14566f0ee96.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AKqM5gw8p--cUrKrezsJaOPwmyPfZYxaGfZf%7E7RgZfz8ci0iE58sa7jFKpWWVneI3QKxY0UVFz43rL8vm5UIezwjKLfHnorGinHOzeg76qxr5y9WZJQBK3qOwou3uQ2%7EUIkoS%7E6UWZ1bsjz2btJ70Sb333mehjMZAyNXuSDKBsOrXvOhoAAWG-H5qOBrrLlM0kj66Lrs5PFZwsOE1%7EewPqPFT2SE261w1Sqt0YanfegQFf5Vo-C%7EFXNSGP6vjW2FgOssQG9Wf51tNEjFor-E%7EQviAygNjoA59vLA3aiQLoiQeCt%7Ed%7ExOBjQIZt6BBy53Z8%7EJCGPbWJjMaoVjlFgxWw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
44e15080df459f0175226f2d4c4d7651
PDF Text
Text
RATIONAL CHRISTIANITY
ITS
NATURE,
ITS PRESENT RELATION
EXISTING CHURCHES,
AND A
FLEA
FOR ITS
SEPARATE ORGANISATION.
LONDON:
E. CALLOW, 7, SOUTHAMPTON STREET, STRAND, W.C.
Price Sixpence.
>
��Rfflfioii TiRJhkistiIJn itiW
ITS NATURE, ITS PRESENT RELATION TO EXISTING
CHURCHES, AND A PLEA FOR ITS SEPARATE
ORGANISATION.
Rational Christianity—considered as a science is
strictly governed by induction. It discards all claims
to the supernatural, as on the one hand wanting in
evidence, and as being on the other plainly con
tradicted by the ever enlarging knowledge of the
dominion of law, which presenting as it everywhere
does, in whatever direction scientific investigation is
extended, an absolutely unbroken continuity, and an
absolutely irresistible supremacy, abundantly warrants
the conclusion of its absolutely undeviating univer
sality. Whatever principles embodied in the teaching
of Christ, or in the current traditions of Christianity,
are, by experience, proved to be beneficial. in their
operation are accepted. Whatever is found to be of
a contrary tendency is rejected.
In this way amongst a heterogeneous admixture of
other and worthless or mischievous elements, there are
discovered in Christianity many, if not most, of the
elements of a perfect religion. Or in other words it
is found that Christianity contains, to a very large
extent, the actual laws of religious life as they exist in
nature; just as chemistry contains, to a large extent,
the actual laws of the elements of matter. Moreover,
in many points, in which Jleficiency exists, there is
found to be, at least, an aptness to coalesce with
what is wanting: even if it is not more correct to say,
there already exists the undeveloped germ of it. If,
for example, some of the sterner virtues are slighted
or discouraged in the teaching of Christ; yet, since
experience proves their value to the well-being of
society, the love of our neighbour prompts their
exercise. These laws of the religious life, thus
extracted from Christianity, supplemented and de
veloped where necessary, constitute the principles of
Rational Christianity.
�Nor is to be thought that in this way the name is
unwarrantably appropriated, or that any violence is
done to the nature of Christianity. Although, as was in
evitable to a'religion originating eighteen hundred years
ago, it has entangled itself with philosophies current
then, and at the different periods through which it has
passed; still the simple and elevated principles upon
which it is based, are, in reality, quite independent of
these, and more in harmony with the results of modern
science, or, at least, not less so than with them. So
that no essential or peculiar feature of Christianity is
.sacrificed by replacing exploded philosophies by those
•of the present day. For example, Christ taught that
the whole of religion was comprehended in love to
God and love to man. And he evidently regarded
the government of God, and his relation to man, as of
a personal character. But the replacing of this per
sonal element, by that of unchanging law, does not
make the character of God less entitled to be loved:
nor does it lessen the elevating influence of loving
God, the fountain of all goodness, with all the heart
and all the mind. It raises indeed our conception of
the infinite greatness and incomprehensibleness of
God, but does not diminish our estimate of his
goodness. And even if science should warrant the
conclusion that God has no personality at all, that
he is but the grand sum total of all goodness, the
first great Christian law would stand with un
diminished authority. The theory of the atheist is
certainly not inconsistent with the universal obligation
to love with all our heart and mind and strength, all
apprehended goodness of every kind. And it is selfevident that man rises in the scale of humanity, just
in proportion as his whole consciousness is alive with
the love of all that is pure, and noble, and true, and
beautiful, and good. But this rational self-commending
obedience to the first great Christian law fulfils all
that is essential and peculiar to Christianity therein.
So with respect to the second great command, “ Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Does modern
�philosophy lead us to the conclusion, that the mind
bears exactly the same relation to the brain that sight
bears to the eye; and that therefore our existence is
limited to the present life ? The value of true Christ
ian benevolence and beneficence is not lessened for
the life which we have; but its purity is rendered
more apparent when all hope of future recompense, for
the sacrifices it here makes is taken away. It is
placed beyond doubt then, that a man “ does good
hoping for nothing again or, in other words, that he
is in very deed, and in the best sense of the word, a
Christian.
When rational Christianity is thus separated from
other elements in the concrete mass, it will be found
that it retains all that is peculiar to Christianity.
While on the other hand there is nothing peculiar to
orthodoxy, as distinguished from rational Christianity,
which is not common jto Judaism, or other less perfect
system of religion, while there is scarcely anything
peculiar to it, as distinguished from rational Christianity,
which can plead the sanction of the master, and
positively nothing that is peculiar or essential to his
teaching. Rational Christianity, therefore, need not
fear any investigation of its, title deeds.
And it is noteworthy that while rational Chris
tianity is thus seen to embody all that is essentially
Christian, it is also true that Christianity did exist in
its infancy apart from a belief in a future state.
There were at Corinth some who said that “there is
no resurrection of the dead”—1 Cor. xv. 12; while
others taught that the resurrection was past already,
2 Tim. ii. 18; and even of the eleven disciples some
doubted the Master’s resurrection, Matt, xxviii. 17,
which would probably carry with it doubts of their
own. The tone of the narrative forbids the idea that
this scepticism, at that day, was regarded as invalida
ting their discipleship. St. Paul, indeed, as was
natural in one who had lived as a pharisee and was
the son of a pharisee, stoutly opposed this feature of
Sadducean philosophy; but even he never once treats
�6
it as a fatal error, nor hints at excommunicating those
who held it. How long this opinion survived, or how
far it may have prevailed in the early church, there
appears to be now no sufficient data to determine;
but clearly, neither in the estimation of its adherents
nor of its opponents, was a belief in a future state of
existence regarded as essential to Christianity.
But Christianity is much more than either a
science or an art. It is a moral and religious force
having a character peculiarly its own, distinguished
from all other religious influences by strongly marked
features, especially, by its intense benevolence and
beneficence.
Principles underlying it there necessarily must be;
but these were never very clearly defined by its founder,
and never attempted to be systematised by him. The
undiscerned law of its own life, in a good degree, gave
it form, and preserved to some extent its symmetry;
even in spite of the injurious effects of erroneous
modes of thought and systems of philosophy, which
too early, too frequently, and too extensively distorted
and disfigured it.
This grand living power of goodness, the purest,
noblest, and best, which has ever been known in the
world, is, by the systematic application of rational
principles, purged of polluting and diluting elements,
brought out into healthful and vigorous exercise,
developed in accordance with the law of its life,
supplemented where necessary, and applied to the
multifarious and complex circumstances of our in
dividual, social, and political relationships, and will
yet be made the salvation of the world. This is
Rational Christianity.
What now is its position in the Christian Church ?
Its avowed disciples are but few, although its
unavowed adherents are, it is believed, to be found in
very many churches, and constitute collectively a
body of no inconsiderable influence in numbers,
intelligence, and piety.
�Up to “he present time, however, so far as is
known to the writer, no single congregation exists
where they can find a congenial home. Everywhere
they are liable, either to be expelled, or treated with
so much disrespect, if they plainly avow their con
victions, that the course of wisdom generally appears
to be, to keep their peculiar opinions to themselves; or
to confide them only to a few bosom friends, and to
labour on so long as they can do so without violating
their consciences: doing what quiet Christian work
their hands find to do, and waiting for the time
when their distinguishing opinions may win for
themselves their rightful place in the church; content
in the meantime to submit to the discomforts of their
position, and often to undeserved suspicion and
ungenerous treatment, brought upon them simply by
their want of sympathy with the feelings, opinions,
and sentiments of the majority.
Should the reason be sought for this intolerant
antipathy to Christian rationalism, which has hitherto
so effectually restrained its open avowal; it is to be
found in the mistake, which has unhappily so uni
versally prevailed, of regarding the belief of the
supernatural as an essential element of Christianity.
The fact, however, remains, that this intense antipathy
is, at present, and is likely to remain, an insuperable
barrier to the healthful development of rational
Christianity, within any of the existing churches.
And, even if it were not vain to hope to overcome
it, there are other insurmountable obstacles to the two
systems working properly together. They are in fact
mutually incompatible. The one makes the well-being
of the future life the basis of its system, and the
other regards solely the interests of this present life.
The one therefore draws its motives mainly from the
future, the other exclusively from this. The one re
gards religion as a service to be rendered to Grod, for his
happiness and well-being. The other esteems it a
matter (so far as man is concerned in it at least) as
alone affecting his own happiness and well-being, and
�8
that of his fellow creatures. The one regards prayer
as intended to produce an effect upon God, and there
fore makes it to consist of actual requests for his
assistance. The other regards it simply as intending
to influence himself and those of his fellow men, who
are connected in some way or other with the act, and
therefore, confines it to aspirations after blessings for
himself and others, which do not involve any
interference with the laws of nature in their accom
plishment, and which in fact are not perhaps properly
addressed to God at all. They with the poet regard
prayer as:—
“ the soul’s sincere desire,
“ Uttered or unexpressed,
“ The motion of a hidden fire,
“ Which trembles in the breast.”
It follows, therefore, that rational Christianity must
look for a home of its own. Whether the time is ripe
for its disciples to make the attempt to provide one,
events must prove. One thing is clear, it cannot
expect to make a home in the churches in which it has
been born, and where it at present merely lives on
sufferance.
Many reasons may be urged why no unnecessary
delay should be incurred in doing so. In the first
place there is the individual comfort of having a home of
our own, where we shall no longer be treated as inferiors
to be tolerated; but where we shall be free citizens in
a free state, enjoying the consciousness of rightful
possession, position, and influence. This is by no
means to be despised. Indeed, this would be a suffi
cient reason in itself to warrant the attempt. Then,
there is the imperative law of our Christian life, which
demands that we should avow all our convictions, at
all events, when there is any reasonable prospect of
the avowal being beneficial to one another, or to others:
a law that we cannot disobey without lowering our
religious vitality. We must not at our peril hide our
light under a bushel. Then there is the advantage to
be gained from church life. It is equally a law of oijr
�religious life, that intercommunion of kindred hearts
and minds is necessary to its healthy development!
But this intercommunion can never exist in any
perfection, where there is such a great discrepancy, as
that which divides the rational Christian from others.
Then there is the sad fact, that thousands upon thou
sands, and among them some of the finest intellects
both of the rising generation, and those of mature
age, are being lost entirely to the Christian church,
and to the cause of Christianity, through failing
to discriminate between the absurdities of exploded
superstitions, which are almost everywhere set forth
as alone constituting the essence of Christianity, and
that which is in reality entitled to be so regarded.
Mere rationalists I do not expect to be greatly
influenced by such considerations. To them, however,
I do not appeal. But to rational Christians, to the
men who have put in practice the beneficent precepts
of Christianity, and who in doing so have felt a hearty
sympathy with Jesus in his blessed and noble work,
I know such appeals will not be in vain. With the
writer they will feel that we must set up a beacon light
(which a church founded on and animated by our
principles would be,) to warn these thousands of the
rocks upon which they make shipwreck.
Closely connected with the last is the value of our
stand-point, for giving prominence to the really
essential motives of the gospel, arising from their
own intrinsic excellence and loveliness. These are
practically greatly obscured, by their association in the
current systems, with the overshadowing supernatural.
Again, no thoughtful observer can fail to notice
that although the supernatural, thus so greatly over
shadows everything else, yet it is, owing to the
increasing light of science, losing its power with
astonishing rapidity, even among those who still
honestly believe it. The future world is fast becoming
everywhere an unrealisied thing. Nowhere are its out
lines drawn now with a clearness, boldness, and dis
tinctness, which formerly characterised them. Instead
�TO
of the vivid spirit-stirring thing it once was, it is
fast fading into nebulous generalities which can no*
longer awaken the powerful emotions which formerly
aroused men from their selfish sloth, or arrested them
in the midst of a reckless career of vice, and guilt,
and crime. Here then is a loud call for rational
Christianity to step in and supply, where motives
appealing to men’s selfishness are needed, those real
and tangible considerations, drawn from the con
sequences of wickedness in this present life, which its
stand-point naturally leads its disciples to give so much
greater attention to, and which its principles prompt
them to supplement and render more effective.
The principles of supernaturalism too often lead to
the conclusion that the evils caused by wicked men,
are a part of the providential dispensations of God
and therefore to be submitted to. And this feeling is
strengthened by the great error in Christ’s teaching,
that we should not resist evil; an error which, not
withstanding the neutralising influence of common
sense, which leads Christians to act more agreeably to
the evident law of right, still paralyses the Christian
Church in grappling with the rascality of the world; and
leaves iniquity, to a very large extent, unchecked. Let
rational Christianity come forth with the high praises
of God, or goodness, in her mouth, and a two-edged
sword in her hand, to execute upon the wicked the
judgment written ; that is to say the judgment which
is dictated by benevolence, not by hatred. Let her
do this, and she will soon find her efforts a potent
check upon the evil-doer. Let her unite her disciples
as a well disciplined force, everywhere making it one
of their leading objects to checkmate the workers of
iniquity: and although she must of course expect to be
hated by wrong-doers, with an intensity almost passing
belief, yet this very intensity of the hatred evoked is
an index to the fear she will inspire, and to the
effectiveness of the work she will be accomplishing.
Nor is it to be imagined that the checking and
arresting evil is the limit of the good she will ac-j
�complish.
This is but the preliminary work in
turning evil-doers to paths of righteousness. Wicked
men, finding themselves foiled in their wickedness, and
fools, just where they had prided themselves upon their
superior wisdom, will begin to suspect themselves to be
fools in preferring to listen to the cravings of mere
selfishness, which is the root of all sin, vice and crime,
and be willing to let the higher feelings of their nature
make their voice heard. In short they may thus be
made willing to listen to the gospel of Christ, and be
brought to learn of Him who was meek and lowly of
heart; and thus, not only find rest to their own souls;
but become blessings to the world, where they had been
curses. Indeed no one can estimate the immense
power which good men could bring to bear for the
regeneration of the world, if it could thus be directed
by the principles of rational Christianity.
Nor, must it be forgotten, that to give full effect to
these principles, church organisation is indispensable.
Their power may be immensely enhanced by virtue of
concerted action. We are all familiar with the fact, that
a bridge may be broken down simply by a regiment of
soldiers passing over it, if they keep step, while their
united weight will produce no injurious effect if they
pass over without this measured tread. So if all the
rational Christian members of any one trade, or any
similar walk in life, meet together in church-fellowship
and take counsel, to attack whatever form of evil is
most prominent in their particular sphere; pledging
themselves to guard against the evil in their own
conduct, and to take all proper means to expose and
punish it in others, and to afford each other mutual
sympathy and support in the work, it may safely
be said that no evil of any magnitude could long
survive.
Moreover it would soon be seen whose
sympathies were on the side of right, and whose on
the side of wrong. This alone would be an immense
advantage, in the holy war which Christianity is ever
waging, against the powers of evil.
The preservation of Christianity in full vigour and
�healthfulness, is another reason for the formation of a
separate church, on the basis of rational Christianity.
We have seen that existing churches cannot afford a
home for it; and yet we are sure that Christianity
must be injured by continuing in intimate association
with superstitious beliefs, for which there is no longer
any excuse, and which therefore cannot long be held
by anyone with perfect honesty. And while we gladly
recognise the abounding vitality of Christianity, which
manages to live even amidst such prostration of in
tellect as is produced in the Roman Church; yet we
cannot for a moment believe that it does not materially
suffer by this deterioration of the mind; and still more,
by the violence done to conscience, which must be
continually increasing, just in proportion to the in
crease of the available light of truth. The painfid
exhibitions of disingenuousness, which are constantly
being made to bolster up exploded beliefs, and to
harmonise the results of modern science with the
claims of Bibliolatry, only too plainly reveal the un
healthy condition of the religious li feA nd the want
of power in the evangelical churches, evinced in their
obviously futile attempts to stem the rising tide of
Romanism, either within or outside of their own pale,
is one of the saddest features of our times; for these
churches have been long the home of healthy, vigorous,
robust Christianity.
Nothing but the establishment of Christianity on
the same basis as that upon which modern sciences
rest, which is the basis of rational Christianity, can
reasonably hope to secure perfect accord between
Christianity and science, or to enlist the disciples of
the latter in the service of the church. And anvthingless than this, must necessarily involve either a cramp
ing and deadening of the intellect, or a tampering
with the conscience, which is fatal to healthful religious
life. And indeed, both these evils must as a rule thus
be involved. On the other, hand instead of decay and
decline of power, Christianity, once firmly established
on a rational basis will, doubtless, exhibit a beauty and
�sheR® never yet displayed? Her prin
ciples, released from the fetters of Bibliolatry, and from
all the restraints of obsolete philosophies, will become
better understood than ever; and being more clearly
defined will be more easily, and therefore, more exten
sively applied. Besides which, as they are better
understood, new applications of them will be made,
and opportunities of developing and supplementing
them will be discovered; and having now as a standard
their own unchanging nature, misconceptions can be,
and will be, corrected by repeated and multiplied observa
tions; and thus Christianity may reasonably be expected
to acquire a unity and consistency greatly supassing
anything she has ever manifested, or could possibly
possess, 'while her standard was an undefined and
incoherent assemblage of old world philosophies and
metaphysics. A theology in short, which having had
its birth with astrology and alchemy, ought to have
been allowed to die with them; possessing as it does
no better foundation, and no better claim to live.
A Christianity thus firmly rooted in the great facts
of religion, will have within it a vitality, that cannot
fail speedily to accomplish results of startling grandeur,
in the redemption of the world from sin and conse
quent suffering. Results which will surpass even what
the supernaturalist looks for by supernatural agency,
in a future world. Results which will realise the
prophetic longings, aspirations, and predictions of the
good in all ages and nations:—the millenial glory:—
the golden age:—the good time coming:—the new
heaven, and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteous
ness.
In order to test the practicabilty of proceeding at
once to (pmmence a church on this footing, the
writer will be pleased to be the medium of intercom
munication between those who share these views,
and who are desirious of doing something to give
practical effect to them. But while he will cordially
welcome the humblest worker, he wishes it to be
distinctly understood that he does not wish to have
�14
his time wasted by mere talkers, or theoretic disputers.
He wishes to co-operate with, and will gladly welcome
communications from, any who are prepared to render
any kind of practical aid.
Communications may be adressed to Eusebius, care
of Publishers.
James & Co., Printers, 12a, Well Street, Crieplegate.
�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
Rational Christianity: its nature, its present relation to existing churches and a plea for its separate organisation
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Eusebius
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "Communications may be addressed to Eusebius, care of publishers." [p. 14]. Tentative date of publication from KVK. Printed by James & Co., Well Street, Cripplegate.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
E. Dallow
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[187-?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5326
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rationalism
Christianity
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 (Rational Christianity: its nature, its present relation to existing churches and a plea for its separate organisation), 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
Conway Tracts
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a420e7d248b892e0ed287b3ff420908e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=KmBHGdh3c7rOxNdmB2XHkD4SSNdscxBkrRvK2qdtWYkj5xX1Qs4E1C%7EGCKn9LLAjt3sM4R3i9tmf6UF9qrhuCySIAqJmgKz1%7EhDvqdMNvbhML-JQgwpot8ujsmhkBrEX924529hd7C84eYSGncO7p7NXnxFA-uR4DFw3hOYm5mTrVQXllDvBBblvmgA8qpfyZn27qVPfBgdo%7EY2gTjhN7QO62-VfauaFQHSzqMHlSySm9McL5LLDaGiUct0K55mxv0tyfNPF6E8vICtJnAzcb-gBeaBEFt4qB8O3AtMC8e1Q-OBGSpf1KGRT-VHdaxQHuNs86sgUVDop6GWkOWKPXw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ff68873613dab3e634b2903f3c5863fa
PDF Text
Text
REASON
VERSUS
AUTHORITY.
BY
W. 0. GARR BROOK.
“ Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
Thess., v. 21.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
1871.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�REASON
VERSUS
AUTHORITY.
HE present is a sceptical age. We do not, as
in former times, believe, but criticise. Faith,
in these days, has no province, but the whole area of
human expectation is limited to the range of our
reason. If a truth can be shown to be probable, we
accept it. If it is not, in our estimation, reasonable,
we reject it. We assert, in short, that the instrument
and method of our apprehension is the same, whether
the thing to be apprehended be an episode in Homer’s
Iliad or an incident in Luke’s Life of Christ.
If we interpret aright the intellectual position of
those who urge this as a sign of our spiritual deca
dence, they are, in some sense or measure, prepared
to affirm that reason is unrelated to the subject of
religion. We should not, they think, consider the pro
priety or impropriety of a given religious observance,
the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a supposed
religious obligation, the credibility or incredibility of
an affirmed revelation from heaven, but, with regard
to such matters, our reason is to be held in abeyance.
Within the sphere of our higher life, we are not to
argue, but accept; not criticise, but believe; not ask
for evidence, but proceed upon authority.
T
�6
Reason versus Authority.
Taken absolutely and universally, this instruction
to us for our guidance needs, we think, but to be
touched to be disproved. If everywhere and at all
times, within the sphere of religion, reason is to be
quiescent and faith supreme, either we must adopt
every creed, however opposite, in turn, as the advo
cate of each presses it upon us, or we must, under all
circumstances, abide by our original religious impres
sions, and refuse to relinguish them whatever a deeper
experience may say in opposition. In the former
case, it will be our duty, to-day, being urged thereto
by the Protestant, to denounce Mariolatry, and, to
morrow, pressed by the Catholic, to bow down, in
utmost reverence, to the Virgin Mother. In the
latter, it will be incumbent upon us, whether we are
the children of Protestant or Catholic parents, to ask
no questions and to listen to no persuasion to change
our religious sentiments, but accepting them at first
without inquiry, and abiding by them ever afterwards
irrespective of their hold upon our judgment, to
reduce the problem of the growth or retrogression
of Protestant or Roman Catholic sentiment in this
country to the question of the relative fruitfulness of
Protestant or Roman Catholic parentage.
If they who affirm the supremacy of faith and the
unrelatedness of reason to religion do not affirm it
always and everywhere, they, then, affirm it some
times and somewhere, and the question, of course, is
when and where. In reply, if we ask the Protestant,
he informs us that our reason is to give place to our
faith when we read a certain book, but that our faith
is to give place to our reason when we read any
interpretation of the book which is not our own.
The Catholic, in opposition, says, with much show of
sense, that if we need an infallible book we must,
being often ignorant and always liable to err, need,
from the same consideration, an infallible interpreter,
�Reason versus Authority.
y
and offers us that which he esteems to be so. If we
.relinquish our reason, however, since we cannot
assent to both, we can assent to neither. The double
assertion of our duty to accept and not to question is
equivalent, in force, to the single assertion to ques
tion and not to accept. Where there are two autho
rities, each of which denounces the other and claims
exclusive obedience from ourselves, it may or may
not be fortunate, but it is inevitable that we should
withhold our faith till we have exercised our reason.
Regarding the position more leisurely, we think
that whether or not it may be otherwise defensible, it
is not to be expected that we should admit it merely
because they who assert it have the strongest possible
impression that it is so. They may, as they no doubt
most unquestionably do, very sincerely believe that
they are not, but, unless they are prepared, in addi
tion, to affirm their personal infallibility, they must
admit that they may be, mistaken. The positive
certainty which they assert themselves to possess in
an inward impression which they consider transcends
their reason, they must, nevertheless, when affirmed
by others on behalf of an opposing conclusion, and,
therefore, in their case, on behalf of their own, allow,
at least, admits of question. Since Jew and Gentile,
Catholic and Protestant, Christian and Heathen,
have, in turn, been so assured of the truth of their
convictions as to die for them, and such convictions
have, necessarily, been not merely dissimilar but
professedly antagonistic, it is evident that no con
viction can be so strong, and no fidelity to it so
persistent, as to yield, therein, any, much less a
perfect, guarantee, that their faith is a synonym for
the truth.
Neither can we consent to the relinquishment of
our reason in our religion from the affirmed necessity
of an exact intellectual conception of God, and the
�8
Reason versus Authority.
impossibility, by reason, of attaining to it. Were it
true that a certain intellectual conception were essen
tial to the divine favour, it would, of course, follow
that we might expect the Divine Being to supply us
with an unquestionable method of attaining to it.
On the other hand, it is to be inferred that if the
Divine Being has not placed within the reach of men
generally an infallible method of arriving at an
absolute knowledge of him, it is because it is not
necessary to his favour that they should possess it.
The question, then, is, which of the two is the more
reasonable alternative ? and the answer, we think, is
obvious. Which of the many existing and opposing
conclusions, from Catholicism to Rationalism, shall
be ours, in our youth, will be dependent upon the
accidental circumstances of our birth, and, if we are
not to reason but acquiesce in our original religious
impressions, will continue to be so always. But, if
so, there can be no more unquestionable method of
knowing God without than with our reason—rather,
the alternative to which we fly will be worse than
that from which we flee. The assertion that we
should judge for ourselves renders it possible that we
should mistake, but the assertion that we should not
judge for ourselves makes it inevitable that the
greater portion of mankind must do so, and, accord
ing to the theory of those who affirm the necessity
for an exact intellectual conception of God, to their
eternal ill-doing.
We must, also, we think, reject the argument that
the subject-matter of religion is of that kind which
precludes the competency of our reason. Admitted
that the divine existence is not cognisable by our
senses, it does not therefore follow that we should
accept the opinions of other persons with similarly
imperfect bodily organs, but, simply, that we should
listen to them upon this as upon other questions
�Reason versus Authority.
9
with a view to form a correct opinion of our own.
Admitted that the certainty of a future life is not to
be proved by our reason, so, neither, on the other
hand, can we be certain, though we may feel so, with
out it. He who tells us aught which we could not
know without his telling, must bring proof to us that
he has special or exclusive information upon the sub
ject, and the only part of us which is capable of
dealing with proof is our reason. Admitted that
theological truths cannot be known but must be
believed, the conclusion to which it leads is, not
unreasoning acquiescence in anything or everything
which may be affirmed, but a rational endeavour to
discover that which, if not certain, is most probable.
There may or may not in the circumstance that we
cannot know God fully without a revelation, be
ground to expect one, but, even upon the supposi
tion that one is to be expected, whether or not it has
been given, and if so, when and where, and what its
purport, must be matter of opinion ; and inasmuch
as experience teaches us that men are positive upon
such questions, not in proportion to the breadth, but
the limitation of their vision, the strength and extent
to which a conclusion thereon is positively affirmed
is the measure of the necessity for calling it into
question.
Relinquishing our, so far, merely defensive position,
and assuming the initiative in the controversy, we
think we are justified in saying that the primd facie
argument is opposed to the conclusion. If there is a
distinguishing mark of Divine Authorship, it is the
relatedness of the means to the end, and the sub
ordination of the lower to the higher methods of
nature. The unreasoning trust of the child, how
ever, is not equal to the intelligent appreciation of
the man, and the higher purpose of our life is not in
eating or drinking, or buying or selling, or marrying
�io
Reason versus Authority.
and giving in marriage, but in the right understanding
and performance of our spiritual relationships. But
if our reason is the highest endowment, as it un
questionably is, with which the Divine Being has
favoured us, and if, even in the estimation of those
who differ from us, the highest purpose of our life is
not in the enjoyment of the present but in prepar
ation for the future, it would seem that if our reason
were intended to serve any purpose whatever, it was,
in any case, intended to guide us in the matter of our
religious hopes and expectations.
This impression is confirmed, we do not hesitate to
say, by the circumstance that the same persons who
call upon us to suspend our reason, nevertheless find
themselves under the ceaseless necessity to appeal to
it upon the subject of our religion. If we remind
the Catholic, for instance, when he presses us to
assent to his proposition, that the Protestant also puts
in a claim, he brings to our mind the modern origin
of the Protestant, calls him a schismatic, and, gene
rally, uses his best endeavours to prove that the
Protestant claim is inadmissible. If, on the other
hand, we inform the Protestant, when he calls upon
us to urge his authoritative dogma, that the Catholic
has anticipated him, the Protestant proceeds to re
mind us that the Catholic is an image worshipper,
quotes secular and ecclesiastical history to bedaub
his church, and, imitating his Roman Catholic
compeer in this at least, uses all his art to
persuade our judgment that he is, and that tho
Catholic is not, entitled to prescribe our religious
opinions. But, if it be true that we should not
reason, why do they each play the part of tempter,
and solicit from us a judgment ? Is it not singular
that our reason should be unfitted to deal with a
subject, and yet that, upon it, the several parties to
the affirmative should never hesitate to appeal to it.
�Reason versus Authority.
11
Surely, of all the transcending mysteries of life,
that which most transcends is the mystery that each
should systematically deny the competency of an
authority to which they appeal, repudiate a right
which they equally recognise, advance and with
draw, according to the conveniences of their argu
ment, the intellectual position, upon which, they
assert, hangs the eternal destinies of their race.
If the pertinency of their conclusion, however, is
not apparent, its wondrous impertinency, if we ex
amine it, it will not be difficult to discover. Traced
to its mental base, is not the meaning of those who
assert that we should not reason but believe, that
they have themselves come to a conclusion upon re
ligious subjects which they wish, whether or not it is
agreeable to our judgment, to impose upon us? Is it
not that the training of their youth, the prejudices of
their class, or the intellectual preferences they have
acquired, point in a certain direction, and that these
appearing to themselves to be sacred, they cannot
understand, and are not prepared to allow, prejudices
and opinions which are not their own ? The reason
why we should not reason is, after all, simply that
they wish to undertake the duty for us. The ground
of their objection is, not that we should come to a
conclusion, bat that we should not come to their con
clusion. If this be not so, wherefore do they recom
mend us to listen to their own polemical discourses ?
How does it happen that books written in defence of
“ the truth,” as they regard it, are laudable, and only
those written in opposition are pernicious ? Of
what other solution is their conduct capable when
they permit — nay, commend — our disposition to
reason, so long as it results in the adoption of their
sentiments ? Stripped of its unintentional disguise,
the assertion that we should not criticise but accept,
�12
Reason versus Authority.
is, simply, the assertion that they who make it believe
that their judgment is, and that the judgment of those
who differ from them is not, to be trusted.
Studiously regarded, indeed, the recommendation
to us for our guidance is not more intellectually
puerile than practically impossible. If the Catholic
has faith in the teaching of his Church, it is not
because he does not exercise his reason, but because,
owing to early training, social circumstance, or
tendency of mind, its claims, upon the whole, appear
to him more rational than any alternative of which
he takes note. If the Protestant is averse to the
claims of the Catholic Church, and sympathises with
the Anglican or any Dissenting formulary, it is not
because he does not come to a judgment upon the
subject of their respective merits, but because, how
ever ignorant and swayed by prejudice, and however
unconscious of the mental operation, his judgment,
nevertheless, inclines to the one in preference to the
other. Nay ! our reason is the only instrument with
which we can assent. Our intellect is the only part
of us capable of faith. Diversity in the things to be
apprehended involves no diversity in the instrument
of our apprehension. Two and two are four, and the
mental operation is the same, when the addition is
of men or angels. The things which are believable
by us, and they only, are such as appear to us
to be probable, whether they be secular or sacred.
Paith is not opposed to, but is the product of, our
reason, alike when it relates to our anticipation of
a summer shower and the second coming of the
Saviour. Taste, feeling, hope, fear, love, hate, educa
tion, or the want thereof, may, as the atmosphere
influences the pendulum, influence the judgment;
but as the eye only sees, and the ear only hears, so
the reason only can assent or dissent, whether the
�Reason versus Authority.
13
proposition submitted to it be the physical relation of
the earth to the sun, or the moral relation of the
human to the Divine Spirit.
In conclusion, we must regard the moral as of
equal value with the intellectual position assigned us
by our critics. The interpretation which they who
do not approve put upon the change which they
correctly assert is coming over society, is that the
present, by consequence, is the less religious age.
Other nations and earlier races, they argue, believed
more readily because they were more spiritual than
we : we are more critical because we are less subject
to a sense of divine obligation. Were we as desirous
of doing God’s will as they were who preceded or
they are who rebuke us, we should be as ready as
they to accept their theological opinions and act upon
their sense of duty. We cannot accept this interpre
tation of our position. Orthodox opinion is sufficiently
tyrannous and persecuting to deter any merely pre
sumptuous person from lightly setting at defiance the
opinion of the many, and asserting, from sheer pride
of intellect, as it is called, a new creed. Were there
no external disadvantage in professing singularity
of religious belief, the force of early association, and
the merely superstitious regard which we have for
the sentiments of our youth, whatever they may be,
would be a sufficiently penal preventive from change,
for the sake of it. The ordinary interests of life
are too present and pressing to admit of length
ened study of religious questions, unless the spirit
within, under the impulse of some strong conviction,
is constrained to give personal attention to a matter
which people generally are willing to leave to
the decision of others. In short, so long as excep
tional attention to a subject is regarded, not as
an indication of the want of ordinary, but of the
possession of a special interest in it, it must be
�14
Reason versus Authority,
assumed that those amongst us who see reason to
change their religious attitude and stand apart, do
so, not because they are less but more impressed;
and they who do not understand and therefore mis
interpret their motive will do well, if not because it is
rational, because, by an authority which they do not
dispute, it is commanded, to follow their example,
and “ prove all things, and hold fast that which is
good.”
�
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
Reason versus authority
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Brook, W. O. Carr
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 14 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
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT151
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rationalism
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 (Reason versus authority), 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
Faith and Reason
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4aed29dd797f93b2b82e21203ac909ad.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BlO-wSlHrMxeeGQ-jMfLUP6LFmxqxf8LtfbLSRmv1P5%7EkPsSC6VDdRrQWNBwJU%7Ep49Ibe7HA7AviRZWLV65re4%7E4QYOrEYYCS0%7EIejRoOlMDhxvidIyRCnddwBhwwMfmhdZhzSHXrawVzx9TmBvurDojD1eOut9b5SppGYEya3r24yhLM-xxmooOGP%7EOV8tlFBf%7Ehky9Ek-Va9JUDjo4cHSVNuu95lrEwU0y9FMfA%7E5HvdplF42K0-qci0QwU%7EVIo1CWDsBgz8e6RGzFtT58%7E0IRl2pmikLHtB65JveTVdYEtPquI8hNaT4A2iz9FTIWYSCw1t6ddYE3vYYGbs42Jg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
56cb1e0bf6a9080b1b0a61c149f50ca8
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
repairing the idols.
Mrs. Humphrey Ward’s Robert Elsmere is no less
eagerly read in America than in England.
The press
teems with criticisms, and the pulpits are discussing
the novel as though it were a theological treatise by
an eminent divine.
In view of this widespread interest,
the New York World sent a reporter to wait on
Colonel Ingersoll, whose views on religion are con
sidered of the highest importance. He commands an
immense audience in America. His lectures are listened
to by thousands wherever he goes, his pamphlets are
circulated wholesale, and his brilliant defence of Freethought against Mr. Gladstone and Cardinal Manning
has, if possible, placed him still higher m the public
esteem. Colonel Ingersoll received the World reporter
with his usual affability, and launched forth as follows
in answer to leading questions.
“ Why do people read a book like Robert Elsmere,
and why do they take any interest in if!” Simply
because they are not satisfied with the rehgion of our
day. The civilised world has outgrown the greater
�4
Repairing the Idols.
part of the Christian creed. Civilised people have lost
their belief in the reforming power of punishment.
They find that whips and imprisonment have but little
influence for good. The truth has dawned upon their
minds that eternal punishment is infinite cruelty—that
it can serve no good purpose, and that the eternity of
hell makes heaven impossible. That there can be in
this universe no perfectly happy place while there is a •
perfectly miserable place—that no infinite being can
be good who knowingly and, as one may say, wilfully
created myriads of human beings, knowing that they
would be eternally miserable. In other words, the
civilised man is greater, tenderer, nobler, nearer just
than the old idea of God. The ideal of a few thou
sand years ago is far below the real of to-day. No
good man now would do what Jehovah is said to have
done four thousand years ago, and no civilised human
being would now do what, according to the Christian
religion, Christ threatens to do at the day of judgment.
Has the Christian religion changed in theory of late
years, Colonel Ingersoll ?
A few years ago the Deists denied the inspiration of
the Bible on account of its cruelty. At the same time
they worshipped what they were pleased to call the God
of Nature. Now we are convinced that nature is as
cruel as the Bible, so that, if the’ God of Nature did
not write the Bible, this god at least has caused earth
quakes and pestilence and famine, and this god has
allowed millions of his children to destroy one another.
So that now we have arrived at the question—not as to
whether the Bible is inspired, and not as to whether
Jehovah is the real God, but whether there is a God or
�Hep airing the Idols.
5
not. The intelligence of Christendom to-day does not
believe in an inspired religion any more than it
believes in an inspired art or an inspired literature. If
there be an infinite God, inspiration in some particular
regard would be a patch—it would be the puttying of
a crack, the hiding of a defect—in other words, it
would show that the general plan was defective.
Do you consider any religion adequate ?
A good man, living in England, drawing a certain
salary for reading certain prayers on stated occasions,
for making a few remarks on the subject of religion,
putting on clothes of a certain cut, wearing a gown
with certain frills and flounces starched in an orthodox
manner, and then looking about him at the suffering
and agony of the world, would not feel satisfied that
he was doing anything of value to the human race.
In the first place, he would deplore his own weakness,
his own poverty, his inability to help his fellow men.
He would long every moment for wealth, that he
might feed the hungry and clothe the naked—for
knowledge, for miraculous power, that he might heal
the sick and the lame, and that he might give to the
deformed the beauty of proportion. He would begin
to wonder how a being of infinite goodness and infinite
power could allow his children to die, to suffer, to be
deformed by necessity, by poverty, to be tempted
beyond resistance ; how he could allow the few to live
in luxury and the many in poverty and want, and the
more he wondered the more useless and ironical would
seem to himself his sermons and his prayers.
Such a
man is driven to the conclusion that religion accom
plishes but little; that it creates as much want as it
�6
Repairing the Idols.
alleviates, and that it burdens the world with parasites.
Such a man would be forced to think of the millions
wasted in superstition. In other words, the inadequacy,
the uselessness, of religion would be forced upon his
mind. He would ask himself the question : “ Is it
possible that this is a divine institution ? Is this all
that man can do with the assistance of God ? Is this
the best ?”
That is a perfectly reasonable question, is it not,
Colonel Ingersoll?
The moment a man reaches the point where he asks
himself this question he has ceased to be an orthodox
Christian.
It will not do to say that in some other
world justice will be done. If God allows injustice to
triumph here, why not there ?
Robert Elsmere stands in the dawn of philosophy.
There is hardly light enough for him to see clearly; but
there is so much light that the stars in the night of
superstition are obscured.
You do not deny that a religious belief is a great
comfort ?
There is one thing that it is impossible for me to
comprehend. Why should anyone, when convinced
that Christianity is a superstition, have or feel a sense
of loss ? Certainly a man acquainted with England,
with London, having at the same time something like
a heart, must feel overwhelmed by the failure of what
is knjown as- Christianity. Hundreds of thousands
exist there without decent food, dwelling in tenements,
clothed with rags, familiar with every form of vulgar
vice, where the honest poor eat the crust that the
�Repairing the Idols.
i
7
vicious throw away. When, this man of intelligence,
of heart, visits the courts ; when he finds human liberty
a thing treated as of no value, and when he hears the
judge sentencing girls and boys to the penitentiary—
knowing that a stain is being put upon them that all
the tears of all the coming years can never wash away
—knowing, too, and feeling that this is done without
the slightest regret, without the slightest sympathy, as
a mere matter of form, and that the jndge puts this
brand of infamy upon the forehead of the convict just
as cheerfully as a Mexican brands his cattle ; and when
this man of intelligence and heart knows that these
poor people are simply the victims of society, the
unfortunates who stumble and over whose body rolls
the Juggernaut—he knows that there is, or at least
appears to be, no power above or below working for
righteousness—that from the heavens is stretched no
protecting hand. And when a man of intelligence and
heart in England visits the workhouse, the last resting
place of honest labor ; when he thinks that the young
man, without any great intelligence but with a good
constitution, starts in the morning of, his life for the
workhouse, and that it is impossible for the laboring
man, one who simply has his muscle, to save anything ;
that health is not able to lay anything by for the days
of disease—when the man of intelligence and heart
sees all this, he is compelled to say that the civilisation
of to-day, the religion of to-day, the charity of to-day
—no matter how much of good there may be behind
them or in them—are failures.
A few years ago people were satisfied when the
minister said : “ All this will be made even in another
�8
Tiepairing the Idols.
world; a crust-eater here will sit at the head of the
banquet there, and the king here will beg for the
crumbs that fall from the table there.” When this
was said the poor man hoped and the king laughed.
A few years ago the Church said to the slave : “ You
will be free in another world and your freedom will be
made glorious by the perpetual spectacle of your master
in hell.” But the people—that is, many of the people
—are no longer deceived by what once were considered
fine phrases. They have suffered so much that they no
longer wish to see others suffer, and no longer think of
the suffering of others as a source of joy to themselves.
The poor see that the eternal starvation of kings and
queens in another world will be no compensation for
what they have suffered here. The old religions appear
vulgar, and the ideas of rewards and punishments are
only such as would satisfy a cannibal chief or one of
his favorites.
Do you think the Christian religion has
xvorld better1
?
made the
For many centuries there has been preached and
taught in an almost infinite number of ways a super
natural religion. During all this time the world has
been in the care of the infinite, and yet every
imaginable vice has flourished, every imaginable pang
has been suffered, and every injustice has been done.
During all these years the priests have enslaved the
minds and the kings the bodies of men. The priests
did what they did in the name of God, and the kings
appealed to the same source of authority. Man suffered
as long as he could.
Revolution, reformation, was
simply a reaction, a cry from the poor wretch that was
�Repairing the Idols.
9
between the upper and the nether millstone. The liberty
of man has increased just in the proportion that the
authority of the gods has decreased. In other words
the wants of man, instead of the wishes of God, have,
inaugurated what we call progress, and there is this
difference : Theology is based upon the narrowest and
intensest form of selfishness. Of course, the theologian
knows, the Christian knows, that he can do nothing for
God; consequently all that he does must be and is for
himself, his object being to win the approbation of this
God, to the end that he may become a favorite. On the
other side, men touched not only by theii’ owfl misf ortunes
but by the misfortunes of others are moved not simply
by selfishness but by a splendid sympathy with their
fellow men.
“ Christianity certainly fosters charity’’ the reporter
suggested.
Nothing is more cruel than orthodox theology, nothing
more heartless than a charitable institution. For
instance, in England, think for a moment of the manner
in which charities are distributed, the way in which the
crust is flung at Lazarus. If that parable could be now
retold, the dogs would bite him. The same is true in
this country. The institution has nothing but contempt
for the one it relieves. The people in charge regard
the pauper as one who has wrecked himself. They feel
very much as a man would feel rescuing from the water
some hare-brained wretch who had endeavored to s wim
the rapids of Niagara—the moment they reach him
they begin to upbraid him for being such a fool. This
course makes charity a hypocrite, with every pauper for
its enemy.
�10
Repairing the Idols.
Mrs. Ward compelled Robert Elsmere to perceive,
in some slight degree, the failure of Christianity to do
away with vice and suffering, with poverty and crime.
We know that the rich care but little for the poor.
No matter how religious the rich may be, the sufferings
of their fellows have but little effect upon them. We
are also beginning to see that what is called charity
will never redeem this world. The poor man willing
to work, eager to maintain his independence, knows
that there is something higher than charity—that is to
say, justice.
He finds that many years before he was
born his coufltry was divided out between certain suc
cessful robbers, flatterers, cringers, and crawlers, and
that in consequence of such division not only himself
but a large majority of his fellow men are tenants,
renters, occupying the surface of the earth only at the
pleasure of others. He finds, too, that these people
who have done nothing and who do nothing have every
thing, and that those who do everything have but little.
He finds that idleness has the money and that the
toilers are compelled to bow to the idlers. He finds
also that the young men of genius are bribed by social
distinctions—unconsciously it may be, but still bribed
in a thousand ways. He finds that the church is a
kind of waste-basket into which are thrown the younger
sons of titled idleness.
Do you consider that society in general has been
made better by religious influence ?
Society is corrupted because the laurels, the titles,
are in the keeping and within the gift of the corrupters.
Christianity is not an enemy of this system it is in
�Repairing the Idols.
11
harmony with it. Christianity reveals to us a universe
presided over by an infinite autocrat—a universe with
out republicanism, without democracy—a universe
where all power comes from one and the same
source, and where everyone using authority is account
able, not to the people, but to this supposed source of
authority. Kings reign by divine right. Priests are
ordained in a divinely-appointed way—they do not get
their office from man. Man is their servant, not their
master.
'
In the story of Robert Elsmere all there is of Chris
tianity is left after an excision of the miraculous«
Theism remains, and the idea of a protecting provi
dence is left, together with a belief in the immeasurable
superiority of Jesus Christ.
That is to say, the
miracles are discarded for lack of evidence; not on the
ground that they are impossible, not on the ground
that they impeach and deny the integrity of cause and
effect, not on the ground that they contradict the selfevident proposition that an effect must have an efficient
cause, but like the Scotch verdict: 44 Not proven.’
It is an effort to save and keep in repair the dungeons
of the Inquisition for the sake of the beauty of the
vines that have overrun them. Many people imagine
that falsehoods may become respectable on account of
age, that a certain reverence goes with antiquity, and
that if a mistake is covered with the moss of senti
ment, it is altogether more credible than a parvenu
fact. They endeavor to introduce the idea of aris
tocracy into the world of thought, believing, and
honestly believing that a falsehood long believed is far
superior to a truth that is generally denied.
�12
Repairing the Idols.
If Robert Elsmere's views were commonly adopted,
what would be the effect ?
The new religion of Elsmere is, after all, only a
system of outdoor relief, an effort to get successful
piracy to give up^larger percentage for the relief of its
victims. The aoolition of the system is not dreamed
of. A civilised minority could not by any possibility
be happy while a majority of the world were miserable;
a civilised majority could not be happy while a minority
were miserable. As a matter of fact, a civilised world
could not be happy while one man was really miserable.
At the foundation of civilisation is justice—that is to
say, the giving of an equal opportunity to all the chil
dren of men.
Secondly, there can be no civilisation in the highest
sense until sympathy becomes universal. We must
have a new definition for success. We must have
new ideals.
The man who succeeds in amassing
wealth, who gathers money for himself, is not a success.
It is an exceedingly low ambition to be rich, to excite
the envy of others, or for the sake of the vulgar power
it gives to triumph over others. Such men are failures.
So the man who wins fame, position, power, and wins
these for the sake of himself, and wields this power not
for the elevation of his fellow men, but simply to con
trol, is a miserable failure: He may dispense thousands
or millions in charity, and his charity may he prompted
by the meanest part of his nature—using it simply as
a bait to catch more fish, and to prevent the rising tide
of indignation that might overwhelm him. Men who
steal millions and then give a small percentage to the
Lord to gain the praise of the clergy, and to bring the
�Repairing the Idols.
13
salvation of their souls within the possibilities of im
agination, are all failures.
Robert Elsemere gains our affection and our applause
to the extent that he gives up what are known as
orthodox views, and his wife Catharine retains our
respect in the proportion that she lives the doctrine
that Elsmere preaches. By doing what she believes to
be right, she gains our forgiveness for her creed. One
is astonished that she can be as good as she is, believing
as she does. The utmost stretch of her intellectual
charity is to allow the old wine to be put in a new
bottle, and yet she regrets the absence of the old bottle
—she really believes that the bottle is the important
thing -that the wine is but a secondary consideration.
She misses the label, and not having perfect confidence
in her own taste, she does not feel quite sure that the
wine is genuine.
What, on the whole, is your judgment of the hook ?
I think the book conservative. It is an effort to save
something—a few shreds and patches and raveilings—
from the wreck. Theism is difficult to maintain. Why
should we expect an infinite being to do better in an
other world than he has done and is doing in this ? If
he allows the innocent to suffer here, why not there ?
If he allows rascality to succeed in this world, why not
in the next?
To believe in God and to deny his
personality is an exceedingly vague foundation for a
consolation. If you insist on his personality and power,
then it is impossible to account for what happens.
Why should an infinite God allow some of his children
to enslave others ? Why should he allow a child of
�14
Repairing the Idols.
his to burn another child of his, under the impression
that such a sacrifice was pleasing to him ?
Unitarianism lacks, the motive power.
Orthodox
people who insist that nearly everybody is going, ty .hell,
and that it is their duty to do what little, they, can-to
save their souls, have what you might call a spur to
action. We can imagine a philanthropic man engaged
in the business of throwing ropes to persons about to
go over the falls of Niagara, but we can hardly think
of his carrying on the business after becoming con
vinced that there are no falls, or that people go oyer
them in perfect safety. In this country the question
has come up whether all the heathen are bound to be
damned unless they believe in the Gospel. Many
admit that the heathen will be saved if they are good
people, and that they will not be damned for not
believing something that they never heard. The really
orthodox people—that is to say, the missionaries—
instantly see that this doctrine destroys their business.
They take the ground that there is but one way to be
saved—you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ—
and they are willing to admit—and to cheerfully admit,
that the heathen for many generations have gone in an
unbroken column down to eternal wrath.
�
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
Repairing the idols
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: [3]-14 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Date of publication and imprint from Stein (Item 61a). New York World interview with Ingersoll, reprinted. Mrs Humphrey Ward's (Mary Augusta Ward) novel 'Robert Elsmere' which inspired Ingersoll's lecture, tells of an Oxford clergyman who begins to doubt the doctrines of the Anglican Church after encountering the writings of the German rationalists including Schelling and David Strauss. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Progressive Publishing Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1888]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N388
Subject
The topic of the resource
Literature
Rationalism
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 (Repairing the idols), 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
Literature
Mrs Humphry Ward
NSS
Robert Elsmere
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e68430333bdc8a3decbb6bdaee6ecd68.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ePgbIYhLiX4Ji-7GapDt2QGIF1P7Clkr-HHSPc6Uk79FXWP8q1QR9dWlarIash5z91uWe05nz6iJaNCCFlBTxds44m5EoU7kwJ1OYnXJ9KlKL%7EzaSpiYL8BeFD1xTkpI7U0BXXgB8hlDSfDd-CW3aOgWd69AoiE5B6T-Xlfot5WFgpo%7EXJZvmLs0bB1bP5DzEX9oOXLePHeIVc5GUkIJjVfPddN-jf1bC%7E0Yj%7EY1v8NCZn2f4K2A2g4wrV73fImUMn2tWOETbs1Z2LoMnzMJR5WXhvPPRhKquJfr2piYQLTpknj5i7cwj%7E3lgY1D46D-PYBmrj7juzPUt0tNZ3Jjxw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f50a74840b3b4827c08c1b2a11d082a9
PDF Text
Text
1
'4
NATIONAL SEOUL/
Rome
WTOTY
Reason
or
p
<
A REPLY TO
MANNING.
CARDINAL
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
Reprinted from
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW,
October and November, 1888.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
London:
1 THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD.,
2 Newcastle Street, Farringdgn Street, E.C.
1903.
I
41
�PRINTED BY
THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD,,
2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, LONDON, E.C.
�ROME OR REASON?
A REPLY TO CARDINAL MANNING.
PART I.
Superstition “ has ears more deaf than adders to the voice oj
any true, decision."
Cardinal Manning has stated the claims of the Roman
Catholic Church with great clearness, and apparently
without reserve. The age, position, and learning of this
man give a certain weight to his words, apart from their
worth. He represents the oldest of the Christian
Churches. The questions involved are among the most
important that can engage the human mind. No one
having the slightest regard for that superb thing known
as intellectual honesty will avoid the issues tendered, or
seek in any way to gain a victory over truth.
Without candor, discussion, in the highest sense, is
impossible. All have the same interest, whether they
know it or not, in the establishment of facts. All have
the same to gain, the same to lose. He loads the dice
against himself who scores a point against the right.
Absolute honesty is to the intellectual perception what
light is to the eyes. Prejudice and passion cloud the
mind. In each disputant should be blended the advocate
and judge.
In this spirit, having in view only the ascertainment
of the truth, let us examine the arguments, or rather the
statements and conclusions, of Cardinal Manning.
The proposition is that “ The Church itself, by its
marvellous propagation, its eminent sanctity, its inex
haustible fruitfulness in all good things, its catholic
�4
ROME OR REASON ?
unity and invincible stability, is a vast and perpetu?
motive of credibility, and an irrefragable witness of its
own divine legation.”
The reasons given as supporting this proposition are:-—
That the Catholic Church interpenetrates all the
nations of the civilised world; that it is extra-national
and independent in a supernational unity ; that it is the
same in every place; that it speaks all the languages in
the civilised world ; that it is obedient to one head ; that
as many as seven hundred bishops have knelt before the
Pope ; that pilgrims from all nations have brought gifts
to Rome, and that all these things set forth in the most
self-evident way the unity and universality of the Roman
Church.
It is also asserted that “ men see the Head of the
Church year by year speaking to the nations of the
world, treating with empires, republics, and govern
ments ” that “ there is no other man on earth that can
so bear himself,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor
from Constantinople can such a voice go forth to which
rulers and people listen.”
It is also claimed that the Catholic Church has
enlightened and purified the world ; that it has given us
the peace and purity of domestic life; that it has
destroyed idolatry and demonology; that it gave us a
body of law from a higher source than man ; that it has
produced the civilisation of Christendom ; that the popes
were the greatest of statesmen and rulers; that celibacy
is better than marriage, and that the revolutions and
reformations of the last three hundred years have been
destructive and calamitous.
We will examine these assertions as well as some
others.
No one will dispute that the Catholic Church is the
best witness of its own existence. The same is true of
everything that exists ; of every Church, great and
small; of every man, and of every insect.
But it is contended that the marvellous growth or
propagation of the Church is evidence of its divine
origin. Can it be said that success is supernatural ?
All success in this world is relative. Majorities are not
�ROME OR REASON ?
5
necessarily right. If anything is known—if anything
can be known—we are sure that very large bodies of
men have frequently been wrong. We believe in what
is called the progress of mankind. Progress, for the
most part, consists in finding new truths and getting rid
of old errors—that is to say, getting nearer and nearer
in harmony with the facts of nature, seeing with greater
clearness the conditions of well-being.
There is no nation in which a majority leads the way.
In the progress of mankind, the few have been the nearest
right. There have been centuries in which the light
seemed to emanate only from a handful of men, while
the rest of the world was enveloped in darkness. Some
great man leads the way—he becomes the morning star,
the prophet of a coming day. Afterwards, many millions
accept his views. But there are still heights above and
beyond; there are other pioneers, and the old day, in
comparison with the new, becomes a night. So, we cannot
say that success demonstrates either divine origin or
supernatural aid.
We know, if we know anything, that wisdom has often
been trampled beneath the feet of the multitude. We
know that the torch of science has been blown out by
the breath of the hydra-headed. We know that the whole
intellectual heaven has been darkened again. The truth
or falsity of a proposition cannot be determined by
ascertaining the number of those who assert, or of those
who deny.
If the marvellous propagation of the Catholic Church
proves its divine origin, what shall we say of the mar
vellous propagation of Mohammedanism ?
Nothing can be clearer than that Christianity arose out
of the ruins of the Roman Empire—-that is to say, the
ruins of Paganism. And it is equally clear that Moham
medanism arose out of the wreck and ruin of Catholicism.
After Mohammed came upon the stage, “ Christianity
was for ever expelled from its most glorious seat—from
Palestine, the scene of its most sacred recollections ; from
Asia Minor, that of its first churches; from Egypt,
whence issued the great doctrine of Trinitarian Ortho
doxy, and from Carthage, who imposed her belief on
�6
ROME OR REASON ?
Europe.” Before that time “the ecclesiastical chiefs of
Rome, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria were
engaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying
out their purposes by weapons and in ways revolting to
the conscience of man. Bishops were concerned in
assassinations, poisonings, adulteries, blindings, riots,
treasons, civil war. Patriarchs and primates were
excommunicating and anathematising one another in
their rivalries for earthly power ; bribing eunuchs with
gold and courtesans and royal females with concessions
of episcopal love. Among legions of monks who carried
terror into the imperial armies and riot into the great
cities arose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but
never a voice for intellectual liberty or the outraged
rights of man.
“ Under these circumstances, amid these atrocities and
crimes, Mohammed arose, and raised his own nation from
Fetichism, the adoration of the meteoric stone, and from
the basest idol worship, and irrevocably wrenched from
Christianity more than half—and that by far the best
half—of her possessions, since it included the Holy Land,
the birth-place of the Christian faith, and Africa, which
had imparted to it its Latin form ; and now, after a lapse
of more than a thousand years, that continent, and a very
large part of Asia, remain permanently attached to the
Arabian doctrine.”
It may be interesting in this connection to say that the
Mohammedan now proves the divine mission of his
Apostle by appealing to the marvellous propagation of
the faith. If the argument is good in the mouth of a
Catholic, is it not good in the mouth of a Moslem ? Let
us see if it is not better.
According to Cardinal Manning, the Catholic Church
triumphed only over the institutions of men, triumphed
only over religions that had been established by men, by
wicked and ignorant men. But Mohammed triumphed
not only over the religions of men, but over the religion
of God. This ignorant driver of camels, this poor,
unknown, unlettered boy, unassisted by God, unen
lightened by supernatural means, drove the armies of the
true cross before him as the winter’s storm drives
�ROME OR REASON ?
7
withered leaves. At his name, priests, bishops, and
cardinals fled with white faces, popes trembled, and the
armies of God, fighting for the true faith, were conquered
on a thousand fields.
If the success of a church proves its divinity, and after
that another church arises and defeats the first, what does
that prove ?
Let us put this question in a milder form : Suppose
the second church lives and flourishes in spite of the
first, what does that prove ?
As a matter of fact, however, no Church rises with
everything against it. Something is favorable to it, or
it could not exist. If it succeeds and grows, it is abso
lutely certain that the conditions are favorable. If it
spreads rapidly, it simply shows that the conditions are
exceedingly favorable, and that the forces in opposition
are weak and easily overcome.
Here, in my own country, within a few years, has
arisen a new religion. Its foundations were laid in an
intelligent community, having had the advantages of
what is known as modern civilisation. Yet this new
faith—founded on the grossest absurdities, as gross as
we find in the Scriptures—in spite of all opposition
began to grow, and kept growing. It was subjected to
persecution, and the persecution increased its strength.
It was driven from State to State by the believers in
universal love, until it left what was called civilisation,
crossed the wide plains, and took up its abode on the
shores of the Great Salt Lake. It continued to grow.
Its founder, as he declared, had frequent conversations
with God, and received directions from that source.
Hundreds of miracles were performed, multitudes upon
the desert were miraculously fed, the sick were cured,
the dead were raised, and the Mormon Church continued
to grow, until now, less than half a century after the
death of its founder, there are several hundred thousand
believers in the new faith.
Do you think that men enough could join this Church
to prove the truth of its creed ?
Joseph Smith said that he found certain golden plates
that had been buried for many generations, and upon
�8
ROME OR REASON ?
these plates, in some unknown language, had been
engraved this new revelation, and I think he insisted
that by the use of miraculous mirrors this language was
translated. If there should be Mormon bishops in the
countries of the world eighteen hundred years from now,
do you think a cardinal of that faith could prove the
truth of the golden plates simply by the fact that the
faith had spread and that seven hundred bishops had
knelt before the head of that Church ?
It seems to me that a “supernatural” religion—that
is to say, a religion that is claimed to have been divinely
founded and to be authenticated by miracle—is much
easier to establish among an ignorant people than any
other, and the more ignorant the people, the easier such
a religion could be established. The reason for this is
plain. All ignorant tribes, all savage men, believe in
the miraculous, in the supernatural. The conception
of uniformity, of what may be called the eternal con
sistency of nature, is an idea far above their compre
hension. They are forced to think in accordance with
their minds, and as a consequence they account for all
phenomena by the acts of superior beings—that is to
say, by the supernatural. In other words, that religion
having most in common with the savage, having most
that was satisfactory to his mind, or to his lack of mind,
would stand the best chance of success.
It is probably safe to say that at one time, or during
one phase of the development of man, everything was
miraculous. After a time, the mind slowly developing,
certain phenomena, always happening under like con
ditions, were called “ natural,” and none suspected any
special interference. The domain of the miraculous
grew less and less—the domain of the natural larger ;
that is to say, the common became the natural, but the
uncommon was still regarded as the miraculous. I he
rising and setting of the sun ceased to excite the wonder
of mankind—there was no miracle about that; but an
eclipse of the sun was miraculous. Men did not then
know that eclipses are periodical, that they happen with
the same certainty as the sun rises. It took many
observations through many generations to arrive at this
�ROME OR REASON ?
(J
conclusion. Ordinary rains became “ natural,” floods
remained “ miraculous.”
But it can all be summed up in this: The average
man regards the common as natural, the uncommon as
supernatural. The educated man—and by that I mean
the developed man—is satisfied that all phenomena are
natural, and that the supernatural does not and cannot
exist.
As a rule, an individual is egotistic in the proportion
that he lacks intelligence. The same is true of nations
and races. The barbarian is egotistic enough to suppose
that an Infinite Being is constantly doing something, or
failing to do something, on his account. But as man
rises in the scale of civilisation, as he becomes really
great, he comes to the conclusion that nothing in Nature
happens on his account—that he is hardly great enough
to disturb the motions of the planets.
Let us make an application of this : To me, the success
of Mormonism is no evidence of its truth, because it has
succeeded only with the superstitious. It has been
recruited from communities brutalised by other forms of
superstition. To me, the success of Mohammed does not
tend to show that he was right—for the reason that he
triumphed only over the ignorant, over the superstitious.
The same is true of the Catholic Church. Its seeds were
planted in darkness. It was accepted by the credulous,
by men incapable of reasoning upon such questions. It
did not, it has not, it cannot, triumph over the intellectual
world. To count its many millions does not tend to
prove the truth of its creed. On the contrary, a creed
that delights the credulous gives evidence against itself.
Questions of fact or philosophy cannot be settled
simply by numbers. There was a time when the Coper
nican system of astronomy had but few supporters—the
multitude being on the other side. There was a time
when the rotation of the earth was not believed by the
majority.
Let us press this idea further. There was a time when
Christianity was not in the majority, anywhere. Let us
suppose that the first Christian missionary had met a
prelate of the Pagan faith, and suppose this prelate had
�10
RoSiE OR REASON ?
used against the Christian missionary the Cardinal’s
argument—how could the missionary have answered if
the Cardinal’s argument is good?
But, after all, is the success of the Catholic Church a
marvel ? If this Church is of divine origin, if it has
been under the special care, protection, and guidance of
an Infinite Being, is not its failure far more wonderful
than its success ? For eighteen centuries it has perse
cuted and preached, and the salvation of the world is
still remote. This is the result, and it may be asked
whether it is worth while to try to convert the world to
Catholicism.
Are Catholics better than Protestants ? Are they nearer
honest, nearer just, more charitable ? Are Catholic
nations better than Protestant ?
Do the Catholic
nations move in the van of progress ? Within their
jurisdiction are life, liberty, and property safer than
anywhere else ? Is Spain the first nation of the world ?
Let me ask another question : Are Catholics or Pro
testants better than Freethinkers ? Has the Catholic
Church produced a greater man than Humboldt ? Has
the Protestant produced a greater than Darwin ? Was
not Emerson, so far as purity of life is concerned, the
equal to any true believer ? Was Pius IX., or any
other Vicar of Christ, superior to Abraham Lincoln ?
But it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal,
and that its universality demonstrates its divine origin.
According to the Bible, the Apostles were ordered to
go into all the world to preach the gospel—yet not one of
them, nor one of their converts at any time, nor one of
the Vicars of God, for fifteen hundred years afterward,
knew of the existence of the Western Hemisphere.
During all that time, can it be said that the Catholic
Church was universal ? At the close of the fifteenth
century, there was one half of the world in which the
Catholic faith had never been preached, and in the other
half not one person in ten had ever heard of it, and of
those who had heard of it, not one in ten believed it.
Certainly the Catholic Church was not then universal.
Is it universal now ? What impression has Catholicism
made upon the many millions of China, of Japan, of
�ROME OR REASON ?
II
India, of Africa ? Can it truthfully be said that the
Catholic Church is now universal ? When any church
becomes universal, it will be the only church. There
cannot be two universal churches, neither can there be
one universal church and any other.
The Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic
Church is divine, “ by its eminent sanctity and its inex
haustible fruitfulness in all good things.”
And here let me admit that there are many millions of
good Catholics—that is, of good men and women who
are Catholics. It is unnecessary to charge universal
dishonesty or hypocrisy, for the reason that this would
be only a kind of personality. Many thousands of heroes
have died in defence of the faith, and millions of Catholics
have killed, and been killed, for the- sake of their religion.
And here it may be well enough to say that martyrdom
does not even tend to prove the truth of a religion. The
man who dies in flames, standing by what he believes to
be true, establishes, not the truth of what he believes,
but his sincerity.
Without calling in question the intentions of the
Catholic Church, we can ascertain whether it has been
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things,” and whether
it has been “ eminent for its sanctity.”
In the first place, nothing can be better than goodness.
Nothing is more sacred, or can be more sacred, than the
well-being of man. All things that tend to increase or
preserve the happiness of the human race are good—
that is to say, they are sacred. All things that tend to
his unhappiness, are bad, no matter by whom they are
taught or done.
It is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has
taught, and still teaches, that intellectual liberty is dan
gerous—that it should not be allowed. It was driven to
take this position because it had taken another. It
taught, and still teaches, that a certain belief is necessary
to salvation. It has always known that investigation
and inquiry led, or might lead, to doubt; that doubt leads,
or may lead, to heresy, and that heresy leads to hell. In
other words, the Catholic Church has something more
important than this world, more important than the well
�12
ROME OR REASON ?
being of man here. It regards this life as an oppor
tunity for joining that Church, for accepting that creed,
and for the saving of your soul.
If the Catholic Church is right in its premises, it is
right in its conclusion. If it is necessary to believe the
Catholic creed in order to obtain eternal joy, then, of
course, nothing else in this world is, comparatively
speaking, of the slightest importance. Consequently,
the Catholic Church has been, and still is, the enemy of
intellectual freedom, of investigation, of inquiry—in
other words, the enemy of progress in secular things.
The result of this was an effort to compel all men to
accept the belief necessary to salvation. This effort
naturally divided itself into persuasion and persecution.
It will be admitted that the good man is kind, merciful,
charitable, forgiving, and just. A Church must be
judged by the same standard. Has the Church been
merciful ? Has it been “ fruitful in the good things ” of
justice, charity, and forgiveness ? Can a good man,
believing a good doctrine, persecute for opinion’s sake ?
If the Church imprisons a man for the expression of an
honest opinion, is it not certain, either that the doctrine
of the Church is wrong or that the Church is bad ?
Both cannot be good. “ Sanctity ” without goodness is
impossible. Thousands of “ saints ” have been the most
malicious of the human race. If the history of the world
proves anything, it proves that the Catholic Church was
for many centuries the most merciless institution that
ever existed among men. I cannot believe that the
instruments of persecution were made and used by the
eminently good ; neither can I believe that honest people
were imprisoned, tortured, and burned at the stake by a
Church that was “ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good
things.”
And let me say here that I have no Protestant pre
judices against Catholicism, and have no Catholic
prejudices against Protestantism. I regard all religions
either without prejudice or with the same prejudice.
They were all, according to my belief, devised by men,
and all have for a foundation ignorance of this world
and fear of the next. All the gods have been made by
�ROME OR REASON ?
*3
men. They are all equally powerless and equally use
less. I like some of them better than I do others, for
the same reason that I admire some characters in fiction
more than I do others. I prefer Miranda to Caliban,
but have not the slightest idea that either of them existed.
So I prefer Jupiter to Jehovah, although perfectly satisfied
that both are myths. I believe myself to be in a frame
of mind to justly and fairly consider the claims of
different religions, believing as I do that all are wrong,
and admitting as I do that there is some good in all.
When one speaks of the “ inexhaustible fruitfulness in
all good things ” of the Catholic Church we remember
the horrors and atrocities of the Inquisition—the rewards
offered by the Roman Church for the capture and murder
of honest men. We remember the Dominican Order,
the members of which, upheld by the Vicar of Christ,
pursued the heretics like sleuth-hounds, through many
centuries.
The Church, “ inexhaustible in fruitfulness in all good
things,” not only imprisoned and branded and burned
the living, but violated the dead. It robbed graves, to
the end that it might convict corpses of heresy—to the
end that it might take from widows their portions and
from orphans their patrimony.
We remember the millions in the darkness of dungeons
-—the millions who perished by the sword-—the vast
multitudes destroyed in flames—those who were flayed
alive—those who were blinded—those whose tongues
were cut out—those into whose ears were poured molten
lead—those whose eyes were deprived of their lids—
those who were tortured and tormented in every way by
which pain could be inflicted and human nature over
come.
And we remember, too, the exultant cry of the Church
over the bodies of her victims : “ Their bodies were
burned here, but their souls are now tortured in hell.”
We remember that the Church, by treachery, bribery,
perjury, and the commission of every possible crime, got
possession and control of Christendom, and we know the
use that was made of this power—that it was used to
brutalise, degrade, stupefy, and “ sanctify ” the children
�14
ROME OR REASON ?
of men. We know also that the Vicars of Christ were
persecutors for opinion’s sake—that they sought to
destroy the liberty of thought through fear—that they
endeavored to make every brain a Bastille in which the
mind should be a convict—that they endeavored to make
every tongue a prisoner, watched by a familiar of the
Inquisition—and that they threatened punishment here,
imprisonment here, burnings here, and, in the name of
their God, eternal imprisonment and eternal burnings
hereafter.
We know, too, that the Catholic Church was, during
all the years of its power, the enemy of every science. It
preferred magic to medicine, relics to remedies, priests to
physicians. It thought more of astrologers than of
astronomers. It hated geologists, it persecuted the
chemist, and imprisoned the naturalist, and opposed
every discovery calculated to improve the condition of
mankind.
It is impossible to forget the persecutions of the Cathari,
the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Hugue
nots, and of every sect that had the courage to think just
a little for itself. Think of a woman—the mother of a
family—taken from her children and burned, on account
of her view as to the three natures of Jesus Christ. Think
of the Catholic Church—an institution with a Divine
Founder, presided over by the agent of God—punishing
a woman for giving a cup of cold water to a fellow being
who had been anathematised. Think of this Church,
“ fruitful in all good things,” launching its curse at an
honest man—not only cursing him from the crown of
his head to the soles of his feet with a fiendish
particularity, but having at the same time the impudence
to call on God, and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ,
and the. Virgin Mary, to join in the curse ; and to curse
him not only here, but for ever hereafter; calling upon
all the saints and upon all the redeemed to join in a
hallelujah of curses, so that earth and heaven should
reverberate with countless curses launched at a human
being simply for having expressed an honest thought.
This Church, so “fruitful in all good things,” invented
crimes that it might punish. This Church tried men for
�ROME OR REASON?
15
a “ suspicion of heresy ”—imprisoned them for the vice
of being suspected—stripped them of all they had on
earth and allowed them to rot in dungeons, because they
were guilty of the crime of having been suspected.
This was a part of the Canon Law.
It is too late to talk about the “ invincible stability ”
of the Catholic Church.
It was not invincible in the seventh, in the eighth, or
in the ninth centuries. It was not invincible in Germany
in Luther’s day. It was not invincible in the Low
Countries. It was not invincible in Scotland, or in
England. It was not invincible in France. It is not
invincible in Italy. It is not supreme in any intellectual
centre of the world. It does not triumph in Paris, or
Berlin ; it is not dominant in London, in England;
neither is it triumphant in the United States. It
has not within its fold the philosophers, the statesmen,
and the thinkers, who are the leaders of the human
race.
It is claimed that Catholicism “ interpenetrates all the
nations of the civilised world,” and that “ in some it
holds- the whole nation in its unity.”
I suppose the Catholic Church is more powerful in
Spain than in any other nation.
The history of this
nation demonstrates the result of Catholic supremacy,
the result of an acknowledgment by a people that a
religion is too sacred to be examined.
Without attempting in an article of this character to
point out the many causes that contributed to the adop
tion of Catholicism by the Spanish people, it is enough
to say that Spain, of all nations, has been and is the
most thoroughly Catholic, and the most thoroughly inter
penetrated and dominated by the spirit of the Church of
Rome.
Spain used the sword of the Church. In the name of
religion it endeavoured to conquer the infidel world. It
drove from its territory the Moors, not because they
were bad, not because they were idle and dishonest, but
because they were infidels. It expelled the Jews, not
because they were ignorant or vicious, but because they
were unbelievers. It drove out the Moriscoes, and
�16
ROME OR REASON ?
deliberately made outcasts of the intelligent, the industri
ous, the honest and the useful, because they were not
Catholics. It leaped like a wfild beast upon the Low
Countries, for the destruction of Protestantism.
It
covered the seas with its fleets, to destroy the intellec
tual liberty of man. And not only so—it established
the Inquisition within its borders. It imprisoned the
honest, it burned the noble, and succeeded after many
years of devotion to the true faith, in destroying the
industry, the intelligence, the usefulness, the genius, the
nobility and the wealth of a nation. It became a wreck,
a jest of the conquered, and excited the pity of its former
victims.
In this period of degradation, the Catholic Church
held “ the whole nation in its unity.”
At last Spain began to deviate from the path of the
Church. It made a treaty with an infidel power. In
1782 it became humble enough, and wise enough, to be
friends with Turkey. It made treaties with Tripoli and
Algiers and the Barbary States. It had become too
poor to ransom the prisoners taken by these powers. It
began to appreciate the fact that it could neither conquer
nor convert the world by the sword.
Spain has progressed in the arts and sciences, in all
that tends to enrich and ennoble a nation, in the pre
cise proportion that she has lost faith in the Catholic
Church. This may be said of every other nation in
Christendom. Torquemada is dead ; Castelar is alive.
The dungeons of the Inquisition are empty, and a little
light has penetrated the clouds and mists—not much,
but a little. Spain is not yet clothed and in her right
mind. A few years ago the cholera visited Madrid and
other cities. Physicians were mobbed. Processions of
saints carried the host through the streets for the pur
pose of staying the plague.
The streets were not
cleaned ; the sewers were filled. Filth and faith, old
partners, reigned supreme. The Church, “ eminent for
its sanctity,” stood in the light and cast its shadow on
the ignorant and the prostrate. The Church, in its
“ inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things,” allowed
its children to perish through ignorance, and used the
�ROME OR REASON ?
I?
diseases it had produced as an instrument to further
enslave its votaries and its victims.
No one will deny that many of its priests exhibited
heroism of the highest order in visiting the sick and
administering what are called the consolations of religion
to the dying, and in burying the dead. It is necessary
neither to deny nor disparage the self-denial and good
ness of these men. But their religion did more than all
other causes to produce the very evils that called for the
exhibition of self-denial and heroism. One scientist in
control of Madrid could have prevented the plague. In
such cases, cleanliness is far better than “ godliness ” ;
science is superior to superstition ; drainage much better
than divinity; therapeutics more excellent than theology.
Goodness is not enough—intelligence is necessary. Faith
is not sufficient, creeds are helpless, and prayers fruitless.
It is admitted that the Catholic Church exists in many
nations ; that it is dominated, at least in a great degree,
by the Bishop of Rome—that it is international in that
sense, and that in that sense it has what may be called
a “ supernational unity.” The same, however, is true of
the Masonic fraternity. It exists in many nations, but
it is not a national body. It is in the same sense extra
national, in the same sense international, and has in the
same sense a supernational unity. So the same may be
said of other societies. This, however, does not tend to
prove that anything supernational is supernatural.
It is also admitted that in faith, worship, ceremonial,
discipline and government, the Catholic’ Church is
substantially the same wherever it exists. This estab
lishes the unity, but not the divinity of the institution.
The church that does not allow investigation, that
teaches that all doubts are wicked, attains unity through
tyranny—that is, monotony by repression. Wherever
man has had something like freedom, differences have
appeared, heresies have taken root, and the divisions
have become permanent. New sects have been born,
and the Catholic Church has been weakened. The
boast of unity is the confession of tyranny.
It is insisted that the unity of the Church substantiates
its claim to divine origin, This is asserted over and over
�i8
ROMS OR REASON ?
again, in many ways ; and yet in the Cardinal’s article is
found this strange mingling of boast and confession:
“ Was it only by the human power of man that the
unity, external and internal, which for fourteen hundred
years had been supreme, was once more restored in the
Council of Constance, never to be broken again ?”
By this it is admitted that the internal and external
unity of the Catholic Church has been broken, and that
it required more than human power to restore it. Then
the boast is made that it will never be broken again.
Yet it is asserted that the internal and external unity of
the Catholic Church is the great fact that demonstrates
its divine origin.
Now if this internal and external unity was broken,
and remained broken for years, there was an interval
during which the Church had no internal or external
unity, and during which the evidence of divine origin
failed. The unity was broken in spite of the Divine
Founder. This is admitted by the use of the word
“ again.” The unbroken unity of the Church is asserted,
and upon this assertion is based the claim of divine
origin ; it is then admitted that the unity was broken.
The argument is then shifted, and the claim is made that
it required more than human power to restore the internal
and external unity of the Church, and that the restora
tion, not the unity, is proof of the divine origin. Is there
any contradiction beyond this ?
Let us state the case in another way. Let us suppose
that a man has a sword which he claims was made by
God, stating that the reason he knows that God made
the sword is that it never had been, and never could be,
broken. Now if it was afterwards ascertained that it had
been broken, and the owner admitted that it had been,
what would be thought of him if he then took the ground
that it had been welded, and that the welding was the
evidence that it was of divine origin?
A prophecy is then indulged in, to the effect that the
internal and external unity of the Church can never be
broken again. It is admitted that it was broken, it is
asserted that it was divinely restored,? and^ then it. is
declared that it is never to be broken again. No reason
�ROME OR REASON ?
19
is given for this prophecy ; it must be born of the facts
already stated, Put in a form to be easily understood, it
is this :—
We know that the unity of the Church can never be
broken, because the Church is of divine origin.
We know that it was broken ; but this does not weaken
the argument, because it was restored by God, and it has
not been broken since.
Therefore, it never can be broken again.
It is stated that the Catholic Church is immutable, and
that its immutability establishes its claim to divine origin,
Was it immutable when its unity, internal and external,
was broken ? Was it precisely the same after its unity
was broken that it was before ? Was it precisely the same
after its unity was divinely restored that it was while
broken ? Was it universal while it was without unity ?
Which of the fragments was universal—which was im
mutable ?
The fact that the Catholic Church is obedient to the
Pope, establishes, not the supernatural origin of the
Church, but the mental slavery of its members. It estab
lishes the fact that it is a successful organisation ; that it
is cunningly devised; that it destroys the mental inde
pendence, and that whoever absolutely submits to its
authority loses the jewel of his soul.
The fact that Catholics are, to a great extent, obedient
to the Pope, establishes nothing except the thoroughness
of the organisation.
How was the Roman Empire formed ? By what means
did that great Power hold in bondage the then known
world ? How is it that a despotism is established ? How
is it that the few enslave the many ? How is it that the
nobility live on the labor of the peasants ? The answer
is in one word—Organisation. The organised few
triumph over the unorganised many. The few hold the
sword and the purse. The unorganised are overcome in
detail—terrorised, brutalised, robbed, conquered.
We must remember that when Christianity was estab
lished the world was ignorant, credulous, and cruel.
The Gospel, with its idea of forgiveness, with its heaven
and hell, was suited to the barbarians among whom it
�ao
ROME OR REASON ?
was preached. Let it be understood, once for all, that
Christ had but little to do with Christianity. The people
became convinced—being ignorant, stupid, and credulous
—that the Church held the keys of heaven and hell.
■ The foundation for the most terrible mental tyranny that
has existed among men was in this way laid. The
Catholic Church enslaved to the extent of its power. It
resorted to every possible form of fraud ; it perverted
every good instinct of the human heart; it rewarded
every vice; it resorted to every artifice that ingenuity
could devise, to reach the highest round of power. It
tortured the accused to make them confess ; it tortured
witnesses to compel the commission of perjury; it tor
tured children for the purpose of making them convict
their parents; it compelled men to establish their own
innocence; it imprisoned without limit; it had the
malicious patience to wait; it left the accused without
trial, and left them in dungeons until released by death.
There is no crime that the Catholic Church did not
commit, no cruelty that it did not practise, no form of
treachery that it did not reward, and no virtue that it did
not persecute. It was the greatest and most powerful
enemy of human rights. It did all that organisation,
cunning, piety, self-denial, heroism, treachery, zeal, and
brute force could do to enslave the children of men. It
was the enemy of intelligence, the assassin of liberty, and
the destroyer of progress. It loaded the noble with
chains and the infamous with honors. In one hand it
carried the alms-dish, in the other a dagger. It argued
with the sword, persuaded with poison, and convinced
with the faggot.
It is impossible to see how the divine origin of a
Church can be established by showing that hundreds of
bishops have visited the Pope.
Does the fact that millions of faithful visit Mecca
establish the truth of the Koran? Is it a scene for
congratulation when the bishops of thirty nations kneel
before a man ? Is it not humiliating to know that man
is willing to kneel at the feet of man ? Could a noble
man demand, or. joyfully receive, the humiliation of his
fellows?
�ROME OR REASON '?
21
As a rule, arrogance and humility go together. .He
who in power compels his fellow-man to kneel, .will him
self kneel when weak. The tyrant is a cringer in power ,
a cringer is a tyrant out of power. Great men stand
face to face. They meet on equal terms. The cardinal
who kneels in the presence of the Pope, wants the bishop
to kneel in his presence; and the bishop who kneels
demands that the priest shall kneel to. him; and the
priest who kneels demands that they in lower orders
shall kneel; and all, from Pope to the lowest—that is to
say, from Pope to exorcist, from Pope to the one in
charge of the bones of saints all demand that the
people, the laymen, those upon whom they live, shall
kneel to them.
The man of free and noble spirit will not kneel.
Courage has no knees. Fear kneels, or falls upon its
ctsh-di
The Cardinal insists that the Pope is the Vicar of
Christ, and that all Popes have been. What is a Vicar
of Jesus Christ ? He is a substitute, in office. He
stands in the place, or occupies the position in relation
to the Church, in relation to the world, that Jesus Christ
would occupy were he the Pope at Rome. In other
words, he takes Christ’s place; so that, according to the
doctrine of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ himself is
present in the person of the Pope.
We all know that a good man may employ a bad
agent. A good king might leave his realm and put in
his place a tyrant and a wretch. The good man and the
good king cannot certainly know what manner of man
the agent is-—what kind of person the vicar is; conse
quently the bad may be chosen. But if the king
appointed a bad vicar, knowing him to. be bad, knowing
that he would oppress the people, knowing that he would
imprison and burn the noble and generous, what excuse
can be imagined for such a king ?
. .
Now, if the Church is of divine origin, and if each
Pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, he must have been
chosen by Jesus Christ", and when he was chosen
Christ must have known exactly what his Vicar would
do. Can we believ^xthat an infinity wise and good
�22
ROME OR REASON r1
Being would choose immoral, dishonest, ignorant,
malicious, heartless, fiendish, and inhuman Vicars ?
The Cardinal admits that “ the history of Christianity
is the history of the Church, and that the history of the
Church is the history of the Pontiffs,” and he then de
clares that “ the greatest statesmen and rulers that the
world has ever seen are the Popes of Rome.”
Let me call attention to a few passages in Draper’s
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
“ Constantine was one of the Vicars of Christ. After
wards, Stephen IV. was chosen. The eyes of Constan
tine were then put out by Stephen, acting in Christ’s
place. 1 he tongue of the Bishop Theodorus was
•
amputated by the man who had been substituted for
God. This bishop was left in a dungeon to perish of
thirst. Pope Leo III. was seized in the street and
forced into a church, where the nephew's of Pope Adrian
attempted to put out his eyes and cut off his tongue.
His successor, Stephen V., was driven ignominiously
from Rome. His successor, Paschal I., was accused of
blinding and murdering twro ecclesiastics in the Lateran
Palace. John VIII.,unable to resist the Mohammedans,
was compelled to pay them tribute.
“At this time, the Bishop of Naples was in secret
alliance with the Mohammedans, and they divided with
this Catholic bishop the plunder they collected from
other Catholics. This bishop was excommunicated by
the Pope; afterwards he gave him absolution because
he betrayed the chief Mohammedans, and assassinated
others. There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy to mur
der the Pope, and some of the treasures of the Church
were seized, and the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened
with false keys to admit the Saracens. Formosus, who
had been engaged in these transactions, who had been
excommunicated as a conspirator for the murder of Pope
John, was himself elected Pope in 891. Boniface VI.
was his successor. He had been deposed from the
diaconate and from the priesthood for his immoral and
lewd life. Stephen VII. was the next Pope, and he had
the dead body of Formosus taken from the grave,
clothed in papal habiliments, propped up in a chair and
tried before a Council. The corpse w'as found guilty,
three fingers were cut off, and the body cast into the
Tiber. Afterwards Stephen VII.. this Vicar of Christ,
was thrown into prison and strangled.
�ROME OR REASON ?
23
“ From 896 to 900, five popes were consecrated.
Leo V., in less than two months after he became Pope,
was cast into prison by Christopher, one of his chaplains.
This Christopher usurped his place, and in a little while
was expelled from Rome by Sergius III., who became
Pope in 905. This Pope lived in criminal intercourse
with the celebrated Theodora, who with her daughters
Marozia and Theodora, both prostitutes, exercised an
extraordinary control over him. The love of Theodora
was also shared by John X. She gave him the Arch
bishopric of Ravenna, and made him Pope in 915. The
daughter of Theodora overthrew this Pope. She sur
prised him in the Lateran Palace. His brother, Peter,
was killed; the Pope was thrown into prison, where he
was afterwards murdered. Afterward, this Marozia,
daughter of Theodora, made her own son Pope, John XI.
Many affirmed that Pope Sergius was his father, but his
mother inclined to attribute him to her husband Alberic,
whose brother Guido she afterwards married. Another
of her sons, Alberic, jealous of his brother, John the
Pope, cast him and their mother into prison. Alberic s
son was then elected Pope as John XII.
“John was nineteen years old when he became the
Vicar of Christ. His reign was characterised by the
most shocking immoralities, so that the Emperor Otho I.
was compelled by the German clergy to inteifere. He
was tried. It appeared that John had received bribes
for the consecration of bishops; that he had ordained
one who was only ten years old; that he was charged
with incest, and with so many adulteries that the Lateran
Palace had become a brothel. He put out the eyes of
* one ecclesiastic; he maimed another—both dying in
consequence of their injuries. He was given to drunken
ness and to gambling. He was deposed at last, and
Leo VII. elected in his stead. Subsequently he got the
upper hand. He seized his antagonists ; he cut off the
hand of one, the nose, the finger, and the tongue of
others. His life was eventually brought to an end by
the vengeance of a man whose wife he had seduced.”
And yet,I admit that the most infamous Popes, the
most heartless and fiendish bishops, friars, and priests
were models of mercy, charity, and justice when com
pared with the orthodox God—with the God they wor
shipped. These popes, these bishops, these priests could
persecute only for a few years—they could burn only for
�24
kOME OR REASON ?
a few moments—but their God threatened to imprison
and burn for ever; and their God is as much worse than
they were, as hell is worse than the Inquisition.
“John XIII, was strangled in prison. Boniface VII.
imprisoned Benedict VII., and starved him to death.
John XIV. was secretly put to death in the dungeons of
the castle of St. Angelo. The corpse of Boniface was
dragged by the populace through the streets.”
It must be remembered that the popes were assassin
ated by Catholics—murdered by the faithful; that one
Vicar of Christ strangled another Vicar of Christ, and
that these men were “ the greatest rulers and the
greatest statesmen of the earth.”
“ Pope John XVI. was seized, his eyes put out, his
nose cut off, his tongue torn from his mouth, and he was
sent through the streets mounted on an ass, with his
face to the tail. Benedict IX., a boy of less than
twelye years of age, was raised to the apostolic throne.
One of his successors, Victor III., declared that the life
of Benedict was so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that
he shuddered to describe it. He ruled like a captain of
banditti. The people, unable to bear longer his
adulteries, his homicides and his abominations, rose
against him, and in despair of maintaining his position,
he put up his papacy to auction, and it was bought by a
Presbyter named John, who became Gregory VI., in the
year of grace 1045. Well may we ask, Were these the
Vicegerents of God upon earth—these, who had truly
reached that goal beyond which the last effort of human
wickedness cannot pass?”
It may be sufficient to say that there is no crime that
man can commit that has not been committed by the
Vicars of Christ. They have inflicted every possible
torture, violated every natural right. Greater monsters
the human race has not produced.
Among the “some two hundred and fifty-eight”
Vicars of Christ there were probably some good men.
This would have happened even if the intention had
been to get all bad men, for the reason that man reaches
perfection neither in good nor in evil; but if they were
selected by Christ himself, if they were selected by a
Church with a divine origin and under divine guidance,
then there is no way to account for the selection of a
�roMe or
Reason?
25
bad one. If one hypocrite was duly elected Pope—one
murderer, one strangler, one starver—this demonstrates
that all the Popes were selected by men, and by men
only, that the claim of divine guidance is born of zeal
and uttered without knowledge.
But who were the Vicars of Christ ? How many
have there been ? Cardinal Manning himself does not
know. He is not sure. He says : “ Starting from St.
Peter to Leo. XIII., there have been some two hundred
and fifty-eight Pontiffs claiming to be recognised by the
whole Catholic unity as successors of St. Peter and
Vicars of Jesus Christ.” Why did he use the word
“some”? Why “claiming”? Does he positively
know ? Is it possible that the present Vicar of Christ is
not certain as to the number of his predecessors ? Is
he infallible in faith and fallible in fact ?
PART II.
“ If we live thus tamely—
To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet—
Farewell nobility.”
No one will deny that “ the Pope speaks to many people
in many nations; that he treats with empires and
governments,” and that “neither from Canterbury nor
from Constantinople such a voice goes forth.”
How does the Pope speak ? What does he say ?
He speaks against the liberty of man—against the
progress of the human race. He speaks to calumniate
thinkers, and to warn the faithful against the discoveries
of science. He speaks for the destruction of civilisa
tion.
Who listens ? Do astronomers, geologists, and
scientists put the hand to the ear, fearing that an accent
�26
Rome or reason ?
may be lost ? Does France listen ? Does Italy hear ?
Is not the Church weakest at its centre ? Do those
who have raised Italy from the dead, and placed her
again among the great nations, pay attention ? Does
Great Britain care for this voice—this moan, this groan
—of the Middle Ages? Do the words of Leo XIII.
impress the intelligence of the Great Republic ? Can
anything be more absurd than for the Vicar of Christ to
attack a demonstration of science with a passage of
Scripture, or a quotation from one of the “ Fathers ” ?
Compare the popes with the kings and queens of
England. Infinite wisdom had but little to do with the
selection of these monarchs, and yet they were far better
than any equal number of consecutive popes. This is
faint praise, even for kings and queens ; but it shows
that chance succeeded in getting better rulers for England
than “ Infinite Wisdom ” did for the Church of Rome.
Compare the popes with the presidents of the Republic
elected by the people. If Adams had murdered
Washington, and Jefferson had imprisoned Adams, and
if Madison had cut out Jefferson’s tongue, and Monroe
had assassinated Madison, and John Quincey Adams had
poisoned Monroe, and General Jackson had hung Adams
and his Cabinet, we might say that presidents had been
as virtuous as popes. But if this had happened the
verdict of the world would be that the people are not
capable of selecting their presidents.
But this voice from Rome is growing feeble day by
day ; so feeble that the Cardinal admits that the Vicar
of God and the supernatural Church “are being tor
mented by Falck laws, by Mancini laws, and by Crispi
laws.” In other words, this representative of God, this
substitute of Christ, this Church of divine origin, this
supernatural institution—pervaded by the Holy Ghost—
are being “ tormented ” by three politicians. Is it pos
sible that this patriotic trinity is more powerful than the
other ?
It is claimed that if the Catholic Church “ be only a
human system, built up by the intellect, will, and energy
of men, the adversaries must prove it—that the burden
is upon them.”
�ROME OR REASON ?
As a general thing, institutions are natural. If this
Church is supernatural, it is the one exception. The
affirmative is with those who claim that it is of divine
origin. So far as we know, all governments and all
creeds are the work of man. No one believes that Rome
was a supernatural production, and yet its beginnings
were as small as those of the Catholic Church. Com
mencing in weakness, Rome grew, and fought, and con
quered, until it was believed that the sky bent above a
subjugated world. And yet all was natural. For every
effect there was an efficient cause.
The Catholic asserts that all other religions have been
produced by man—that Brahminism and Buddhism, the
religion of Isis and Osiris, the marvellous mythologies
of Greece and Rome, were the work of the human mind.
From these religions Catholicism has borrowed. Long
before Catholicism was born it w’as believed that women
had borne children whose fathers were gods. The Trinity
was promulgated in Egypt centuries before the birth of
Moses. Celibacy was taught by the ancient Nazarenes
and Essenes, by the priests of Egypt and India, by
mendicant monks, and by the piously insane of many
countries long before the Apostles lived. The Chinese
tell us that “ when there were but one man and one
woman upon the earth, the woman refused to sacrifice
her virginity even to people the globe ; and the gods,
honoring her purity, granted that she should conceive
beneath the gaze of her lover’s eyes, and a virgin mother
became the parent of humanity.”
The founders of many religions have insisted that it
was the duty of man to renounce the pleasures of sense,
and millions before our era took the vows of chastity,
poverty, and obedience, and most cheerfully lived upon
the labor of others.
The sacraments of baptism and confirmation are far
older than the Church of Rome. The Eucharist is
Pagan. Long before Popes began to murder each
other, Pagans ate cakes—the flesh of Ceres, and drank
wine—the blood of Bacchus. Holy water flowed in the
Ganges and Nile, priests interceded for the people, and
anointed the dying.
It will not do to say that every successful religion that
�28
ROME OR REASON ?
has taught unnatural doctrines, unnatural practices, must
of necessity have been of divine origin. In most reli
gions there has been a strange mingling of the good and
bad, of the merciful and cruel, of the loving and
malicious. Buddhism taught the universal brotherhood
of man, insisted on the development of the mind ; and
this religion was propagated, not by the sword, but by
preaching, by persuasion, and kindness ; yet in many
things it was contrary to the human will, contrary to the
human passions, and contrary to good sense. Buddhism
succeeded. Can we, for this reason, say that it is a super
natural religion ? Is the. unnatural the supernatural ?
It is insisted that, while other Churches have changed,
the Catholic Church alone has remained the same, and
that this fact demonstrates its divine origin.
Has the creed of Buddhism changed in three thousand
years ? Is intellectual stagnation a demonstration of
divine origin ? When anything refuses to grow, are we
certain that the seed was planted by God ? If the
Catholic Church is the same to-day that it has been for
many centuries, this proves that there has been no intel
lectual development. If men do not differ Upon religious
subjects, it is because they do not think.
Differentiation is the law of growth, of progress.
Every Church must gain or lose ; it cannot remain the
same ; it must decay or grow. The fact that the Catholic
Church has not grown—that it has been petrified from
the first—does not establish divine origin ; it simply
establishes the fact that it retards the progress of man.
Everything in nature changes ; every atom is in motion;
every star moves. Nations, institutions, and individuals
have youth, manhood, old age, death. This is, and will
be, true of the Catholic Church. It was once weak; it
grew stronger ; it reached its climax of power ; it began
to decay ; it can never rise again. It is confronted by
the dawn of Science. In the presence of the nineteenth
century it cowers.
It is not true that “ All natural causes run to disinte
gration.”
Natural causes run to integration as well as to dis
integration. All growth is integration, and all growth is
natural.
All decay is disintegration, and all decay is
�ROME OR REASON ?
29
natural. Nature builds and nature destroys. When
the acorn grows—when the sunlight and rain fall upon
it, and the oak rises—so far as the oak is concerned “all
natural causes” do not “run to disintegration.” But
there comes a time when the oak has reached its limit,
and then the forces of nature run towards disintegration,
and finally the. old oak falls. But if the Cardinal is
right, if “ all natural causes run to disintegration,” then
every success must have been of divine origin, and
nothing is natural but destruction. This, is Catholic
science: “All natural causes run to disintegration.’
What do these causes find to disintegrate? Nothing
that is natural. -The fact that the thing is not disinte
grated shows that it was, and is, of supernatural origin.
According to the Cardinal, the only business of nature
is to disintegrate the supernatural. To prevent this, the
supernatural needs the protection of the Infinite. Accord
ing to this doctrine, if anything lives and grows, it does
so in spite of nature. Growth, then, is not in accord
ance with, but in opposition to, nature. Every plant is
supernatural—it defeats the disintegrating influences of
rain and light. The generalisation of the Cardinal is
half the truth. It would be. equally true to say : All
natural causes run to integration.” But the whole truth
is that growth and decay are equal.
The Cardinal asserts that “ Christendom was created
by the world-wide Church as we see it before our eyes
at this day. Philosophers and statesmen believe it to
be the work of their own hands; they did not make it,
but they have for three hundred years been unmaking it
by reformations and revolutions.”
The meaning of this is that Christendom was far better
three hundred years ago than now ; that during these
three centuries Christendom has been going towards
barbarism. It means that the supernatural Church of
God has been a failure for three hundred years; that it
has been unable to withstand the attacks of philosophers
and statesmen, and that it has been helpless in the midst
of “ reformations and revolutions.”
What was the condition of the world three hundred
years ago, the period, according to the Cardinal, in which
the Church reached the height of its influence and since
�3°
ROME OR REASON ?
which it has been unable to withstand the rising tide of
reformation and the whirlwind of revolution ?
In that blessed time Phillip II. was King of Spain—he
with the cramped head and the monstrous jaw. Heretics
were hunted like wild and poisonous beasts ; the Inquisi
tion was firmly established, and priests were busy with
rack and fire. With a zeal born of the hatred of man
and the love of God, the Church with every instrument
of torture, touched every nerve in the human body.
In those happy days the Duke of Alva was devasta
ting the homes of Holland ; heretics were buried alive;
their tongues were torn from their mouths, their lids
from their eyes; the Armada was on the sea for the
destruction of the heretics of England, and the
Moriscoes, a million and a half of industrious people,
were being driven by sword and flame from their homes.
The Jews had been expelled from Spain. This Catholic
country had succeeded in driving intelligence and industry
from its territory; and this had been done with a cruelty,
with a ferocity, unequalled in the annals of crime.
Nothing was left but ignorance, bigotry, intolerance,
credulity, the Inquisition, the seven sacraments and the
seven deadly sins. And yet a Cardinal of the nine
teenth century, living in the land of Shakespeare, regrets
the change that has been wrought by the intellectual
efforts, by the discoveries, by the inventions and heroism
of three hundred years.
Three hundred years ago, under Charles IX., in France,
son of Catherine de Medici, in the year of grace 1572—
after nearly sixteen centuries of Catholic Christianity—
after hundreds of vicars of Christ had sat in St. Peter’s
chair—after the natural passions of man had been
“softened” by the creed of Rome—came the Massacre of
St. Bartholomew, the result of a conspiracy between the
Vicar of Christ, Philip II., Charles IX., and his fiendish
mother. Let the Cardinal read the account of this massacre
once more, and after reading it, imagine that he sees the
gashed and mutilated bodies of thousands of men and
women, and then let him say that he regrets the revolu
tions and reformations of three hundred years.
About three hundred years ago Clement VIII., Vicar
of Christ, acting in God’s place, substitute of the
�ROME OR REASON ?
31
Infinite, persecuted Giordano Bruno even unto death,
This great, this sublime man, was tried for heresy. He
had ventured to assert the rotary motion of the earth ;
he had hazarded the conjecture that there were in the
fields of infinite space worlds larger and more glorious
than ours. For these low and groveling thoughts, for
this contradiction of the word and Vicar of God, this
man was imprisoned for many years. But his noble
spirit was not broken, and finally in the year 1600, by
the orders of the infamous Vicar, he was chained to the
stake. Priests believing in the doctrine of universal
forgiveness; priests who when smitten upon one cheek
turned the other ; carried with a kind of ferocious joy
faggots to the feet of this incomparable man. These
disciples of “ Our Lord ” were made joyous as the
flames, like serpents, climbed around the body of Bruno.
In a few moments the brave thinker was dead, and the
priests who had burned him fell upon their knees and
asked the infinite God to continue the blessed work for
ever in hell.
There are two things that cannot exist in the same
universe—an infinite God and a martyr.
Does the Cardinal regret that kings and emperors are
not now engaged in the extermination of Protestants ?
Does he regret that dungeons of the Inquistion are no
longer crowded with the best and bravest ? Does he
long for the fires of the auto da fe ?
In coming to a conclusion as to the origin of the
Catholic Church ; in determining the truth of the claim
of infallibility, we are not restricted to the physical
achievements of that Church, or to the history of its
propagation, or to the rapidity of its growth.
This Church has a creed ; and if this Church is of
divine origin ; if its head is the Vicar of Christ, and, as
such, infallible in matters of faith and morals, this creed
must be true. Let us start with the supposition that
God exists, and that he is infinitely wise, powerful and
good—-and this is only a supposition. Now, if the creed
is foolish, absurd and cruel, it cannot be of divine origin.
We find in this creed, the following:
“ Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the Catholic faith,”
�32
ROME OR REASON ?
It is not necessary, before all things, that he be good,
honest, merciful, charitable and just. Creed is more
important than conduct. The most important of all
things is, that he hold the Catholic faith. There were
thousands of years during which it was not necessary to
hold that faith, because that faith did not exist; and yet
during that time the virtues were just as important as
now, just as important as they ever can be. Millions of
the noblest of the human race never heard of this
creed. Millions of the bravest and best have heard of
it, examined, and rejected it. Millions of the most
infamous have believed it, and because of their belief, or
notwithstanding their belief, have murdered millions of
their fellows. We know that men can be, have been,
and are just as wicked with it as without it. We know
that it is not necessary to believe it to be good, loving,
tender, noble, and self-denying.
We admit that
millions who have believed it have also been self
denying and heroic, and that millions, by such belief,
were not prevented from torturing and destroying the
helpless.
Now if all who believed it were good, and all who
rejected it were bad, then there might be some propriety
in saying that “whosoever will be saved,before all things
it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.” But as
the experience of mankind is otherwise, the declaration
becomes absurd, ignorant and cruel.
There is still another clause :
“ Which faith, except everyone do keep entire and
inviolate, without doubt he shall everlastingly perish.”
We now have both sides of this wonderful truth:
The believer will be saved, the unbeliever will be lost.
We know that faith is not the child or servant of the
will. We know that belief is a conclusion based upon
what the mind supposes to be true. We know that it is
not an act of the will. Nothing can be more absurd
than to save a man because he is not intelligent enough
to accept the truth, and nothing can be more infamous
than to damn a man because he is intelligent enough to
reject the false. It resolves itself into a question of
intelligence. If the creed is true, then a man rejects it
because he lacks intelligence. Is this a crime for which
�ROME
or reason
?
33
a man should everlastingly perish ? If the creed is
false, then a man accepts it because he lacks intelligence.
In. both cases the crime is exactly the same. If a man
is to be damned for rejecting the truth, certainly he
should not be saved for accepting the false. _ This one
clause demonstrates that a being of infinite wisdom and
goodness did not write it. It also demonstrates that it
was the work of men who had neither wisdom nor a
sense of justice.
.
What is this Catholic faith that must be held ? It is
this:
’
...
„ . .
u That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity m
Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the
substance.”
Why should an Infinite Being demand worship ?
Why should one God wish to be worshipped as three ?
Why should three Gods wish to be worshipped as
one ? Why should we pray to one God and think of
three, or pray to three Gods and think of one ? Can
this increase the happiness of the one or of the three ?
Is it possible to think of one as three, or of three as one ?
If you think of three as one, can you think of one as
none, or of none as one ? When you think of three as
one, what do you do with the other two? You must not
“ confound the persons ”—they must be kept separate.
When you think of one as three, how do you get the
other two ? You must not “ divide the substance.
Is
it possible to write greater contradictions than these ?
This creed demonstrates the human origin of the
Catholic Church. Nothing could be more unjust than to
punish man for unbelief—for the expression of honest
thought—for having been guided by his reason for
having acted in accordance with his best judgment.
Another claim is made, to the effect “ that the Catholic
Church has filled the world with the true knowledge of
the one true God, and that it has destroyed all idols by
light instead of by fire.”
The Catholic Church described the true God as a being
who would inflict eternal pain on his weak and erring
children ; described him as a fickle, quick-tempered, un
reasonable deity, whom honesty enraged, and whom
flattery governed; one who loved to see fear upon its
�34
Rome or reason ?
knees, ignorance with closed eyes and open mouth ; one
who delighted in useless self-denial, who loved to’hear
the sighs and sobs of suffering nuns, as they lay prostrate
on dungeon floors; one who was delighted when the
husband deserted his family and lived alone in some cave
in the far wilderness, tormented by dreams and driven
to insanity by prayer and penance, by fasting and faith.
According to the Catholic Church, the true God enjoyed
the agonies of heretics. He loved the smell of their
burning flesh, he applauded with wide palms when
philosophers were flayed alive, and to him the auto da fc
was a divine comedy. The shrieks of wives, the cries
of babes, when fathers were being burned, gave contrast,
heightened the effect, and filled his cup with joy. This
true God did not know the shape of the earth he had
made, and had forgotten the orbits of the stars. “ The
stream of light which descended from the beginning ”
was propagated by faggot to faggot, until Christendom
was filled with the devouring fires of faith.
It may also be said that the Catholic Church filled the
world with the true knowledge of the one true Devil. It
filled the air with malicious phantoms, crowded innocent
sleep with leering fiends, and gave the world to the
domination of witches and wizards, spirits and spooks,
goblins and ghosts, and butchered and burned thousands
for the commission of impossible crimes.
It is contended that: “ In this true knowledge of the
Divine Nature was revealed to men their own relation
to a Creator as sons to a Father.”
This tender relation was revealed by the Catholics to
the Pagans, the Arians, the Cathari, the Waldenses, the
Albigenses, the heretics, the Jews, the Moriscoes, the
Protestants—to the natives of the West Indies, of
Mexico, of Peru—to philosophers, patriots, and thinkers.
All these victims were taught to regard the true God as
a loving Father, and this lesson was taught with every
instrument of torture—with branding and burnings,
with flayings and flames. The world was filled with
cruelty and credulity, ignorance and intolerance, and the
soil in which all these horrors grew was the true know
ledge of the one true God, and the true knowledge of
the one true Devil. And yet we are compelled to say
�ROME OR REASON ?
35
that the one true Devil described by the Catholic Church
was not as malevolent as the one true God.
Is it true that the Catholic Church overthrew idolatry ?
What is idolatry ? What shall we say of the worship
of popes, of the doctrine of the Real Presence, of divine
honors paid to saints, of sacred vestments, of holy water,
of consecrated cups and plates, of images and relics, of
amulets and charms ?
.
The Catholic Church filled the world with the spirit of
idolatry. It abandoned the idea of continuity in nature,
it denied the integrity of cause and effect. The govern
ment of the world was the composite result of the caprice
of God, the malice of Satan, the prayers of the faithful—
softened, it may be, by the charity of Chance. Yet the
Cardinal asserts, without the preface of a smile, that
“ Demonology was overthrown by the Church, with the
assistance of forces that were above nature
and in the
same breath gives birth to this enlightened statement:
“ Beelzebub is not divided against himself.” Is a belief
in Beelzebub a belief in demonology ? Has the Cardinal
forgotten the Council of Nice, held in the year of grace
787, that declared the worship of images to be lawful ?
Did that infallible Council, under the guidance of the
Holy Ghost, destroy idolatry ?
The Cardinal takes the ground that marriage is a
sacrament, and therefore indissoluble, and he also insists
that celibacy is far better than marriage—holier than a
sacrament—that marriage is not the highest state, but
that “the state of virginity unto death is the highest
condition of man and woman.”
The highest ideal of a family is where all are equal—
where love has superseded authority—where each seeks
the good of all, and where none obey—where no religion
can sunder hearts, and with which no church can
interfere.
The real marriage is based on mutual affection—the
ceremony is but the outward evidence of the inward
flame. To this contract there are but two parties. The
Church is an impudent intruder. Marriage is made
public to the end that the real contract may be known,
so that the world can see that the parties have been
actuated by the highest and holiest motives that find
�36
ROME OR REASON?
expression in the acts of human beings. The man and
woman are not joined together by God, or by the
Church, or by the State. The Church and State may
prescribe certain ceremonies, certain formalities; but all
these are only evidence of the existence of a sacred fact
in the hearts of the wedded. The indissolubility of
marriage is a dogma that has filled the lives of millions
with agony and tears. It has given a perpetual excuse
for vice and immorality. Fear has borne children
begotten by brutality. Countless women have endured
the insults, indignities and cruelties of fiendish husbands,
because they thought that it was the will of God. The
contract of marriage is the most important that human
beings can make ; but no contract can be so important
as to release one of the parties from the obligation of
performance; and no contract, whether made between
man and woman, or between them and God, after a
failure of consideration caused by the wilful act of the man
or woman, can hold and bind the innocent and honest.
Do the believers in indissoluble marriage treat their
wives better than others ? A little while ago a woman
said to a man who had raised his hand to strike her,
“ Do not touch me; you have no right to beat me ; I
am not your wife.”
About a year ago a husband, whom God in his infinite
wisdom had joined to a loving and patient woman in
the indissoluble sacrament of marriage, becoming en
raged, seized the helpless wife and tore out one of her
eyes. She forgave him. A few weeks ago he deliber
ately repeated this frightful crime, leaving his victim
totally blind. Would it not have been better if man,
before the poor woman was blinded, had put asunder
whom God had joined together ?
Thousands of
husbands, who insist that marriage is indissoluble, are
beaters of wives.
The law of the Church has created neither the purity
nor the peace of domestic life. Back of all Churches is
human affection. Back of all theologies is the love of
the human heart. Back of all your priests and creeds is
the adoration of the one woman by the one man, and of
the one man by the one woman. Back of your faith is
the fireside, back of your folly is the family ; and
�ROME OR REASON ?
37
back of all your holy mistakes and your sacred ab
surdities is the love of husband and wife, and of parent
and child.
It is not true that neither the Greek nor the Roman
world had any true conception of a home. The splendid
story of Ulysses and Penelope, the parting of Hector and
Andromache, demonstrate that a true conception, of
home existed among the Greeks. Before the establish
ment of Christianity the Roman matron commanded the
admiration of the then known world. She was free and
noble. The Church degraded woman, made her the
property of the husband, and trampled her beneath its
brutal feet. The “fathers” denounced woman as a
perpetual temptation, as the cause of all evil. The
Church worshipped a God who had upheld polygamy,
and had pronounced his curse on woman, and had
declared that she should be the serf of the husband.
This Church followed the teachings of St. Paul. It
taught the uncleanliness of marriage, and insisted that
all children were conceived in sin. This Church pre
tended to have been founded by one who offered a
reward in this world, and eternal joy in the next, to
husbands who would forsake their wives and children
and follow him. Did this tend to the elevation of
woman ? Did this detestable doctrine “ create the purity
and peace of domestic life ? ” Is it true that a monk is
purer than a good and noble father ? that a nun is holier
than a loving mother ?
Is there anything deeper and stronger than a mother s
love ? Is there anything purer, holier than a mother
holding her dimpled babe against her billowed breast ?
The good man is useful, the best man is the most
useful. Those who fill the nights with barren prayers
and holy hunger, torture themselves for their own good
and not for the benefit of others. They are earning
eternal glory for themselves ; they do not fast for their
fellow-men, their selfishness is only equalled by their
foolishness. Compare the monk in his selfish cell,
counting beads and saying prayers for the purpose, of
saving his barren soul, with a husband and father sitting
by his fireside with wife and children. Compare the
nun with the mother and her babe.
�38
ROME OR REASON ?
Celibacy is the essence of vulgarity. It tries to put a
stain upon motherhood, upon marriage, upon love_ that
is to say, upon all that is holiest in the human heart.
Take love from the world, and there is nothing left
worth living for. The Church. has treated this great,
this sublime, this unspeakably holy passion, as though it
polluted the heart. They have placed the love of God
above the love of woman, above the love of man.
Human love is generous and noble. The love of God is
selfish, because man does not love God for God’s sake
but for his own.
Yet the Cardinal asserts “ that the change wrought
by Christianity in the social, political, and international
relations of the world the root of this ethical change,
private and public, is the Christian home.” A moment
afterwards, this prelate insists that celibacy is far
better than marriage. If the world could be induced
to live, in accordance with the “highest state,” this
generation would be the last. Why were men and
women created ? Why did not the Catholic God com
mence with the sinless and sexless ? The Cardinal
ought to take the ground that to talk well is good, but
that to be dumb is the highest condition ; that hearing
is a pleasure, but that deafness is ecstasy ; and that to
think, to reason, is very well, but that to be a Catholic
is far better.
Why should we desire the destruction of human
passions ? Take passions from human beings, and
what is left? The great object should be, not to
destroy passions, but to make them obedient to the
intellect. To indulge passion to the utmost is one form
of intemperance, to destroy passion is another. The
reasonable gratification of passion under the domination
of the intellect is true wisdom and perfect virtue.
The goodness, the sympathy, the self-denial of the
nun, of the monk, all come from the mother instinct, the
father instinct; all were produced by human affection—
by the love of man for woman, of woman for man. Love
is a transfiguration. It ennobles, purifies, and glorifies.
In true marriage two hearts burst into flower. Two
lives unite. They melt in music. Every moment is a
�KOi\iE OR REASON '?
39
melody. Love is a revelation, a creation. From love
the world borrows its beauty and the heavens their glory.
Justice, self-denial, charity, and pity are the children of
love. Lover, wife, mother, husband, father, child, home
—these words shed light; they are the gems of human
speech. Without love all glory fades, the noble falls
from life, art dies, music loses meaning and becomes
mere motions of the air, and virtue ceases to exist.
It is asserted that this life of celibacy is above and
against the tendencies of human nature; and the Car
dinal then asks: “ Who will ascribe this to natural
causes, and, if so, why did it not appear in the first four
thousand years ?”
If there is in a system of religion"a doctrine, a dogma,
or a practice against the tendencies of human nature
if this religion succeeds, then it is claimed by the
Cardinal that such religion must be of divine origin. Is
it 11 against the tendencies of human nature for a
mother to throw her child into the Ganges to please a
supposed god ? Yet a religion that insisted on that
sacrifice succeeded, and has, to-day, more believers than
the Catholic Church can boast.
Religions, like nations and individuals, have always
gone along the line of least resistance. Nothing has
“ ascended the stream of human license by a power
mightier than nature.” There is no such power. There
never was, there never can be, a miracle. We know
that man is a conditioned being. We know that he is
affected by a change of conditions. If he is ignorant he
is superstitious—that is natural. If his brain is developed,
if he perceives clearly that all things are naturally pro
duced, he ceases to be superstitious and becomes scien
tific. He is not a saint, but a savant—not a priest, but
a philosopher. He does not worship, he works; he inves
tigates ; he thinks; he takes advantage, through
intelligence, of the forces of nature. He is no longer
the victim of appearances, the dupe of his own ignorance,
and the persecutor of his fellow-men.
He then knows that it is far better to love his wife
and children than to love God. He then knows that the
love of man for woman, of woman for man, of parent
for child, of child for parent, is far better, far holier, than
�4°
fear10^
ROME OR REASON ?
phantom born of ignorance and
It is illogical to take the ground that the world was
cruel and ignorant and idolatrous when the Catholic
Church was established, and that because the world is
better now than then, the Church is of divine origin.
.What was the world when science came ? What was
it in the days of Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler ? What
was it when printing was invented ? What was it when
the Western World was found ? Would it not be much
easier to prove that science is of divine origin ?
. Science does not persecute. It does not shed blood—
it fills the world with light. It cares nothing for heresy;
it develops the mind, and enables man to answer his
own prayers.
Cardinal Manning takes the ground that Jehovah
practically abandoned the children of men for four
thousand years, and gave them over to every -abomina
tion. He claims that Christianity came “ in the fulness
of time,” and it is then admitted that “ what the fulness
of time may mean is one of the mysteries of times and
seasons that it is not for us to know.” Having declared
that it is a mystery, and one that we are not to know,
the Cardinal explains it: “One motive for the long
delay of four thousand years is not far to seek—it gave
time, full and ample, for the utmost development and
consolidation of all the falsehood and evil of which the
intellect and will of man is capable.”
Is it possible to imagine why an infinitely good and
wise being “ gave time full and ample for the utmost
development and consolidation of falsehood and evil ”?
Why should an infinitely wise God desire this develop
ment and consolidation ? What would be thought of a
father who should refuse to teach his son and deliberately
allow him to go into every possible excess, to the end
that he might “ develop all the falsehood and evil of
which his intellect and will were capable ”? If a super
natural religion is a necessity, and if without it all men
simply develop and consolidate falsehood and evil, why
was not a supernatural religion given to the first man ?
The Catholic Church, if this be true, should have been
founded in the garden of Eden. Was it not cruel to
�ROME OR REASON ?
4*
drown a world just for the want of a supernatural
religion ; a religion that man, by no possibility, could
furnish ? Was there “ husbandry in heaven ?
But the Cardinal contradicts himself by not only
admitting, but declaring, that the world had never seen
a legislation so just, so equitable, as that of Rome. Is
it possible that a nation in which falsehood and evil had
reached their highest development was, after all, so wise,
so just, and so equitable ? Was not the civil law far
better than the Mosaic—more philosophical, nearer just?
The civil law was produced without the assistance of God.
According to the Cardinal, it was produced by men in
whom all the falsehood and evil of which they were
capable had been developed and consolidated, while the
cruel and ignorant Mosaic code came from the lips of
infinite wisdom and compassion.
It is declared that the history of Rome shows what
man can do without God, and I assert that the history
of the Inquisition shows what man can do when assisted
by a church of divine origin, presided over by the
infallible vicars of God.
The fact that the early Christians not only believed
incredible things, but persuaded others of their truth, is
regarded by the Cardinal as a miracle. This is only
another phase of the old argument that success is the
test of divine origin. All supernatural religions have
been founded in precisely the same way. The credulity
of eighteen hundred years ago believed everything
except the truth.
A religion is a growth, and is of necessity adapted in
some degree to the people among whom it grows. It is
shaped and moulded by the general ignorance, the
superstition and credulity of the age in which it lives.
The key is fashioned by the lock. Every religion that
has succeeded has in some way supplied the wants of its
votaries, and has to a certain extent harmonised with
their hopes, their fears, their vices, and their virtues.
If, as the Cardinal says, the religion of .Christ is in
absolute harmony with nature, how can it be super
natural ? The Cardinal also declares that “ the religion
of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral
nature in all nations and all ages to this day.” What
�42
Rome
or reason
?
becomes of the argument that Catholicism must be of
divine origin because “ it has ascended the stream of
human license, contra ictum fluminis, by a power mightier
than nature ? If “ it is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations and ages to this day,” it
has gone with the stream, and not against it. If “ the
religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations,” then the men who have
rejected it are unnatural, and these men have gone
against the stream. How then can it be said that
Christianity has been in changeless opposition to nature
as man has marred it? To what extent has man
marred it ? In spite of the marring by man, we are
told that the reason and moral nature of all nations in all
aqres to this day is ip harmony with, the religion of Jesus
Christ.
J
Are we justified in saying that the Catholic Church is
of divine origin because the Pagans failed to destroy it
by persecution ?
We will put the Cardinal’s statement in form :
Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution,
therefore Catholicism is of divine origin.
Let us make an application of this logic:
Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution;
therefore, Catholicism is of divine origin.
Catholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by per
secution ; therefore, Protestantism is of divine origin.
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity ; therefore, Infidelity is of divine
origin.
Let us make another application :
Paganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism ;
therefore, Paganism was a false religion.
Catholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestant
ism ; therefore, Catholicism is a false religton.
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity ; therefore, both Catholicism and Pro
testantism are false religions.
The Cardinal has another reason for believing the
Catholic Church of divine origin. He declares that the
“ Canon Law is a creation of wisdom and justice to
which no statutes at large or imperial pandects can
�ROME OR REASON ?
43
bear comparison ” ; that “ the world-wide and secular
legislation of the -Church was of a higher character, and
that as water cannot rise above its source, the Church
could not, by mere human wisdom, have corrected and
perfected the imperial law, and therefore its source must
have been higher than the sources of the world.”
When Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law
was supreme. As a matter of fact, the good in the
Canon Law was borrowed—the bad was, for the most
part, original. In my judgment, the legislation of the
Republic of the United States is in many respects
superior to that of Rome, and yet we are greatly indebted
to the Common Law; but it never occurred to me that
our Statutes at Large are divinely inspired.
If the Canon Law is, in fact, the legislation of infinite
wisdom, then it should be a perfect code. Yet the
Canon Law made it a crime next to robbery and theft
to take interest for money. Without the right to take
interest the business of the world would, to a large
extent, cease and the prosperity of mankind end. There
are railways enough in the United States to make six
tracks around the globe, and every mile was built with
borrowed money on which interest was paid or promised.
In no other way could the savings of many thousands
have been brought together and a capital great enough
formed to construct works of such vast and continental
importance.
It was provided in this same wonderful Canon Law
that a heretic could not be a witness against a Catholic.
The Catholic was at liberty to rob and wrong his fellow
man, provided the fellow man was not a fellow Catholic,
and in a court established by the Vicar of Christ, the
man who had been robbed was not allowed to open his
mouth. A Catholic could enter the house of an un
believer, of a Jew, of a heretic, of a Moor, and before
the eyes of the husband and father murder his wife and
children and the father could not pronounce in the hear
ing of a judge the name of the murderer. The world is
wiser now, and the Canon Law, given to us by infinite
wisdom, has been repealed by the common sense of man.
In this divine code it was provided that to convict a
�44
ROME OR REASON ?
cardinal bishop, seventy-two witnesses were required ; a
cardinal presbyter, forty-four; a cardinal deacon, twentyfour . a sub-deacon, acolyth, exorcist, reader, ostiarus,
seven ; and in the purgation of a bishop, twelve wit
nesses were invariably required; of a presbyter, seven ;
of a deacon, three. These laws, in my judgment, were
made, not by God, but by the clergy.
So, too, in this cruel code it was provided that those
who gave aid, favor, or counsel to excommunicated
persons should be anathema, and that those who talked
with, consulted, or sat at the same table with, or gave
anything in charity to the excommunicated, should be
anathema.
Is it possible that a being of infinite wisdom made
hospitality a crime ? Did he say: “Whoso giveth a cup
of cold water to the excommunicated shall wear forever
a garment of fire ? ” Were not the laws of the Romans
much better ? Besides all this, under the Canon Law
the dead could be tried for heresy, and their estates con
fiscated that is to say, their widowsand orphans robbed.
The most brutal part of the common law of England is
that in relation to the right of woman—all of which was
taken from the Corpus Juris Canonici, “ the law that
came from a higher source than man.”
The only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by
the pious canonists was propter infidelitatem, which was
when one of the parties became Catholic, and would
not live with the other who continued still an unbe
liever. Under this divine statute, a pagan wishing to be
rid of his wife had only to join the Catholic Church,
provided she remained faithful to the religion of her
fathers. Under this divine law, a man marrying a
widow was declared to be a bigamist.
It would require volumes to point out the cruelties,
absurdities, and inconsistencies of the Canon Law. It
has. been thrown away by the world. Every civilised
nation has a code of its own, and the Canon Law is of
interest only to the historian, the antiquary, and the
enemy of theological government.
Under the Canon Law, people were convicted of
being witches and wizards, of holding intercourse with
�ROME OR REASON ?
45
devils. Thousands perished at the stake, having been
convicted of these impossible crimes. Under the Canon
Law, there was such a crime as the suspicion of heresy.
A man or woman could be arrested, charged with being
suspected, and under this Canon Law, flowing from the
intellect of infinite wisdom, the presumption was in favor
of guilt. The suspected had to prove themselves inno
cent. In all civilised courts, the presumption of inno
cence is the shield of the indicted ; but the Canon Law
took away this shield, and put in the hand of the priest
the sword of presumptive guilt.
If the real Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the true
shepherd of the sheep, this fact should be known not
only to the vicar, but to the sheep. A divinely-founded
and guarded church ought to know its own shepherd,
and yet the Catholic sheep have not always been certain
who the shepherd was.
The Council of Pisa, held in 1409, deposed two popes
—rivals—Gregory and Benedict—that is to say, deposed
the actual Vicar of Christ and the pretended. This
action was taken because a council, enlightened by the
Holy Ghost, could not tell the genuine from the counter
feit. The council then elected another Vicar, whose
authority was afterwards denied. Alexander V. died,
and John XXIII. took his place; Gregory XII. insisted
that he was the lawful pope ; John resigned, then he
was deposed, and afterwards imprisoned ; then Gregory
XII. resigned, and Martin V. was elected. The whole
thing reads like the annals of a South American Revo
lution.
The Council of Constance restored, as the Cardinal
declares, the unity of the Church, and brought back the
consolation of the Holy Ghost. Before this great
council John Huss appeared and maintained his own
tenets. The council declared that the Church was not
bound to keep its promise with a heretic. Huss was
condemned and executed on the 6th of July, 1415. His
disciple, Jerome of Prague, recanted; but, having
relapsed, was put to death, May 30, 1416. This cursed
council shed the blood of Huss and Jerome.
The Cardinal appeals to the author of Eccc Homo for
�46
ROME OR REASON ?
the purpose of showing that Christianity is above nature,
and the following passages, among others, are quoted
“ Who can describe that which unites men ? Who
has entered into the formation of speech, which is the
symbol of their union ? Who can describe exhaustively
the origin of civil society ? He who can do these things
can explain the origin of the Christian Church.”
These passages should not have been quoted by the
Cardinal. The author of these passages simply says
that the origin of the Christian Church is no harder to
find and describe than that which unites men ; than
that which has entered into the formation of speech, the
symbol of their union ; no harder to describe than the
origin of civil society, because he says that one who can
describe these can describe the other.
Certainly none of these things are above nature. We
do not need the assistance of the Holy Ghost in these
.matters. We know that men are united by common
interests, common purposes, common dangers—by race,
climate, and education. It is no more wonderful that
people live in families, tribes, communities, and nations,
than that birds, ants, and bees live in flocks and swarms.
If we know anything, we know that language is
natural-—that it is a physical science. But if we take
the ground occupied by the Cardinal, then we insist that
everything that cannot be accounted for by man is
supernatural. Let me ask, by what man ? What
man must we take as the standard ?
Cosmos or
Humboldt, St. Irenaeus or Darwin ? If everything that
we cannot account for is above nature, then ignorance is
the test of the supernatural. The man who is mentally
honest stops where his knowledge stops. At that point
he says that he does not know. Such a man is a philo
sopher. Then the theologian steps forward, denounces
the modesty of the philosopher as blasphemy, and pro
ceeds to tell what is beyond the horizon of the human
intellect.
Could a savage account for the telegraph or the tele
phone by natural causes ? How would he account for
these wonders ? He would account for them precisely
as the Cardinal accounts for the Catholic Church.
�ROME OR REASON ?
47
Bek nping to no rival Church, I have not the slightest
interest in the primacy of Leo XIII., and yet it is to be
regretted that this primacy rests upon such a narrow
■and insecure foundation.
The Cardinal says that “ it will appear almost certain
that the original Greek of St. Irenaeus, which is unfortu
nately lost, contained either rd —pun-eca, or some inflection
of 7rpwT€t'w, which signifies primacy.”
From this it appears that the primacy of the Bishop
of Rome rests on some “inflection” of a Greek word,
and that this supposed inflection was in a letter supposed
to have been written by St. Irenaeus, which has certainly
been lost. Is it possible that the vast fabric of papal
power has this, and only this, for its foundation ? To
this “ inflection ” has it come at last ?
The Cardinal’s case depends upon the intelligence and
veracity of his witnesses. The Fathers of the Church
were utterly incapable of examining a question of fact.
They were all believers in the miraculous. The same is
true of the apostles. If St. John was the author of the
Apocalypse, he was undoubtedly insane. If Polycarp
said the things attributed to him by Catholic writers, he
was certainly in the condition of his master. What is
the testimony of St. John worth in the light of the fol
lowing ? “ Cerinthus, the heretic, was in a bath-house.
St. John and another Christian were about to enter. St.
John cried out : ‘ Let us run away, lest the house fall
upon us while the enemy of truth is in it.’ ” Is it pos
sible that St. John thought that God would kill two
eminent Christians for the purpose of getting even with
one heretic ?
Let us see who Polycarp was. He seems to have
been a prototype of the Catholic Church, as will be seen
from the following statement concerning this Father :
“When any heretical doctrine was spoken in his
presence he would stop his ears.” After this, there can
be no question of his orthodoxy. It is claimed that
Polycarp was a martyr—that a spear was run through
his body, and that from the wound his soul, in the shape
of a bird, flew away. The history of his death is just
as true as the history of his life.
Irenaeus, another witness, took the ground that there
�48
ROME OR REASON’ ?
was to be a millennium, a thousand years of enjoyment
in which celibacy would not be the highest form of
virtue. If he is called as a witness for the purpose of
establishing the divine origin of the Church, and if one
of his “ inflections ” is the basis of papal supremacy, is
the Cardinal also willing to take his testimony as to the
nature of the millennium ?
All the Fathers were infinitely credulous. Every one
of them believed, not only in the miracles said to have
been wrought by Christ, by the apostles, and by other
Christians, but every one of them believed in the Pagan
miracles. All of these Fathers were familiar with
wonders and impossibilities. N othing was so common
with them as to work miracles-, and on many occasions
they not only cured diseases, not only reversed the order
of nature, but succeeded in raising the dead.
It is very hard, indeed, to prove what the apostles
said, or what the Fathers of the Church wrote. There
were many centuries filled with forgeries, many genera
tions in which the cunning hands of ecclesiastics erased,
obliterated, and interpolated the records of the past,
during which they invented books, invented authors, and
quoted from works that never existed.
The testimony of the “Fathers” is without the
slightest value. They believed everything, they examined
nothing. They received as a waste-basket receives.
Whoever accepts their testimony will exclaim with the
Cardinal: “ Happily, men are not saved by logic.”
PUBLISHED
EVERY
THURSDAY.
THE FREETHINKER
One of Liveliest and Most Outspoken Journals
in the World.
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
Price Twopence.
SPECIMEN COPY POST FREE.
Send for a CATALOGUE of the Freethought
Publishing Company’s Publications. Post Free.
�
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
Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 48 p. ; 19 p.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Oct. and Nov. 1888. First published: London: Progressive Publishing Company, 1888. No. 65b in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1903
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N391
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rationalism
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 (Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church-Controversial Literature
Henry Edward Manning
Marriage
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c79ef029d4d886277e4bca1ffc3eee2f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AooGkGexfYD3mrl6QojRHhDQKCA8CnazM6r45DEpMJeuSrhmCJSmH0alkutwhacpbT%7E7gD0XKKivCl%7EjOXQsayfanZrkqpZI-0WJDo7Zlb2jgDkDYRmRz1M-6jSLatMhROljUbA7yFY1yjpap05cKKdBVVmlYMGwOo9b1RtlEWUvez3ADEo2LIDfxmW0vWGuoV1kePBQzvAdnDwGDD8qq8B9ZFyTMWQ6rJW914RQ7PgRdQSHjLyYZwDWOdZtp94on-GaTradkIwBPxGF5-iuwkIUeR6K%7EzR%7EXcnmaRDGH4Lt-brzwnBpaWjjmSNKgTAiHEKuf1oyKrkOKeNzW-CjUA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b7e86938ab58770f86fa71f55469021e
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECU'
" "''CIETY
ROME OR REASON?
A
REPLY
TO
Cardinal Manning
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
REPRINTED EROM
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW,
■ October and November, 1888.
^onirou:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1888.
�J ONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.,
�ROME, OR REASON?
CARDINAL MANNING.
PART I.
Superstition Nias ears more deaf than adders to the voice
of any true decision.”
A REPLY TO
Cardinal Manning has stated the claims of the Roman
Catholic Church with great clearness, and apparently
without reserve. The age, position and learning of this
man give a certain weight to his words, apart from their
worth. He represents the oldest of the Christian churches
The questions involved are among the most important
that can engage the human mind. No one having the
slightest regard for that superb thing known as intel
lectual honesty, will avoid the issues tendered, or seek in
any way to gain a victory over truth.
. Without candor, discussion, in the highest sense, is
impossible. All have the same interest, whether they
know it or not in the establishment of facts. All have
the same to gain, the same to lose. He loads the dice
against himself who scores a point against the right.
Absolute honesty is to the intellectual perception what
hght is to the eyes. Prejudice and passion cloud the
mind. In each disputant should be blended the advocate
and judge. In this spirit, having in view only the ascertainment
or the truth, let us examine the arguments, or rather the
statements and conclusions, of Cardinal Manning.
The proposition is that “ The Church itself, by its mar
vellous propagation, its eminent sanctity, its inexhaustible
fruitfulness m all good things, its catholic unity and
lnVinC\^e lability, is a vast and perpetual motive of
legationaU irrefragable witness of its own divine
�4
ROME OR REASON.
The reasons given as supporting this proposition are :
That the Catholic Church interpenetrates all the nations
of the civilised world; that it is extra-national and inde
pendent in a supernational unitv ; that it is the same in
every place ; that jt speaks all the languages in the civi
lised world; that it is obedient to one head; that as many
as seven hundred bishops have knelt before the pope ;
that pilgrims from all nations have brought gifts to Rome,
and that all these things set forth in the most self-evident
way the unity and universality of the Roman Church.
It is also asserted that “ men see the Head of the
Church year by year speaking to the nations of the world,
treating with empires, republics and governments ; ” that
“ there is no other man on earth that can so bear him
self,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor from Con
stantinople can such a voice go forth to which rulers and
people listen.”
It is also claimed that the Catholic Church has enlight
ened and purified the world ; that it has given us the
peace and purity of domestic life ; that it has destroyed
idolatry and demonology ; that it gave us a body of law
from a higher source than man ; that it has produced
the civilisation of Christendom ; that the popes were the
greatest of statesmen and rulers ; that celibacy is better
than marriage, and that the revolutions and reformations
of the last three hundred years have been destructive
and calamitous.
We will examine these assertions as well as some
others.
No one will dispute that the Catholic Church is the
best witness of its own existence. The same is true of
every thing that exists; of every church, great and small,
of every man, and of every insect.
But it is contended that the marvellous growth or
propagation of the Church is evidence of its divine
origin. Can it be said that success is supernatural ? All
success in this world is relative. Majorities are not
necessarily right. If anything is known—if anything
can be known—we are sure that very large bodies of men
have frequently been wrong. We believe in what is
called the progress of mankind. Progress, for the most
part, consists in finding new truths and getting rid of old
errors—that is to say, getting nearer and nearer in har
�ROME OR REASON.
5
mony with the facts of nature, seeing with greater clear
ness the conditions of well-being.
There is no nation in which a majority leads the way.
In the progress of mankind, the few have been the nearest
right. There have been centuries in which the light
seemed to emanate only from a handful of men, while
the rest of the world was enveloped in darkness. Some,
great man leads the way—he becomes the morning star,
the prophet of a coming day. Afterwards, many millions
accept his views. But there are still heights above and
beyond ; there are other pioneers, and the old day, in
comparison with the new, becomes a night. So, we can
not say that success demonstrates either divine origin or
supernatural aid.
~
We know, if we know anything, that wisdom has often
been trampled beneath the feet of the multitude. We
know that the torch of science has been blown out by
the breath of the hydra-headed. We know that the
whole intellectual heaven has been darkened again. The
truth or falsity of a proposition cannot be determined by
ascertaining the number of those who assert, or of those
who deny.
If the marvellous propagation of the Catholic Church
proves its divine origin, What shall we say of the mar
vellous propagation of Mohammedanism ?
Nothing can be clearer than that Christianity arose
out of the ruins of the Roman Empire—that is to say,
the rums of Paganism. And it is equally clear that
Mohammedanism arose out of the wreck and ruin of
Catholicism.
- After Mohammed came upon the stage, “ Christianity
was forever expelled from its most glorious seat—from
Palestine, the scene of its most sacred recollections ; from
Asia Minor, that of its first churches; from Egypt
whence issued the great doctrine of Trinitarian Ortho
doxy, and from Carthage, who imposed her belief on
Europe.” Before that time “the ecclesiastical chiefs of
Rome,, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria were en
gaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying out
their purposes by weapons and in ways revolting to the
Conscience of .man. Bishops were concerned in assassina10ns, poisonings, adulteries, blindings, riots, treasons,
civil war. Patriarchs and primates were excommuni
�6
ROME OR REASON.
eating and anathematizing one another in their rivalries
for earthly power ; bribing eunuchs with gold and
courtesans and royal females with concessions of epis
copal love. Among legions of monks who carried terror
into the imperial armies and riot into the great cities
arose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but never a
voice for intellectual liberty or the outraged rights of man.
“ Under these circumstances, amid these atrocities and
crimes, Mohammed arose, and raised his own nation from
Fetichism, the adoration of the meteoric stone, and from
the basest idol worship, and irrevocably wrenched from
Christianity more than half—and that by far the best
half—of her possessions, since it included, the Holy Land,
the birth-place of the Christian faith, and Africa, which
had imparted to it its Latin form ; and now, after a lapse
of more than a thousand years, that continent, and a very
large part of Asia, remain permanently attached to the
Arabian doctrine.”
It may be interesting in this connection to say that the
Mohammedan now proves the divine mission of his
Apostle by appealing to the marvellous propagation of
the faith. If the argument is good in the mouth of a
Catholic, is it not good in the mouth of a Moslem ? Let
us see if it is not better.
According to Cardinal Manning, the Catholic Church
triumphed only over the institutions of men, triumphed
only over religions that had been established by men, by
wicked and ignorant men. But Mohammed triumphed
not only over the religions of men, but over the religion
of God. This ignorant driver of camels, this poor,
unknown, unlettered boy, unassisted by God, unen
lightened by supernatural means, drove the armies of the
true cross before him as the winter’s storm drives withered
leaves. At his name, priests, bishops and cardinals fled
with white faces, popes trembled, and the armies of God,
fighting for the true faith, were conquered on a thousand
fields.
If the success of a church proves its divinity, and after
that anothei’ church arises and defeats the first, what does
that prove ?
Let us put this question in a milder form : Suppose the
second church lives and flourishes in spite of the first,
what does that prove ?
�ROME OR REASON.
7
As a matter of fact, however, no church rises with
everything against it. Something is favorable to it, or it
could not exist. If it succeeds and grows, it is absolutely
certain that the conditions are favorable. If it spreads
rapidly, it simply shows that the conditions are exceed
ingly favorable, and that the forces in opposition are weak
and easily overcome.
Here, in my own country, within a few years, has
arisen a new religion. Its foundations were laid in an
intelligent community, having had the advantages of
what is known as modern civilisation. Yet this new
faith—founded on the grossest absurdities, as gross as we
find in the Scriptures—in spite of all opposition began to
grow, and kept growing. It was subjected to persecution,
and the persecution increased its strength. It was driven
from State to State by the believers in universal love,
until it left what was called civilisation, crossed the wide
plains, and took up its abode on the shores of the Great
Salt Lake. It continued to grow. Its founder, as he
declared, had frequent conversations with God, and
received directions from that source.
Hundreds of
miracles were performed, multitudes upon the desert
were miraculously fed, the sick were cured—the dead
were raised, and the Mormon Church continued to grow,
until now, less than half a century after the death of its
founder, there are several hundred thousand believers in
the new faith.
Do you think that men enough could join this church
to prove the truth of its creed ?
Joseph Smith said that he found certain golden plates
that had been buried for many generations, and upon
these plates, in some unknown language, had been
engraved this new revelation, and I think he insisted
that by the use of miraculous mirrors this language was
translated. If there should be Mormon bishops in the
countries of the world, eighteen hundred years from now,
do you think a cardinal of that faith could prove the
truth of the golden plates simply by the fact that the
faith had spread and that seven hundred bishops had
knelt before the head of that church ?
It seems to me that a “ supernatural ” religion—that it
to say, a religion that is claimed to have been divinely
founded and to be authenticated by miracle, is much
�8
ROME OR REASON.
easier to establish among an ignorant people than any
other, and the more ignorant the people, the easier such
a religion could be established. The reason for this is
plain. All ignorant tribes, all savage men, believe in the
miraculous, in the supernatural.
The conception of
uniformity, of what may be called the eternal consistency
of nature, is an idea far above their comprehension.
They are forced to think in accordance with their minds,
and as a consequence they account for all phenomena by
the acts of superior beings—that is to say, by the super
natural. In other words, that religion having most in
common with the savage, having most that was satis
factory to his mind, or to his lack of mind, would stand
the best chance of success.
It is probably safe to say that at one time, or during
one phase of the development of man, everything was
miraculous. After a time, the mind slowly developing,
certain phenomena, always happening under like con
ditions, were called “natural,” and none suspected any
special interference. The domain of the miraculous grew
less and less—the domain of the natural larger ; that is
to say, the common became the natural, but the uncom
mon was still regarded as the miraculous. The rising
and setting of the sun ceased to excite the wonder of
mankind—there was no miracle about that ; but an
eclipse of the sun was miraculous. Men did not then
know that eclipses are periodical, that they happen with
the same certainty that the sun rises. It took many
observations through many generations to arrive at this
conclusion. Ordinary rains became “ natural,” floods
remained “ miraculous.”
But it can all be summed up in this : The average man
regards the common as natural, the uncommon as super
natural. The educated man—and by that I mean the
developed man—is satisfied that all phenomena are
natural, and that the supernatural does not and can not
exist.
As a rule, an individual is egotistic in the proportion
that he lacks intelligence. The same is true of nations
and races. The barbarian is egotistic enough to suppose
that an Infinite Being is constantly doing something, or
failing to do something, on his account. But as man
rises in the scale of civilisation, as he becomes really
�BOMB OR BEASON.
9
great, he comes to the conclusion that nothing in Nature
happens on his account—that he is hardly great enough
to disturb the motions of the planets.
Let us make an application of this : To me, the success
of Mormonism is no evidence of its truth, because it has
succeeded only with the superstitious. It has been
recruited from communities brutalised by other forms of
superstition. To me, the success of Mohammed does not
tend to show that he was right—for the reason that he
triumphed only over the ignorant, over the superstitious.
The same is true of the Catholic Church. Its seeds were
planted in darkness. It was accepted by the credulous,
by men incapable of reasoning upon such questions. It
did not, it has not, it cannot triumph over the intellectual
world. To count its many millions does not tend to
prove the truth of its creed. On the contrary, a creed
that delights the credulous gives evidence against itself.
Questions of fact or philosophy cannot be settled
simply by numbers. There was a time when the Coper
nican system of astronomy had but few supporters—the
multitude being on. the other side. There was a time
when the rotation of the earth was not believed by the
majority.
Let us press this idea further. There was a time when
Christianity was not in the majority, anywhere. Let us
suppose that the first Christian missionary had met a pre
late of the Pagan faith, and suppose this prelate had
used against the Christian missionary the Cardinal’s
argument—how could the missionary have answered if
the Cardinal’s argument is good ?
But, after all, is the success of the Catholic Church a
marvel ? If this Church is of divine origin, if it has
been under the especial care, protection, and guidance
of an Infinite Being, is not its failure far more wonderful
than its success ? For eighteen centuries it has persecuted
and preached, and the salvation of the world is still
remote.
This is the result, and it may be asked
whether it is worth while to try to convert the word to
Catholicism.
Are Catholics better than Protestants ? Are they nearer
honest, nearer just, more charitable ? Are Catholic
nations better than Protestant ? Do the Catholic nations
move in the van of progress? Withintheir jurisdiction
�10
ROME OR REASON.
are life, liberty and property safer than anywhere else ?
Is Spain the first nation of the world ?
Let me ask another question : Are Catholics or Pro
testants better than Freethinkers ? Has the Catholic
Church produced a greater man than Humboldt ? Has
the Protestant produced a greater than Darwin ? Was
not Emerson, so far as purity of life is concerned, the
equal to any true believer? Was Pius IX., or any other
Vicar of Christ, superior to Abraham Lincoln ?
But it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal,
and that its universality demonstrates its divine origin.
According to the Bible, the Apostles were ordered to go
into all the world to preach the gospel—yet not one of
them, nor one of their con verts at any time, nor one of the
Vicars of God, for fifteen hundred years afterward, knew
of the existence of the Western Hemisphere. During all
that time, can it be said that the Catholic Church was
universal ? At the close of the fifteenth century, there
was one-half of the world in which the Catholic faith had
never been preached, and in the other half not one person
in ten had ever heard of it, and of those who had heard
of it, not one in ten believed it. Certainly the Catholic
Church was not then universal.
Is it universal now ? What impression has Catholicism
made upon the many millions of China, of Japan, of
India, of Africa ? Can it truthfully be said that the
Catholic Church is now universal ? When any church
becomes universal, it will be the only church. There
cannot be two universal churches, neither can there be
one universal church and any other.
The Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic
Church is divine, “ by its eminent sanctity and its inex
haustible fruitfulness in all good things.”
And here let me admit that there are many millions of
good Catholics—that is, of good men and women who
are Catholics. It is unnecessary to charge universal
dishonesty or hypocrisy, for the reason that this would
be only a kind of personalitv. Many thousands of heroes
have died in defence of the faith, and millions of Catholics
have killed and been killed for the sake of their religion.
And here it may be well enough to say that martyrdom
does not even tend to prove the truth of a religion. The
man who dies in flames, standing by what he believes to
�ROME OR REASON.
11
be true, establishes, not the truth of what he believes, but
his sincerity.
Without calling in question the intentions of the
Catholic Church, we can ascertain whether it has been
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things,” and whether
it has been “ eminent for its sanctity.”
In the first place, nothing can be better than goodness.
Nothing is more sacred, or can be more sacred, than the
well-being of man. All things that tend to increase or
preserve the happiness of the human race are good—that
is to say, they are sacred. All things that tend to the
destruction of man’s well-being, that tend to his unhappi
ness, are bad, no matter by whom they are taught or
done.
It is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has
taught, and still teaches, that intellectual liberty is dan
gerous—that it should not be allowed. It was driven to
take this position because it had taken another. It
taught, and still teaches, that a certain belief is necessary
to salvation. It has always known that investigation and
inquiry led, oi’ might lead, to doubt ; that doubt leads, or
may lead, to heresy, and that heresy leads to hell. In
other words, the Catholic Church has something more
important than this world, more important than the well
being of man here. It regards this life as an opportunity
for joining that Church, for accepting that creed, and for
the saving of your soul.
If the Catholic Church is right in its premises, it is
right in its conclusion. If it is necessary to believe the
Catholic creed in ordei’ to obtain eternal joy, then, of
course nothing else in this world is, comparatively
speaking, of the slightest importance. Consequently, the
Catholic Church has been, and still is, the enemy of
intellectual freedom, of investigation, of inquiry—in
other words, the enemy of progress in secular things.
The result of this was an effort to compel all men to
accept the belief necessary to salvation. This effort
naturally divided itself into persuasion and persecution.
It will be admitted that the good man is kind, merciful,
charitable, forgiving and just. A church must be judged
by the same standard. Has the Church been merciful ?
Has it been “ fruitful in the good things ” of justice,
charity, and forgiveness ? Can a good man, believing a
�12
ROME OR REASON.
good doctrine, persecute for opinion’s sake ? If the
Church imprisons a man for the expression of an honest
opinion, is it not certain, either that the doctrine of the
Church is wrong, or that the Church is bad ? Both can
not be good. “ Sanctity ” without goodness is impossible.
Thousands of “ saints ” have been the most malicious of
the human race. If the history of the world proves
anything, it proves that the Catholic Church was for many
centuries the most merciless institution that ever existed
among men. I cannot believe that the instruments of
persecution were made and used by the eminently good ;
neither can I believe that honest people were imprisoned,
tortured, and burned at the stake by a Church that was
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things.”
And let me say here that I have no Protestant prejudices
against Catholicism, and have no Catholic prejudices
against.Protestantism. I regard all religions either with
out prejudice or with the same prejudice. They were all,
according to my belief, devised by men, and all have for
a foundation ignorance of this world and fear of the next.
All the gods have been made by men. They are all
equally powerful and equally useless. I like some of
them better than I do others, for the same reason that I
admire some characters in fiction more than I do others.
I prefer Miranda to Caliban, but have not the slightest
idea that either of them existed. So I prefer Jupiter to
Jehovah, although perfectly satisfied that both are myths.
I believe myself to be in a frame of mind to justly and
fairly consider the claims of different religions, believing
as I do that all are wrong, and admitting as I do that there
is some good in all.
When one speaks of the “ inexhaustible fruitfulness in
all good things ” of the Catholic Church, we remember
the horrors and atrocities of the Inquisition—the rewards
offered by the Roman Church for the capture and murder
of honest men. We remember the Dominican Order, the
members of which, upheld by the Vicar of Christ,
pursued the heretics like sleuth hounds, through many
centuries.
The Church, “ inexhaustible in fruitfulness in all good
things,” not only imprisoned and branded and burned the
living, but violated the dead. It robbed graves, to the
-end that it might convict corpses of heresy—to the end
�ROME OR REASON.
13
that it might take from widows their portions and from
orphans their patrimony.
We remember the millions in the darkness of dungeons
—the millions who perished by the sword—the vast
multitudes destroyed in flames—those who were flayed
alive—those who were blinded—those whose tongues
were cut out—those into whose ears were poured molten
lead—those whose eyes were deprived of their lids—
those who were tortured and tormented in every way by
which pain could be inflicted and human nature over
come.
And we remember, too, the exultant cry of the Church
over the bodies of her victims : “Their bodies were
burned here, but their souls are now tortured in hell.”
We remember that the Church, by treachery, bribery,
perjury, and the commission of every possible crime, got
possession and control of Christendom, and we know the
use that was made of this power—that it was used to
brutalise, degrade, stupefy, and “ sanctify ” the children
of men. We know also that the Vicars of Christ were
persecutors for opinion’s sake—that they sought to
destroy the liberty of thought through fear—that they
endeavored to make every brain a Bastille in which the
mind should be a convict—that they endeavored to make
every tongue a prisoner, watched by a familiar of the
Inquisition—and that they threatened punishment here,
imprisonment here, burnings here, and, in the name of
their God, eternal imprisonment and eternal burnings
hereafter.
We know, too, that the Catholic Church was, during all
the years of its power, the enemy of every science. It
preferred magic to medicine, relics to remedies, priests to
physicians. It thought more of astrologers than of
astronomers.
It hated geologists—it persecuted the
chemist, and imprisoned the naturalist, and opposed
every discovery calculated to improve the condition of
mankind.
It is impossible to foi-get the persecutions of the Cathari,
the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Hugue
nots, and of every sect that had the courage to think just
a little for itself. Think of a woman—the mother of a
family—taken from her children and burned, on account
of her view as to the three natures of Jesus Christ. Think
�HOME OR REASON.
14
of the Catholic Church—an institution with a Divine
FonX presided over by the agent of God-punisbmg
a woman for giving a cup of cold water to a
who had been anathematised. Think of this Church,
“ fruitful in all good things,” launching its curse at an
honest man—not only cursing him from the crown of his
head to the soles of his feet with a fiendish
but having at the same time the impudence to call on
God, and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ, and the Virgin
Marv to join in the curse ; and to curse him no _ y
herey’but forever hereafter—calling upon all the saints
and’upon all the redeemed to join in a hallelujah of
cursesP so that earth and heaven should reverbrate with
countless curses launched at a human being simply or
having expressed an honest thought.
,
This Church, so “fruitful in all good things " invented
crimes that it might punish, This Church tried men or
a “suspicion of heresy’’—imprisoned themfoi ^e vice
of being suspected—stripped them of all they bad_ on
earth and allowed them to rot in dungeons, because they
were guilty of the crime of having been suspected. This
W It Vtoo late^to talk about the “invincible stability ” of
the Seventh, in the Eighth, or
in the Ninth centuries. It was not invincible m Germany
in T other’s day. It was not invincible m the Low
Countries. It was not invincible in Scotland, or in
England It was not invincible in France. It is not
invincible in Italy. It is not supreme m any intellectual
centre of the world. It does not .triumph m Paris, or
Berlin • it is not dominant m London, m England ,
neither’ is it triumphant in the United States. It has not
within its fold the philosophers, the statesmen, and the
thinkers who are the leaders of the human race.
It is claimed that Catholicism “ interpenetrates all the
nations of the civilised world,” and that m some it holds
the whole nation in its unity.
.
in
I suppose the Catholic Church is more powerful 1
Spain than in any other nation. The history of this
nation demonstrates the result of Catholic supremacy, the
result of an acknowledgment by a people that a certain
religion is too sacred to be examined.
�ROME OR REASOK.
15
Without attempting in an article of this character to
point out the many causes that contributed to the adoption
of Catholicism by the Spanish people, it is enough to say
that Spain, of all nations, has been and is the most
thoroughly Catholic, and the most thoroughly inter
penetrated and dominated by the spirit of the Church of
Rome.
Spain used the sword of the Church. In the name of
religion it endeavored to conquer the infidel world. It
drove from its territory the Moors, not because they were
bad, not because they were idle and dishonest, but because
they were infidels. It expelled the Jews, not because
they were ignorant or vicious, but because they were
unbelievers. It drove out the Moriscoes, and deliberately
made outcasts of the intelligent, the industrious, the
honest and the useful, because they were not Catholics.
It leaped like a wild beast upon the Low Countries, for
the destruction of Protestantism. It covered the seas
with its fleets, to destroy the intellectual liberty of man.
And not only so—it established the Inquisition within its
borders. It imprisoned the honest, it burned the noble,
and succeeded after many years of devotion to the true
faith, in destroying the industry, the intelligence, the
usefulness, the genius, the nobility and the wealth of a
nation. It became a wreck, a jest of the conquered, and
excited the pity of its former victims.
In this period of degradation, the Catholic Church held
“ the whole nation in its unity.”
At last Spain began to deviate from the path of the
Church. It made a treaty with an infidel power. In 1782
it became humble enough, and wise enough, to be friends
with Turkey. It made treaties with Tripoli and Algiers
and the Barbary States.
It had become too poor to
ransom the prisoners taken by these powers. It began to
appreciate the fact that it could neither conquer nor
convert the world by the sword.
Spain has progressed in the arts and sciences, in all
that tends to enrich and ennoble a nation, in the precise
proportion that she has lost faith in the Catholic Church.
This may be said of every other nation in Christendom'
Torquemada is dead; Castelar is alive. The dungeons of
the Inquisition are empty, and a little light has penetrated
the clouds and mists—not much, but a little. Spain is
�16
ROME OR REASON.
not yet clothed and in her right mind. A few years ago
the cholera visited Madrid and other cities.. Physicians
were mobbed. Processions of saints carried the host
through the streets for the purpose of staying the plague.
The streets were not cleaned ; the sewers were filled.
Filth and faith, old partners, reigned supreme. The
Church, “eminent for its sanctity,” stood in the light and
cast its shadow on the ignorant and the prostrate. The
Church, in its “inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good
things,” allowed its children to perish through ignorance,
and used the diseases it had produced as an instrument
ality to further enslave its votaries and its victims.
No one will deny that many of its priests exhibited
heroism of the highest order in visiting the sick and
administering what are called the consolations of religion
to the dying, and in burying the dead. It i§ necessary
neither to deny nor disparage the self-denial and goodness
of these men. But their religion did more than all other
causes to produce the very evils that called. for the
exhibition of self-denial and heroism. One scientist in
control of Madrid could have prevented the plague. In
such cases, cleanliness is far better than “godliness”;
science is superior to superstition ; drainage much better
than divinity ; therapeutics more excellent than theology.
Goodness is not enough—intelligence is necessary.
Faith is not sufficient, creeds are helpless, and prayers
fmitloss*
It is admitted that the Catholic Church exists in many
nations; that it is dominated, at least in a great degree, by
the Bishop of Rome—that it is international in that sense,
and that in that sense it has what may be. called a
supernationai
xiw same,
“ supernational unity.” The muj-c, however, is true of
the Masonic fraternity. It exists in many nations, but it
is not a national body. It is in the same sense extra
national, in the same sense international, and has in t e
same sense a supernational unity. So the same may be
said of other societies. This, however, does not tend to
prove that anything supernational is supernatural.
It is also admitted that in. faith, worship, ceremonial,
discipline and government, that the Catholic Church is
substantially the same wherever it exists. . This estab
lishes the unity, but not the divinity of the institution.
The church that does not allow investigation, that
�ROME OR REASON.
17
teaches that all doubts are wicked, attains unity through
tyranny—that is, monotony by repression. Wherever
man has had something like freedom differences have
appeared, heresies have taken root, and the divisions have
become permanent. New sects have been born and the
Catholic Church has been weakened. The boast of unity
is the confession of tyranny.
It is insisted that the unity of the Church substantiates
its claim to divine origin. This is asserted over and over
again, in many ways ; and yet in the Cardinal’s article is
found this strange mingling of boast and confession :
Was it only by the human power of man that the unity,
external and internal, which for fourteen hundred years
had been supreme, was once more restored in the Council
of Constance, never to be broken again ? ”
By this it is admitted that the internal and external
unity of the Catholic Church has been broken, and that
it required more than human power to restore it. Then
the boast is made that it will never be broken again. Yet
it is asserted that the internal and external unity of the
Catholic Church is the great fact that demonstrates its
divine origin.
Now if this internal and external unity was broken,
and remained broken for years, there was an interval
during which the Church had no internal or external
unity, and during which the evidence of divine origin
failed. The unity was broken in spite of the Divine
Founder. This is admitted by the use of the word
“ again.” The unbroken unity of the Church is asserted,
and upon this assertion is based the claim of divine
origin ; it is then admitted that the unity was broken.
The argument is then shifted, and the claim is made that
it required more than human power to restore the internal
and external unity of the Church, and that the restora
tion, not the unity, is proof of the divine origin. Is there
any contradiction beyond this ?
Let us state the case in another way. Let us suppose
that a man has a sword which he claims was made by
God, stating that the reason he knows that God made the
sword is that it never had been and never could be
broken. Now if it was afterwards ascertained that it had
been broken, and the owner admitted that it had been,
what would be thought of him if he then took the ground
B
�18
ROME OR REASON.
that it had been welded, and that the welding was the
evidence that it was of divine origin ?
A prophecy is then indulged in, to the effect that the
internal and external unity of the Church can never be
broken again. It is admitted that it was broken, it is
asserted that it was divinely restored, and then’ it is
declared that it is never to be broken again. No reason
is given for this prophecy ; it must be born of the facts
already stated. Put in a form to be easily understood it
is this :
’
We know that the unity of the Church can never be
broken, because the Church is of divine origin.
We know that it was broken; but this does not weaken
the argument, because it was restored by God, and it has
not been broken since.
Therefore, it never can be broken again.
It is stated that the Catholic Church is immutable, and
that its immutability establishes its claim to divine origin.
Was it immutable when its unity, internal and external,
was broken ? Was it precisely the same after its unity
was broken that it was before ? Was it precisely the same
after its unity was divinely restored that it was while
broken? Was it universal while it was without unity?
Which of the fragments was universal—which was
immutable ?
The fact that the Catholic Church is obedient to the
pope, establishes, not the supernatural origin of the
Church, but the mental slavery of its members. It estab
lishes the fact that it is a successful organisation ; that it
is cunningly devised ; that it destroys the mental inde
pendence, and that whoever absolutely submits to its
authority loses the jewel of his soul.
The fact that Catholics are to a great extent obedient to
the pope, establishes nothing except the thoroughness of
the organisation.
.. How was the Roman empire formed ? By what means
did that Great Power hold in bondage the then known
world ? How is it that a despotism is established? How
is it that the few enslave the many ? How is it that the
nobility live on the labor of the peasants ? The answer
is in one word, Organisation. The organised few
triumph over the unorganised many. The few hold the
�ROME OR REASON,
19
sword and the purse. The unorganised are overcome in
detail—terrorised, brutalised, robbed, conquered.
We must remember that when Christianity was estab
lished the world was ignorant, credulous and cruel. The
gospel with its idea of forgiveness, with its heaven and
hell, was suited to the barbarians among whom it was
preached. Let it be understood, once for all, that Christ
had but little to do with Christianity. The people
became convinced—being ignorant, stupid and credulous
—that the Church held the keys of heaven and hell..
The foundation for the most terrible mental tyranny that
has existed among men was in this way laid. The
Catholic Church enslaved to the extent of its power. It
resorted to every possible form of fraud ; it perverted
every good instinct of the human heart ; it rewarded
every vice ; it resorted to every artifice that ingenuity
could devise, to reach the highest round of power. It
tortured the accused to make them confess; it tortured wit
nesses to compel the commission of perjury ; it tortured
children for the purpose of making them convict their
parents; it compelled men to establish their own innocence;
it imprisoned without limit; it had the malicious patience
to wait; it left the accused without trial, and left them
in dungeons until released by death. There is no crime
that the Catholic Church did not commit, no cruelty that
it did not practice, no form of treachery that it did not
reward, and no virtue that it did not persecute. It was
the greatest and most powerful enemy of human rights.
It did all that organisation, cunning, piety, self-denial,
heroism, treachery, zeal and brute force could do to
enslave the children of men. It was the enemy of
intelligence, the assassin of liberty, and the destroyer of
progress. It loaded the noble with chains and-th©
infamous with honors. In one hand it carried the alms
dish, in the other a dagger. It argued with the sword,
persuaded with poison, and convinced with the faggot.
It is impossible to see how the divine origin of a Church
can be established by showing that hundreds of bishops
have visited the pope.
Does the fact that millions of the faithful visit Mecca
establish the truth of the Koran ? Is it a scene for
congratulation when the bishops of thirty nations kneel
before a man ? Is it not humiliating to know that man
�20
ROME OR REASON.
is willing to kneel at the feet of man ? Could a noble
man demand, or joyfully receive, the humiliation of his
fellows ?
As a rule, arrogance and humility go together. He
who in power compels his fellow man to kneel, wili him
self kneel when weak. The tyrant is a cringer in power;
■a cringer is a tyrant out of power. Great men stand face
to face. They meet on equal terms. The cardinal who
kneels in the presence of the pope, wants the bishop to
kneel in his presence ; and the bishop who kneels
■demands that the priest shall kneel to him ; and the priest
who kneels demands that they in lower orders shall
kneel ; and all, from pope to the lowest—that is to say,
from pope to exorcist, from pope to the one in charge of
the bones of saints—all demand that the people, the lay
men, those upon whom they live, shall kneel to them.
The man of free and noble spirit will not kneel.
'Courage has no knees. Fear kneels, or falls upon its
•ashen face.
The cardinal insists that the pope is the Vicar of
Christ, and that all popes have been. What is a Vicar
of Jesus Christ ? He is a substitute in office. He stands
in the place, or occupies the position in relation to the
Church, in relation to the world, that Jesus Christ would
occupy were he the pope at Rome. In other words, he
takes Christ’s place ; so that, according to the doctrine of
the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ himself is present in
the person of the pope.
We all know that a good man may employ a bad agent.
A good king might leave his realm and put in his place a
tyrant and a wretch. The good man, and the good king,
■cannot certainly know what manner of man the agent is
—what kind of person the vicar is—consequently the bad
may be chosen. But if the king appointed a bad vicar,
knowing him to be bad, knowing that he would oppress
the people, knowing that he would imprison and burn
the noble and generous, what excuse can be imagined for
such a king ?
Now if the Church is of divine origin, and if each pope
is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, he must have been chosen
by Jesus Christ ; and when he was chosen, Christ must
have known exactly what* his Vicar would do. Can we
believe that an infinitely wise and good Being would
�ROME OR REASON.
21
choose immoral, dishonest, ignorant, malicious, heartless,
fiendish and inhuman vicars ?
The Cardinal admits that “ the history of Christianity
is the history of the Church, and that the history of the
Church is the history of the Pontiffs,” and he then de
clares that “the greatest statesmen and rulers that the
world has ever seen are the Popes of Rome.”
Let me call attention to a few passages in Draper’s
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe.
“ Constantine was one of the Vicars of Christ. After
wards, Stephen IV. was chosen. The eyes of Constantine
were then put out by Stephen, acting in Christ’s place.
The tongue of the Bishop Theodoras was amputated by
the man who had been substituted for God. This bishop
was left in a dungeon to perish of thirst. Pope Leo III.
was seized in the street and forced into a church, where
the nephews of Pope Adrian attempted to put out his
eyes and cut off his tongue. His successor, Stephen V
was driven ignominiously from Rome. His successor,
Paschal I., was accused of blinding and murdering two
ecclesiastics in the Lateran Palace. John VIII., unable
to resist the Mohammedans, was compelled to pay them
tribute.
“At this time, the Bishop of Naples was in secret
alliance with the Mohammedans, and they divided with
this Catholic bishop the plunder they collected from other
Catholics. This bishop was excommunicated by the
pope ; afterwards he gave him absolution because he be
trayed the chief Mohammedans, and assassinated others.
There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy to murder the pope,
and some of the treasures of the Church were seized, and
the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened with false keys to
admit the Saracens. Pormosus, who had been engaged
in these transactions, who had been excommunicated as
a conspirator for the murder of Pope John, was himself
elected pope in 891. Boniface VI. was his successor.
He had been deposed from the diaconate and from the
priesthood for his immoral and lewd life. Stephen VII.
was the next pope, and he had the dead body of Formosus
taken from the grave, clothed in papal habiliments,
propped up in a chair and tried before a Council. The
corpse was found guilty, three fingers were cut off
and the body cast into the Tiber. Afterwards Stephen
�'22
ROME OR REASON.
VII., this Vicar of Christ, was thrown into prison and
strangled.
“ From 896 to 900, five popes were consecrated. Leo V.,
in less than two months after he became pope, was cast
into prison by Christopher, one of his chaplains. This
Christopher usurped his place, and in a little while was
expelled from Rome by Sergius III., who became pope
in 905. This pope lived in criminal intercourse with the
celebrated Theodora, who with her daughters Marozia
and Theodora, both prostitutes, exercised an extraordi
nary control over him. The love of Theodora was also
shared by John X. She gave him the Archbishopric of
Ravenna, and made him pope in 915. The daughter
of Theodora overthrew this pope. She surprised him
in the Lateran Palace. His brother, Peter, was killed;
the pope was thrown into prison, where he was afterwards
murdered. Afterward, this Marozia, daughter of Theo
dora, made her own son pope, John XI. Many affirmed
that Pope Sergius was his father, but his mother inclined
to attribute him to her husband Alberic, whose brother
Guido she afterwards married. Another of her sons,
Alberic, jealous of his brother, John the Pope, cast him
and their mother into prison. Alberic’s son was then
elected pope as John XII.
“ John was nineteen years old when he became the
Vicar of Christ. His reign was characterised by the most
shocking immoralities, so that the Emperor Otho I. was
compelled by the German clergy to interfere. He was
tried. It appeared that John had received bribes for the
consecration of bishops ; that he had ordained one who
was only ten years old ; that he was charged
with incest, and with so many adulteries that the
Lateran Palace had become a brothel.
He put out
the eyes of one ecclesiastic; he maimed another
—both dying in consequence of their injuries. He was
given to drunkeness and to gambling.
He*was de
posed at last, and Leo VII. elected in his stead. Subse
quently he got the upper hand. He seized his an
tagonists ; he cut off the hand of one, the nose, the finger,
and the tongue of others. His life was eventually
brought to an end by the vengeance of a man whose wife
he had seduced.”
And yet, I admit that the most infamous popes, the
�ROME OR REASON.
S3
most heartless and fiendish bishops, friars, and priests
were models of mercy, charity, and justice when compared
with the orthodox God—with the God they worshipped.
These popes, these bishops, these priests could persecute
only for a few years—they could burn only for a few
moments—but their God threatened to imprison and burn
forever ; and their God is as much worse than they were,
as hell is worse than the Inquisition.
“ John XIII. was strangled in prison. Boniface VII.
imprisoned Benedict VII., and starved him to death.
John XIV. was secretly put to death in the dungeons of
the castle of St. Angelo. The corpse of Boniface was
dragged by the populace through the streets.”
It must be remembered that the popes were assassinated
by Catholics—murdered by the faithful—that one Vicar
of Christ strangled another Vicar of Christ, and that these
men were “ the greatest rulers and the greatest statesmen
of the earth.”
“ Pope John XVI. was seized, his eyes put out, his nose
cut off, his tongue torn from his mouth, and he was sent
through the streets mounted on an ass, with his face to
the tail. Benedict IX., a boy of less than twelve years of
age, was raised to the apostolic throne. One of his suc
cessors, Victor III., declared that the life of Benedict was
so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that he shuddered to
describe it. He ruled like a captain of banditti. The
people, unable to bear longer his adulteries, his homicides
and his abominations, rose against him, and in despair of
maintaining his position, he put up his papacy to auction,
and it was bought by a Presbyter named John, who
became Gregory VI., in the year of grace 1045. Well
may we ask, Were these the Vicegerents of God upon
earth—these, who had truly reached that goal beyond
which the last effort of human wickedness cannot pass ?”
It may be sufficient to say that there is no crime that
man can commit that has not been committed by the
Vicars of Christ. They have inflicted every possible
torture, violated every natural right. Greater monsters
the human race has not produced.
Among the “ some two hundred and fifty-eight ” Vicars
of Christ there were probably some good men. This
would have happened even if the intention had been to
get all bad men, for the reason that man reaches perfec
�24
ROME OR REASON.
tion neither in good nor in evil; but if they were selected
by Christ himself, if they were selected by a Church with
a divine origin and under divine guidance, then there is
no way to account for the selection of a bad one. If one
hypocrite was duly elected pope—one murderer, one
strangler, one starver—this demonstrates that all the popes
were selected by men, and by men only, that the claim
of divine guidance is born of zeal and uttered without
knowledge.
But who were the Vicars of Christ ? How many have
there been ? Cardinal Manning himself does not know.
He is not sure. He says : “ Starting from St. Peter to
Leo XIII., there have been some two hundred and fifty
eight Pontiffs claiming to be recognised by the whole
Catholic unity as successors of St. Peter and Vicars of
Jesus Christ.” Why did he use the word “some"?
Why “ claiming ” ? Does he positively know ? Is it
possible that the present Vicar of Christ is not certain as
to the number of his predecessors ? Is he infallible in
faith and fallible in fact ?
PART II.
“ If we live thus tamely,—
To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet,—
Farewell nobility.”
No one will deny that “the pope speaks to many people
in many nations : that he treats with empires and govern
ments,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor from
Constantinople such a voice goes forth.”
How does the pope speak ? What does he say ?
He speaks against the liberty of man—against the
progress of the human race. He speaks to calumniate
thinkers, and to warn the faithful against the discoveries
of science. He speaks for the destruction of civilisation.
Who listens ? Do astronomers, geologists and scientists
put the hand to the ear fearing that an accent may be
lost ? Does France listen ? Does Italy hear ? Is not the
Church weakest at its centre ? Do those who have raised
�ROME OR REASON.
25
Italy from the dead, and placed her again among the
great nations, pay attention ? Does Great Britain care for
this voice—this moan, this groan—of the Middle Ages ?
Do the words of Leo XIII. impress the intelligence of the
Great Republic ? Can anything be more absurd than for
the vicar of Christ to attack a demonstration of science
with a passage of Scripture, or a quotation from one of
the “ Fathers ” ?
Compare the popes with the kings and queens of
England. Infinite wisdom had but little to do with the
selection of these monarchs, and yet they were far better
than any equal number of consecutive popes. This is
faint praise, even for kings and queens, but it shows that
chance succeeded in getting better rulers for England
than “ Infinite Wisdom ” did for the Church of Rome.
Compare the popes with the presidents of the Republic
elected by the people.
If Adams had murdered
Washington, and Jefferson had imprisoned Adams, and if
Madison had cut out Jefferson’s tongue, and Monroe had
assassinated Madison, and John Quincy Adams had
poisoned Monroe, and General Jackson had hung Adams
and his Cabinet, we might say that presidents had been as
virtuous as popes. But if this had happened, the verdict
of the world would be that the people are not capable of
selecting their presidents.
But this voice from Rome is growing feebler day by
day ; so feeble that the Cardinal admits that the vicar of
God, and the supernatural Church, “ are being tormented
by Falck laws, by Mancini laws and by Crispi laws.” In
other words, this representative of God, this substitute of
Christ, this Church of divine origin, this supernatural
institution—pervaded by the Holy Ghost—are being
“ tormented ” by three politicians. Is it possible that
this patriotic trinity is more powerful than the other ?*
It is claimed that if the Catholic Church “ be only a
human system, built up by the intellect, will and energy
of men, the adversaries must prove it—that the burden is
upon them.”
As a general thing, institutions are natural. If this
Church is supernatural, it is the one exception. The
affirmative is with those who claim that it is of divine
origin. So far as we know, all governments and all
creeds are the work of man. No one believes that Rome
�26
ROME OR REASON.
was a supernatural production, and yet its beginnings
were as small as those of the Catholic Church. Commenc
ing in weakness, Rome grew, and fought, and conquered,
until it was believed that the sky bent above a subjugated
world. And yet all was natural. For every effect there
was an efficient cause.
The Catholic asserts that all other religions have been
produced by man—that Brahminism and Buddhism, the
religion of Isis and Osiris, the marvellous mythologies of
Greece and Rome, were the work of the human mind.
From these religions Catholicism has borrowed. Long
before Catholicism was born, it was believed that women
had borne children whose fathers were gods. The Trinity
was promulgated in Egypt centuries before the birth of
Moses. Celibacy was taught by the ancient Nazarenes
and Essenes, by the priests of Egypt and India, by
mendicant monks, and by the piously insane of many
countries long before the Apostles lived. The Chinese
tell us that “ when there were but one man and one
woman upon the earth, the woman refused to sacrifice
her virginity even to people the globe ; and the gods,
honoring her purity, granted that she should conceive
beneath the gaze of her lover’s eyes, and a virgin mother
became the parent of humanity.
The founders of many religions have insisted that it
was the duty of man to renounce the pleasures of sense,
and millions before our era took the vows of chastity,
poverty and obedience, and most cheerfully lived upon
the labor of others.
The sacraments of baptism and confirmation are far
(older than the Church of Rome. The Eucharist is pagan.
Long before popes began to murder each other, pagans ate
cakes—the flesh of Ceres, and drank wine—the blood of
Bacchus. Holy water flowed in the Ganges and Nile,
priests interceded for the people, and anointed the dying.
It will not do to say that every successful religion that
has taught unnatural doctrines, unnatural practices, must
of necessity have been of divine origin. In most religions
there has been a strange mingling of the good and bad,
of the merciful and cruel, of the loving and malicious.
Buddhism taught the universal brotherhood of man,
insisted on the development of the mind, and this religion
was propagated not by the sword, but by preaching, by
�ROME OR REASON.
27
persuasion and by kindness—yet in many things it wag
contrary to the human will, contrary to the human pas
sions, and contrary to good sense. Buddhism succeeded.
Can we, for this reason, say that it is a supernatural
religion ? Is the unnatural the supernatural ?
It is insisted that, while other churches have changed,
the Catholic Church alone has remained the same, and
that this fact demonstrates its divine origin.
Has the creed of Buddhism changed in three thousand
years ? Is intellectual stagnation a demonstration of
divine origin ? When anything refuses to grow, are we
certain that the seed was planted by God ? If the
Catholic Church is the same to-day that it has been for
many centuries, this proves that there has been no intel
lectual development. If men do not differ upon religious
subjects, it is because they do not think.
Differentiation is the law of growth, of progress. Every
Church must gain or lose ; it cannot remain the same ; it
must decay or grow. The fact that the Catholic Church
has not grown—that it has been petrified from the first—
does not establish divine origin ; itsimply establishes the
fact that it retards the progress of man. Everything in
nature changes—every atom is in motion—every star
moves. Nations, institutions and individuals have youth,
manhood, old age, death. This is and will be true of the
Catholic Church. It was once weak—it grew stronger—
it reached its climax of power—it began to decay—it
never can rise again. It is confronted by the dawn of
Science. In the presence of the nineteenth century it
cowers.
It is not true that “ All natural causes run to disinte
gration.”
Natural causes run to integration as well as to disinte
gration. All growth is integration, and all growth is
natural. All decay is disintegration, and all decay is
natural. Nature builds and nature destroys. When the
acorn grows—when the sunlight and rain fall upon it and
the oak rises—so far as the oak is concerned “ all natural
causes ” do not “ run to disintegration.” But there comes
a time when the oak has reached its limit, and then the
forces of nature run towards disintegration, and finally
the old oak falls. But if the Cardinal is right—if “ all
natural causes run to disintegration,” then every success
�28
ROME OR REASON.
must have been of divine origin, and nothing is natural
but destruction. This is Catholic science : “ All natural
causes run to disintegration.” What do these causes find
to disintegrate ? Nothing that is natural. The fact that
the thing is not disintegrated shows that it was and is of
supernatural origin. According to the Cardinal, the only
business of nature is to disintegrate the supernatural.
To prevent this, the supernatural needs the protection of
the Infinite. According to this doctrine, if anything
lives and grows, it does so in spite of nature. Growth,
then, is not in accordance with, but in opposition to
nature. Every plant is supernatural—it defeats the dis
integrating influences of rain and light. The generalisa
tion of the Cardinal is half the truth. It would be
equally true to say : All natural causes run to integration.
But the whole truth is that growth and decay are equal.
The Cardinal asserts that “ Christendom was created by
the world-wide Church as we see it before our eyes at
this day. Philosophers and statesmen believe it to be the
work of their own hands ; they did not make it, but they
have for three hundred years been unmaking it by refor
mations and revolutions.”
The meaning of this is that Christendom was far better
three hundred years ago than now ; that during these
three centuries Christendom has been going towards
barbarism. It means that the supernatural Church of
God has been a failure for three hundred years ; that it
has been unable to withstand the attacks of philosophers
and statesmen, and that it has been helpless in the midst
of “ reformations and revolutions.”
What was the condition of the world three hundred
years ago, the period, according to the Cardinal, in which
the Church reached the height of its influence and since
which it has been unable to withstand the rising tide of
reformation and the whirlwind of revolution ?
In that blessed time, Phillip II. was king of Spain—he
with the cramped head and the monstrous jaw. Heretics
were hunted like wild and poisonous beasts ; the in?
quisition was firmly established, and priests were busy
with rack and fire. With a zeal born of the hatred of
man and the love of God, the Church with every
instrument of torture, touched every nerve in the human
body.
�ROME OR REASON.
29
In those happy clays the Duke qf Alva was devastating
the homes of Holland ; heretics were buried alive—their
tongues were torn from their mouths, their lids from
their eyes; the Armada was on the sea for the destruction
of the heretics of England, and the Moriscoes—a million
and a half of industrious people—were being driven by
Sword and flame from their homes. The dews had been
expelled from Spain. This Catholic country had suc
ceeded in driving intelligence and industry from its
territory ; and this had been done with cruelty, with a
ferocity, unequalled in the*annals of crime. Nothing
was left but ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, credulity, the
Inquisition, the seven sacraments and the seven deadly
Sins. And yet a Cardinal of the nineteenth century,
living in the land of Shakespeare, regrets the change that
has been wrought by the intellectual efforts, by the dis
coveries, by the inventions and heroism of three hundred
years.
Three hundred years ago, Charles IX., in France, son
of Catherine de Medici, in the year of grace 1572—after
nearly sixteen centuries of Catholic Christianity—after
hundreds of vicars of ^Christ had sat in St. Peter’s chair—
after the’natural passions of man had been “ softened ” by
the creed of Rome—came the Massacre of St. Bartholo
mew, the result of a conspiracy between the Vicar of
Christ, Philip II., Charles IX., and his fiendish mother.
Let the Cardinal read the account of this massacre once
more, and after reading it, imagine that he sees the
gashed and mutilated bodies of thousands of men and
women, and then let him say that he regrets the revolu
tions and reformations of three hundred years.
About three hundred years ago Clement VIII., Vicar of
Christ, acting in God’s place, substitute of the Infinite,
persecuted Giordano Bruno even unto death. This great’
this sublime man, was tried for heresy. He had ventured
to assert the rotary motion of the earth ; he had hazarded
the conjecture that there were in the fields of infinite
space worlds larger and more glorious than ours. For
these low and groveling thoughts, for this contradiction
of the word and vicar of God, this man was imprisoned
for many years. But his noble spirit was not broken,
and finally in the year 1600, by the orders of the infam
ous Vicar, he was chained to the stake. Priests believing
�30
ROME OR REASON.
in the doctrine of universal forgiveness—priests who
when smitten upon one cheek turned the other—carried
with a kind of ferocious joy faggots to the feet of this
incomparable man. These disciples of “Our Lord” were
made joyous as the flames, like serpents, climbed around
the body of Bruno. In a few moments the brave thinker
was dead, and the priests who had burned him fell upon
their knees and asked the infinite God to continue the
blessed work for ever in hell.
There are two things that cannot exist in the same
universe—an infinite God and a martyr.
Does the Cardinal regret that kings and emperors are
not now engaged in the extermination of Protestants ?
Does he regret that dungeons of the Inquisition are no
longer crowded with the best and bravest? Does he
long for the fires of the auto da fe1
?
In coming to a conclusion as to the origin of the
Catholic Church—in determining the truth of the claim
of infallibility—we are not restricted to the physical
achievements of that Church, or to the history of its
propagation, or to the rapidity of its growth.
This Church has a creed ; and if this Church is of
divine origin—if its head is the Vicar of Christ, and, as
such, infallible in matters of faith and morals, this creed
must be true. Let us start with the supposition that God
exists, and that he is infinitely wise, powerful and good—
and this is only a supposition. Now, if the creed is
foolish, absurd and cruel, it cannot be of divine origin.
We find in this creed the following :
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it isnecessary that he hold the Catholic faith.”
It is not necessary, before all things, that he be good,,
honest, merciful, charitable and just. Creed is more im
portant than conduct. The most important of all things
is, that he hold the Catholic faith. There were thousands
of years during which it was not necessary to hold that
faith, because that faith did not exist; and yet during
that time the virtues were just as important as now, just
as important as they ever can be. Millions of the noblest
of the human race never heard of this creed. Millions
of the bravest and best have heard of it, examined, and
rejected it. Millions of the most infamous have believed
it, and because of their belief, or notwithstanding their
�ROME OR REASON.
31
belief^ have murdered millions of their fellows. We
know that men can be, have been, and are just as wicked
with it as without it. We know that it is not necessary
to believe it to be good, loving, tender, noble and self
denying. We admit that millions who have believed it
have also been self-denying and heroic, and that millions,
by such belief, were not prevented from torturing and
destroying the helpless.
Now if all who believed it were good, and all who
rejected it were bad, then there might be some propriety
in saying that “ whoever will be saved, before all things
it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.” But as
the experience of mankind is otherwise, the declaration
becomes absurd, ignorant and cruel.
There is still another clause :
u Which faith, except every one do keep entire and
inviolate, without doubt he shall everlastingly perish.”
We now have both sides of this wonderful truth : The
believer will be saved, the unbeliever will be lost. We
know that faith is not the child or servant of the will.
We know that belief is a conclusion based upon what the
mind supposes to be true. We know that it is not an act
of the will. Nothing can be more absurd than to save a
man because he is not intelligent enough to accept the
truth, and nothing can be more infamous than to damn
a man because he is intelligent enough to reject the false.
It resolves itself into a question of intelligence. If the
creed is true, then a man rejects it because he lacks
intelligence. Is this a crime for which a man should
everlastingly perish ? If the creed is false, then a man
accepts it because he lacks intelligence. In both cases
the crime is exactly the same. If a man is to be damned
for rejecting the truth, certainly he should not be saved
for accepting the false. This one clause demonstrates
that a being of infinite wisdom and goodness did not
write it. It also demonstrates that it was the work of
men who had neither wisdom nor a sense of justice.
What is this Catholic faith that must be held ? It is
this :
■“ That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the
substance.”
Why should an Infinite Being demand worship ? Why
�32
ROME OR REASON.
should one God wish to be worshipped as three ? Why
should three Gods wish to be worshipped as one ? Why
should we pray to one God and think of three, or pray to
three Gods and think of one ? Can this increase the
happiness of the one or of the three ? Is it possible to
think of one as three, or of three as one ? If you think
of three as one, can you think of one as none, or of none
as one ? When you think of three as one, what do you
do with the other two ? You must not “ confound the
persons ”—they must be kept separate. When you think
of one as three, how do you get the other two ? You
must not “divide the substance.” Is it possible to write
greater contradictions than these ?
This creed demonstrates the human origin of the
Catholic Church. Nothing could be more unjust than to
punish man for unbelief—for the expression of honest
thought—for having been guided by his reason—for
having acted in accordance with his best judgment.
Another claim is made, to the effect “ that the Catholic
Church has filled the world with the true knowledge of
the one true God, and that it has destroyed all idols by
light instead of by fire.”
The Catholic Church described the true God as a being
who would inflict eternal pain on his weak and erring
children ; described him as a fickle, quick-tempered,
unreasonable deity, whom honesty enraged, and whom
flattery governed ; one who loved to see fear upon its
knees, ignorance with closed eyes and open mouth ; one
who delighted in useless self-denial, who loved to hear
the sighs and sobs of suffering nuns, as they lay prostrate
on dungeon floors ; one who was delighted when the
husband deserted his family and lived alone in some cave
in the far wilderness, tormented by dreams and driven
to insanity by prayer and penance, by fasting and faith.
According the Catholic Church, the true God enjoyed
the agonies of heretics. He loved the smell of their
burning flesh ; he applauded with wide palms when
philosophers were flayed alive, and to him the auto da fe
was a divine comedy.
The shrieks of wives, the
cries of babes when fathers were being burned,
gave contrast, heightened the effect and filled his cup
with joy. This true God did not know the shape of the
earth he had made, and had forgotten the orbits of the
�BOMB OR REASON.
33
stars. > “ The stream of light which descended from the
beginning” was propagated by faggot to faggot, until
Christendom was filled with the devouring fires of
faith.
It may also be said that the Catholic Church filled the
world with the true knowledge of the one true Devil. It
filled the air with malicious phantoms, crowded innocent
Sleep with leering fiends, and gave the world to the
domination of witches and wizards, spirits and spooks,
goblins and ghosts, and butchered and burned thousandsfor the commission of impossible crimes.
It is contended that: “ In this true knowledge of the
Divine Nature was revealed to man their own relation toa Creator as sons to a Father.”
This tender relation was revealed by the Catholics tothe Pagans, the Arians, the Cathari, the Waldenses, the
Albigenses, the heretics, the Jews, the Moriscoes, the
Protestants—to the natives of the West Indies, of Mexico,
of Peru—to philosophers, patriots and thinkers. All these
victims were taught to regard the true God as a loving
Father, and this lesson was taught with every instrument
of torture—with brandings and burnings, with Sayings and
flames. The world was filled with cruelty and credulity,
ignorance and intolerance and the soil in which all these
horrors grew was the true knowledge of the one true God,,
and the true knowledge of the one true Devil. And yet,
we are compelled to say, that the one true Devil described
by the Catholic Church was not as malevolent as the one
true God.
Is it true that the Catholic Church overthrew idolatry ?
What is idolatry ? What shall we say of the worship of
popes—of the doctrine of the Real presence, of divine
honors paid to saints, of sacred vestments, of holy water,
of consecrated cups and plates, of images and relics, of
amulets and charms ?
The Catholic Church filled the world with the spirit of
idolatry. It abandoned the idea of continuit5r in nature,
it denied the integrity of cause and effect. The govern
ment of the world was the composite result of the caprice
of God, the malice of Satan, the prayers of the faithfulsoftened, it may be, by the charity of Chance. Yet the
Cardinal asserts, without the preface of a smile, that
“ Demonology was overthrown by the Church, with the
•
c
�34
ROME OR REASON,
assistance of forces that were above nature; ” and in the
same breath gives birth to this enlightened statement :
“Beelzebub is not divided against himself.” Is a belief
in Beelzebub a belief in demonology ? Has the Cardinal
forgotten the Council of Nice, held in the year of grace
787, that declared the worship of images to be lawful ?
Did that infallible Council, under the guidance of the
Holy Ghost, destroy idolatry ?
The Cardinal takes the ground that marriage is a sacra
ment, and therefore indissoluble, and he also insists that
celibacy is far better than marriage—holier than a sacra
ment—that marriage is not the highest state, but that
« the state of virginity unto death is thejhighest condition
of man and woman.”
The highest ideal of a family is where all are equal—
where love has superseded authority—where each seeks
the good of all, and where none obey—where no religion
can sunder hearts, and with which no church can in
terfere.
The real marriage is based on mutual affection—the
ceremony is but the outward evidence of the inward
flame. To this contract there are but two parties. The
Church is an impudent intruder. Marriage is made public
to the end that the real contract may be known, so that
the world can see that the parties have been actuated by
the highest and holiest motives that find expression in
the acts of human beings. The man and woman are not
joined together by God, or by the Church, or by the
State. The Church and State may prescribe certain
•ceremonies, certain formalities—but all these are only
•evidence of the existence of a sacred fact in the heaits of
the wedded. The indissolubility of marriage is a dogma
that has filled the lives of millions with agony and tears.
It has given a perpetual excuse for vice and immorality.
Fear has borne children begotten by brutality. ^Countless
women have endured the insults, indignities and cruelties
■of fiendish husbands, because they thought that it was
the will of God. The contract of marriage is the most
important that human beings can make ; but no contract
can be so important as to release one of the parties from
the obligation of performance ; and no contract, whether
made between man and woman, or between them and
God, after a failure of consideration caused by the wilful
�HOME OR REASON.
35
act of the man or woman, can hold and bind the innocent
and honest.
Do the believers in indissoluble marriage treat their
wives better than others ? A little while ago, a woman
said to a man who had raised his hand to strike her :
“ Do not touch me ; you have no right to beat me ; I am
not your wife.”
About a year ago, a husband, whom God in his infinite
wisdom had joined to a loving and patient woman in the
indissoluble sacrament of marriage, becoming enraged,
seized the helpless wife and tore out one of her eyes.
She forgave him. A few weeks ago he deliberately
repeated this frightful crime, leaving his victim totally
blind. Would it not have been better if man, before
the poor woman was blinded, had put asunder whom
God had joined together? Thousands of husbands,
who insist that marriage is indissoluble, are the b eaters
of wives.
The Law of the Church has created neither the purity
nor the peace of domestic life. Back of all churches is
human affection. Back of all theologies is the love of
the human heart. Back of all your priests and creeds is
the adoration of the one woman by the one man, and of
the one man by the one wom'an. Back of your faith is
the fireside, back of your folly is the family • and back
of all your holy mistakes and your sacred absurdities is
the love of husband and wife, of parent and child.
It is not true that neither the Greek nor the Roman
world had any true conception of a home. The splendid
story of Ulysses and Penelope, the parting of Hector and
Andromache, demonstrate that a true conception of
home existed among the Greeks. Before the establish
ment of. Christianity, the Roman matron commanded the
admiration of the then known world. She was free and
noble. The Church degraded woman ; made her the
property of the husband, and trampled her beneath its
brutal feet. The “ fathers ” denounced woman as a perpetual temptation, as the cause of all evil. The Church
worshipped a God who had upheld polygamy, and had
pronounced his curse on woman, and had declared
that she should be the serf of the husband. This Church
followed the teachings of St. Paul. It taught the un
cleanness of marriage, and insisted that all children were
�36
' ROME OR REASON.
conceived in sin. This Church pretended to have been
founded by one who offered a reward in this world, and
eternal joy in the next, to husbands who would forsake
their wives and children and follow him. Did this tend
to the elevation of woman ? Did this detestable doctrine
“create the purity and peace of domestic life’ ? Is it
true that a monk is purer than a good and noble father .
that a nun is holier than a loving mother ?
?
Is there anything deeper and stronger than a mother 8
love ? Is there anything purer, holier than a mother
holding her dimpled babe against her billowed breast ?
The good man is useful, the best man is the most use
ful. Those who fill the nights with barren prayers and
holy hunger, torture themselves for their own good and
not for the benefit of others. They are earning eternal
glory for themselves ; they do not fast for their fellow
men, their selfishness is only equalled by their foolish
ness. Compare the monk in his selfish cell, counting
beads and saying prayers for the purpose of saving his
barren soul, with a husband and father sitting by his
fireside with wife and children. Compare the nun with
the mother and her babe.
Celibacy is the essence of vulgarity. It tries to put a
stain upon motherhood, upon marriage, upon love—that
is to say, upon all that is holiest in the human heart
Take love from the world, and there is nothing left worth
livino- for. The Church has treated this great, this
sublime, this unspeakably holy passion, as though it
polluted the heart. They have placed the love of God
above the love of woman, above the love of man. Human
love is generous and noble. The love of God is selfish,
because man does not love God for God’s sake but for
his own. •
,
i 4.
Yet the Cardinal asserts “ that the change wrought by
Christianity in the social, political and international
relations of the world’’-“that the root of this ethical,
change, private and public, is the Christian home.
A
moment afterwards, this prelate insists that celibacy is
far better than marriage. If the world could be induced
to live in accordance with the “ highest state, this gene
ration would be the last. Why were men and women
created ? Why did not the Catholic God commence with
the sinless and sexless ? The Cardinal ought to take the
�ROME OR REASON.
37
ground that to talk well is good, but that to be dumb is
the highest condition; that hearing is a pleasure, but that
deafness is ecstasy ; and that to think, to reason, is very
well, but that to be a Catholic is far better.
Why should we desire the destruction of human
passions ? Take passions from human beings and what
is left ? The great object should be not to destroy
passions, but to make them obedient to the intellect. To
indulge passion to the utmost is one form of intemper
ance, to destroy passion is another. The reasonable
gratification of passion under the domination of the
intellect is true wisdom and perfect virtue.
The goodness, the sympathy, the self-denial of the nun,
of the monk, all come from the mother instinct, the
father instinct—all were produced by human affection,
by the love of man for woman, of woman for man. Love
is a transfiguration. It ennobles, purifies and glorifies.
In true marriage two hearts burst into flower. Two lives
unite. They melt in music. Every moment is a melody.
Love is a revelation, a creation. From love the world
borrows its beauty and the heavens their glory. Justice,
self-denial, charity and pity are the children of love.
Jjover, wife, mother, husband, father, child, home—these
words shed light—they are the gems of human speech.
Without love all glory fades, the noble falls from life, art
dies, music loses meaning and becomes mere motions of
the air, and virtue ceases to exist.
It is asserted that this life of celibacy is above and
against the tendencies of human nature; and the Cardinal
then asks : “ Who will ascribe this to natural causes,
and, if so, why did it not appear in the first four thousand
years ? ”
If there is in a system of religion a doctrine, a dogma,
or a practice against the tendencies of human nature—if
this religion succeeds, then it is claimed by the Cardinal
that such religion must be of divine origin. Is it “against
the tendencies of human nature ” for a mother to throw
her child into the Ganges to please a supposed God? Yet
a religion that insisted on that sacrifice succeeded, and
has, to-day, more believers than the Catholic Church can
boast.
Religions, like nations and individuals, have always
.gone along the line of least resistance. Nothing has
�38
ROME OR REASON.
“ascended the stream of human license by a power
mightier than nature.” There is no such power. There
never was, there never can be, a miracle. We know that
man is a conditioned being. We know that he is affected
by a change of conditions. If he is ignorant he is super
stitious—that is natural. If his brain is developed, if
he perceives clearly that all things are naturally produced,
he ceases to be superstitious and becomes scientific. He
is not a saint, but a savant—not a priest, but a philo
sopher. He does not worship, he works; he investigates ;
he thinks ; he takes advantage, through intelligence, of
the forces of nature. He is no longer the victim of
appearances, the dupe of his own ignorance, and the
persecutor of his fellow men.
He then knows that it is far better to love his wife
and children than to love God. He then knows that the
love of man for woman, of woman for man, of parent
for child, of child for parent, is far better, far holier
than the love of man for any phantom born of ignorance
and fear.
It is illogical to take the ground that the world was
cruel and ignorant and idolatrous when the Catholic
Church was established, and that because the world is
better now than then, the Church is of divine origin.
What was the world when science came ?
What
was it in the days of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler ?
What was it when printing was invented ? What was it
when the Western World was found ? Would it not be
much easier to prove that science is of divine origin ?
Science does not persecute. It does not shed blood—
it fills the world with light. It cares nothing for heresy;
it developes the mind, and enables man to answer his
own prayers.
Cardinal Manning takes the ground that Jehovah prac
tically abandoned the children of men for four thousand
years, and gave them over to every abomination. He
claims that Christianity came “ in the fulness of time,
and it is then admitted that “ what the fulness of time
may mean is one of the mysteries of times and seasons,
that it is not for us to know.” Having declared that it is
a mystery, and one that we are not to know, the Cardinal
explains it : “ One motive for the long delay of four
thousand years is not far to seek—it gave time, full and
�ROME OR REASON.
39
ample, for the utmost development and consolidation of
all the falsehood and evil of which the intellect and will
of man is capable.”
Is it possible to imagine why an infinitely good and
wise being “ gave time full and ample for the utmost
development and consolidation of falsehood and evil ” ?
Why should an infinitely wise God desire this development
and consolidation ? What would be thought of a father
who should refuse to teach his son and deliberately
allow him to go into every possible excess, to the end
that he might “ develop all the falsehood and evil of
which his intellect and will were capable ”? If a super
natural religion is a necessity, and if without it all men
simply develop and consolidate falsehood and evil, why
was not a supernatural religion given to the first man ?
The Catholic Church, if this be true, should have been
founded in the garden of Eden. Was it not cruel to drown
a world just for the want of a supernatural religion—a
religion that man, by no possibility, could furnish ? Was
there “ husbandry in heaven ” ?
But the Cardinal contradicts himself by not only
admitting, but declaring, that the world had never seen
a legislation so just, so equitable, as that of Rome. Is it
possible that a nation in which falsehood and evil had
reached their highest development was, after all, so wise,
so just, and so equitable ? Was not the civil law far
better than the Mosaic—more philosophical, nearer just?
The civil law was produced without the assistance of God.
According to the Cardinal, it was produced by men in
whom all the falsehood and evil of which they were
capable had been developed and consolidated, while the
cruel and ignorant Mosaic code came from the lips of
infinite wisdom and compassion.
It is declared that the history of Rome shows what man
can do without God, and I assert that the history of the
Inquisition shows what man can do when assisted by a
church of divine origin, presided over by the infallible
vicars of God.
The fact that the early Christians not only believed
incredible things, but persuaded others of their truth, is
regarded by the Cardinal as a miracle. This is only
another phase of the old argument that success is the test
of divine origin. All supernatural religions have been
�40
ROME OR REASON.
founded in precisely the same way. The credulity of
eighteen hundred years ago believed everything except
the truth.
A religion is a growth, and is of necessity adapted in
some degree to the people among whom it grows. It is
shaped and moulded by the general ignorance, the
superstition and credulity of the age in which it lives.
The key is fashioned by the lock. Every religion that
has succeeded has in some way supplied the wants of its
votaries, and has to a certain extent harmonised with
their hopes, their fears, their vices, and their virtues.
If, as the Cardinal says, the religion of Christ is in
absolute harmony with nature, how can it be super
natural ? The Cardinal also declares that. “ the religion
of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral nature
in all nations and all ages to this day.” What becomes of
the argument that Catholicism must be of divine origin
because “ it has ascended the stream of human licence,
contra ictum fluminis, by a power mightier than
nature ” ? If “ it is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations and all ages to this day,” it
has gone with the stream, and not against it. If “ the
religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations,” then the men who have
rejected it are unnatural, and these men have gone against
the stream. How then can it be said that Christianity
has been in changeless opposition to nature as man has
marred it ? To what extent has man marred it ? In spite
of the marring by man, we are told that the reason and
moral nature of all nations in all ages to this day is in
harmony with the religion of Jesus Christ.
Are we justified in saying that the' Catholic Church is
of divine origin because the Pagans failed to destroy it
by persecution ?
We will put the Cardinal’s statement in form :
Paganism failed to destroy.Catholicism by persecutions
therefore Catholicism is of divine origin.
Let us make an application of this logic :
Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution ;
therefore, Catholicism is of divine origin.
Catholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by persecu
tion ; therefore, Protestantism is of divine origin.
�ROME OR REASON.
41
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity; therefore, Infidelity is of divine
origin.
Let us make another application :
Paganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism ;
therefore, Paganism was a false religion.
Catholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestant
ism ; therefore, Catholicism is a false religion.
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity ; therefore, both Catholicism and
Protestantism are false religions.
The Cardinal has another reason for believing the
Catholic Church of divine origin. He declares that the
Canon Law is a creation of wisdom and justice to which
no statutes at large or imperial pandects can bear com
parison “ that the world-wide and secular legislation of
the Church was of a higher character, and that as water
cannot rise above its source, the Church could not, by
mere human wisdom, have corrected and perfected the
imperial law, and therefore its source must have been
higher than the sources of the world.”
When Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law
was supreme. As a matter of fact, the good in the Canon
Law was borrowed—the bad was, for the most part,
original. In my judgment, the legislation of the Repub
lic of the United States is in many respects superior to
that of Rome, and yet we are greatly indebted to the
Common Law ; but it never occurred to me that our
Statutes at Large are divinely inspired.
If the Canon Law is, in fact, the legislation of infinite
wisdom, then it should be a perfect code. Yet, the Canon
Law made it a crime next to robbery and theft to take
interest for money. Without the right to take interest
the business of the world would, to a large extent, cease
and the prosperity of mankind end. There are railways
enough in the United States to make six tracks around
the globe, and every mile was built with borrowed money
on which interest was paid or promised. In no other
way could the savings of many thousands have been
brought together and a capital great enough formed to
construct works of such vast and continental import
ance.
�42
ROME OR REASON.
It was provided in this same wonderful Canon Law
that a heretic could not be a witness against a Catholic.
The Catholic was at liberty to rob and wrong his fellow
man, provided the fellow man was not a fellow Catholic,
and in a court established by the Vicar of Christ, the man
who had been robbed was not allowed to open his mouth.
A Catholic could enter the house of an unbeliever, of a
Jew, of a heretic, of a Moor, and before the eyes of the
husband and father murder his wife and children, and
the father could not pronounce in the hearing of a judge
the name of the murderer. The world is wiser now, and
the Canon Law, given to us by infinite wisdom, has been
repealed by the common sense of man.
In this divine code it was provided that to convict a
cardinal bishop, seventy-two witnesses were required ; a
cardinal presbyter, forty-four ; a cardinal deacon, twentyfour ;' a sub-deacon, acolyth, exorcist, reader, ostiarus,
seven ; and in the purgation of a bishop, twelve witnesses
were invariably required; of a presbyter, seven ; of a
deacon, three. These laws, in my judgment, were made,
not by God, but by the clergy.
So, too, in this cruel code it was provided that those
who gave aid, favor, or counsel, to excommunicated per
sons should be anathema, and that those who talked
with, consulted, or sat at the same table with, or gave
anything in charity to the excommunicated, should be
anathema.
Is it possible that a being of infinite wisdom made
hospitality a crime ? Did he say : “ Whoso giveth a cup
of cold water to the excommunicated shall wear forever a
garment of fire”? Were not the laws of the Romans
much better ? Besides all this, under the Canon Law the
dead could be tried for heresy, and their estates confiscated
—that is to say, their widows and orphans robbed. The
most brutal part of the common law of England is that in
relation to the right of women—all of which was taken
from the Corpus Juris Canonist, “ the law that came
from a higher source than man.”
The only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by the
pious canonists was propter infidelitatem, which was
when one of the parties became Catholic, and would not
live with the other who continued still an unbeliever.
Under this divine statute, a pagan wishing to be rid of
�ROME OR REASON.
43:
his wife had only to join the Catholic Church, provided
she remained faithful to the religion of her fathers.
Under this divine law, a man marrying a widow was
declared to be a bigamist.
It would require volumes to point out the cruelties,
absurdities and inconsistencies of the Canon Law. It'
has been thrown away by the world. Every civilised
nation has a code of its own, and the Canon Law is of
interest only to the historian, the antiquarian, and the
enemy of theological government.
Under the Canon Law, people were convicted of being
witches and wizards, of holding intercourse with devils.
Thousands perished at the stake, having been convicted
of these impossible crimes. Under the Canon Law, there
was such a crime as the suspicion of heresy. A man or
woman could be arrested, charged with being suspected,,
and under this Canon Law, flowing from the intellect of
infinite wisdom, the presumption was in favor of guilt.
The suspected had to prove themselves innocent. In all
civilised courts, the presumption of innocence is theshield of the indicted, but the Canon Law took away this
shield, and put in the hand of the priest the sword of
presumptive guilt.
If the real pope is the vicar of Christ, the true shepherd
of the sheep, this fact should be known not only to the
vicar, but to the sheep. A divinely founded and guarded
church ought to know its own shepherd, and yet the
Catholic sheep have not always been certain who theshepherd was.
The Council of Pisa, held in 1409, deposed two popes—
rivals—Gregory and Benedict—that is to say, deposed
the actual vicar of Christ and the pretended. This action
was taken because a council, enlightened by the Holy
Ghost, could not tell the genuine from the counterfeit.
The council then elected another vicar, whose authority
was afterwards denied. Alexander V. died, and John
XXIII. took his place ; Gregory XII. insisted that he
was the lawful pope ; John resigned, then he was de
posed, and afterwards imprisoned; then Gregory XII.
resigned, and Martin V. was elected. The whole thing
reads like the annals of a South American Revolution.
The Council of Constance restored, as the Cardinal
declares, the unity of the Church, and brought back the
�44
ROME OR REASON.
consolation of the Holy Ghost. Before this great council
John Huss appeared and maintained his own tenets.
The council declared that the Church was not bound to
keep its promise with a heretic. Huss was condemned
and executed on the 6th of July, 1415. His disciple,
Jerome of Prague, recanted, but having relapsed, was put
to death, May 30th, 1416. This cursed council shed the
blood of Huss and Jerome.
The Cardinal appeals to the author of Ecce Homo for
the purpose of showing that Christianity is above nature,
and the following passages, among others, are quoted :
“ Who can describe that which unites men ? Who has
entered into the formation of speech, which is the symbol
of their union ? Who can describe exhaustively the
origin of civil society ? He who can do these things can
explain the origin of the Christian Church.”
These passages should not have been quoted by the
Cardinal. The author of these passages simply says that
the origin of the Christian Church is no harder to find
and describe than that which unites men—than that
which has entered into the formation of speech, the
symbol of their union—no harder to describe than th®
origin of civil society—because he says that one who can
describe these can describe the other.
Certainly none of these things are above nature. We
do not need the assistance of the Holy Ghost in these
matters. We know that men are united by common
interests, common purposes, common dangers—by race,
■climate, and education. It is no more wonderful that
people live in families, tribes, communities and nations,
than that birds, ants, and bees live in flocks and
swarms.
If we know anything we know that language is natural
—that it is a physical science. But if we take the ground
occupied by the Cardinal, then we insist that everything
that cannot be accounted for by man, is supernatural.
Let me ask, by what man ? What man must we take as
the standard ? Cosmas or Humboldt, St. Irenaeus or
Darwin ? If everything that we cannot account for is
above nature, then ignorance is the test of the super
natural. The man who is mentally honest, stops where
his knowledge stops. At that point he says that he does
not know. JSuch a man is a philosopher. Then the
�ROME OR REASON.
45
theologian steps forward, denounces the modesty of the
philosopher as blasphemy, and proceeds to tell what is
beyond the horizon of the human intellect.
■ Could a savage account for the telegraph, or the tele
phone by natural causes? How would he account for
these wonders ? He would account for them precisely
as the Cardinal accounts for the Catholic Church.
Belonging to no rival church, I have not the slightest
interest "in the primacy of Leo XIII., and yet it is to be
regretted that this primacy rests upon such a narrow and
insecure foundation.
The Cardinal says that “ it will appear almost certain
that the original Greek of St. Irenaeus, which is un
fortunately lost, contained either to. 7rpcoTeia, or some
inflection of 7rp<DTeva>, which signifies primacy.”
From this it appears that the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome rests on some “ inflection ” of a Greek word—and
that this supposed inflection was in a letter supposed to
have been written by St. Irenaeus, which has certainly
been lost. Is it possible that the vast fabric of papal
power has this, and only this, for its foundation ? To
this “ inflection ” has it come at last ?
The Cardinal’s case depends upon the intelligence and
veracity of his witnesses. The Fathers of the Church
were utterly incapable of examining a question of fact.
They were all believers in the miraculous. The same is
true of the apostles. If St. John was the author of the
Apocalypse, he was undoubtedly insane. If Polycarp
said the things attributed to him by Catholic writers, he
was certainly in the condition of his master. What is
the testimony of St. John worth in the light of the
following ? “ Cerinthus, the heretic, was in a bath-house.
St. John and another Christian were about to enter. St.
John cried out: ‘ Let us run away, lest the house fall
upon us while the enemy of truth is in it.’ ”
Is it
possible that St. John thought that God would kill two
eminent Christians for the purpose of getting even with
one heretic ?
Let us see who Polycarp was. He seems to have been
a prototype of the Catholic Church, as will be seen from
the following statement concerning this Father: “When
any heretical doctrine was spoken in his presence he
would stop his ears.” After this, there can be no question
�46
ROME OR,REASON.
of his orthodoxy. It is claimed that Polycarp was a
martyr—that a spear was run through his body and
that from the wound his soul, in the shape of a bird, flew
away. The history of his death is just as true as the
history of his life.
Irenaeus, another witness, took the ground that there
was to be a millennium, a thousand years of enjoyment
in which celibacy would not be the highest form of
virtue. If he is called as a witness for the purpose of
establishing the divine origin of the Church, and if oneof his inflections ” is the basis of papal supremacy, is
the Cardinal also willing to take his testimony as to the
nature of the millennium ?
All the Fathers were infinitely credulous. Every one
of them believed, not only in the miracles said to have
been wrought by Christ, by the apostles, and by other
Christians, but every one of them believed in the Pagan
miracles. . All of these Fathers were familiar with won
ders and impossibilities. Nothing was so common with
them as to work miracles, and on many occasions they
not only cured diseases, not only reversed the order of
nature, but succeeded in raising the dead.
It is very hard, indeed, to prove what the apostles said,
or what the Fathers of the Church wrote. There were
many centuries filled with forgeries, many generations in
which the cunning hands of ecclesiastics erased, oblite
rated and interpolated the records of the past, during
which they invented books, invented authors, and quoted
from works that never existed.
The testimony of the “Fathers” is without the slightest
value. They believed everything, they examined nothing.
They received as a waste-basket receives.
Whoever
accepts their testimony will exclaim with the Cardinal :
“ Happily, men are not saved by logic.”
���
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
Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 46 p. ; 18 p.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Oct. and Nov. 1888. No. 65a in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N390
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rationalism
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 (Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Catholic Church-Controversial Literature
Henry Edward Manning
Marriage
NSS
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e525589c0d6a239b8c3b18b8baae6f15.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PZIKoZmtTE10r9Zrn0pS7T8dgYzkIzGn0DMAeFfotjqMpCCuuhRd5lVPu4d2hh4H7XOE%7EfMM2C6Ter7hsV3U5T%7EwkZye4R1cQr4VKq2BY3sWhliDkHaLMguX6iw8DyCqdFbWNDiq3ncllj75WWJoosKNOKWnTQHOuLhgci3fqzavIz3BvvJ0xHrl9SlYYYFO8Dc0xqcSmvO8ZqkDGLRoEcx-BCNq3-NZwzlasuMrmvB5ulVIeR6KGONvgMf%7E5z%7EpY%7E115QsIIltSq581RMEvuCCz0fHSbOLWFCRTL5qfbmC49EPVJOOnPdx82c9WADHZkKQNgsk55qVpzK2Im8%7E51w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ce27ec953701855640c55040a9e4efa4
PDF Text
Text
. SATIRES
PROFANITIES
AND
BY
•
JAMES
THOMSON (B.V.f
(Author of “The City o¥ Dreadful Night”)
With a Preface by G. W. Foote.
A New Edition.
The Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm
Religion in the Rocky Mountains
The Devil in the Church of England
Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles
A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty
A Bible Lesson on Monarchy
The One Thing Needful
The Athanasian Creed
ONE SHILLING.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
-28 Stonecutter Street, E.C,
1890.
��63'2X>5
MC3?
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
SATIRES
AND
PROFANITIES
BY
JAMES
THOMSON (B.V.)
(Author of “ The City
of
Dreadful Night”)
With a Preface by G. W. Foote.
A New Edition.
LONDON
progressive PUBLISHING company,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1890.
�LONDON
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. BOOTH
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C,
�CONTENTS
PASS
Preface ...
...
...
5
The Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm
...
...
7
Religion in the Rocky Mountains
...
...
21
The Devil in the Church of England...
..
..
36
Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles...
...
...
47
A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty
...
...
58
A Bible Lesson on Monarchy
..
...
...
66
The One Thing Needful
...
...
...
...
71
The Athanasian Creed
..
...
..
..
75
...
...
...
...
�..................
�EDITOR’S PREFACE.
Under the title of Satires and Profanities I collected and
published, in 1884, twenty-three prose pieces of James
Thomson’s, contributed by him at various times to Freethought
journals, namely, the National Reformer, edited by Mr. Brad
laugh, and the Secularist, edited by myself. After the sale of
about five hundred copies, the remaining sheets were destroyed
by a fire at the publisher’s premises. It was a pity that such
a book should be out of print, but complete republication was
impossible. The enterprise would have been a heavy financial
loss. There is, however, a possibility of realising one’s invest
ment in a smaller collection of the principal pieces, and I
venture to issue it in the present form.
Thomson was a born satirist as well as a born poet. I do
not think anyone can read these pieces without feeling that
Thomson enjoyed the writing of them. They reveal a side of
his genius which only found occasional expression in his verse.
He allowed me to publish two of them as pamphlets before any
collection of his poems was given to the world. Some of his
admirers, who scarcely share his convictions, are in the habit
of depreciating these satires on the current theology. But he
would have smiled at their soreness. “ Thomson’s satire,” as
I wrote in the preface to Satires and Profanities,“ was always
bitterest, or at any rate most trenchant, when it dealt with
Religion, which he considered a disease of the mind, engendered
by folly and fostered by ignorance and vanity. He saw that
spiritual superstition not only diverts men from Truth, but
induces a slavish stupidity of mind, and prepares the way for
every form of political and social injustice. He was an Atheist
first and a Republican afterwards. He derided the idea of
making a true Republic of a population besotted with religion,
paralysed with creeds, cringing to the agents of their servitude,
and clinging to the chains that enthral them.”
No doubt the cry of “Blasphemy!” will continue to be
raised against Thomson’s religious satires, as against every
pointed, and therefore “painful,” attack on Christianity.
�▼i.
Editor's Preface.
But Thomson has justified himself in this respect. Defending
a certain 11 outburst of Rabelasian laughter,” which was de
nounced by the Saturday Review in 1867, he wrote
The
Grecian mythology is dead, is no longer aggressive in its
absurdities ; the priestcraft and the foul rites have long since
perished, the beauty and the grace and the splendor remain.
But your composite theology is still alive, is insolently
aggressive, its lust for tyrannical dominion is unbounded;
therefore we must attack it if we would not be enslaved by it.
The cross is a sublime symbol; I would no more think of
treating it with disrespect while it held itself aloft in the
serene heaven of poetry than of insulting the bow of Phoebus
Apollo or the thunderbolts of Zeus; but if coarse hands will
insist on pulling it down upon my back as a ponderous wooden
reality, what can I do but fling it off as a confounded burden
not to be borne ?” Thomson also pointed out that “ For the
Atheist, God is a figment, nothing: in blaspheming God he
therefore blasphemes nothing. A man really blasphemes
when he mocks, insults, pollutes, vilifies that which he really
believes to be holy and awful.” He admitted that there
might be a hundred Christians in England who really believed
in the Christian God, and they could be guilty of blaspheming
him; but “ speaking philosophically, an honest Atheist can no
more blaspheme God than an honest Republican can be disloyal
to a King, than an unmarried man can be guilty of conjugal
infidelity.”
There is no need to say more. Thomson’s “blasphemy”
and its justification are here together. Every purchaser of
this brochure is warned in the preface what to expect, and
if his nerves are too weak for an Atheist’s satire he can give
it to a robuster friend.
May, 1890.
G. W. FOOTE.
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm
[Written in 1866.]
Many thousand years ago, when the Jews first started
in business, the chief of their merchants was a venerable
and irascible old gentleman named Jah. The Jews
have always been excellent traders, keen to scent
wealth, subtle to track it, unweary to pursue it, strong
to seize it, tenacious to hold it ; and the most keen,
subtle, untiring, strong, tenacious of them all, was this
Jah. The patriarchs of his people paid him full
measure of the homage which Jews have always eagerly
paid to wealth and power, and all their most important
transactions were carried out through him. In those
antique times people lived to a very great age, and Jah
is supposed to have lived so many thousands of years
that one may as well not try to count them. Perhaps
it was not one Jah that existed all this while, but the
house of Jah : the family, both for pride and profit,
preserving through successive generations the name of
its founder. Certain books have been treasured by
the Jews as containing exact records of the dealings of
this lordly merchant (or house) both with the Jews
themselves and with strangers. Many people in our
times, however, have ventured to doubt the accuracy of
these records, arguing that some of the transactions
therein recorded it would have been impossible to
transact, that others must have totally ruined the
richest of merchants, that the accounts often contradict
each other, and that the system of book-keeping
generally is quite unworthy of a dealer so truthful and
clear-headed as Jah is affirmed to have been. The
records are so ancient in themselves, and they treat of
matters so much more ancient still, that it is not easy
to find other records of any sort with which to check
�8
Satires and Profanities.
their accounts. Strangely enough the most recent
researches have impugned the accuracy of the most
ancient of these records ; certain leaves of a volume
called the “ Great Stone Book ” having been brought
forward to contradict the very first folio of the ledger
in which the dealings of Jah have been posted up
according to the Jews. It may be that the first few
folios, like the early pages of most annals, are somewhat
mythical ; and the present humble compiler (who is
not deep in the affairs of the primaeval world, and who,
like the late lamented Captain Cuttie with his large
volume, is utterly knocked up at any time by four or
five lines of the “ Great Stone Book ”) will prudently
not begin at the beginning, but skip it with great
comfort and pleasure, especially as many and learned
men are now earnest students of this beginning. We
will, therefore, if you please, take for granted the facts
that at some time, in some manner, Jah created his
wonderful business, and that early in his career he met
with a great misfortune, being compelled, by the
villainy of all those with whom he had dealings, to
resort to a wholesale liquidation, which left him so poor,
that for some time he had not a house in the world,
and his establishment was reduced to four male and as
many female servants.
He must have pretty well recovered from this severe
shock when he entered into the famous covenant or
contract with Abraham and his heirs, by which he
bound himself to deliver over to them at a certain,
then distant, period, the whole of the valuable landed
property called Canaan, on condition that they should
appoint him the sole agent for the management of
their affairs. In pursuance of this contract, he con
ducted that little business of the flocks and herds for
Jacob against one Laban ; and afterwards, when the
children of Abraham were grown very numerous, he
managed for them that other little affair, by which
they spoiled the Egyptians of jewels of silver and
jewels of gold ; and it is even asserted that he fed and
clothed the family for no less than forty years in a
country where the commissariat was a service of
extreme difficulty.
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
9
At length the time came when he was to make over
to them the Land of Canaan, for this purpose evicting
the several families then in possession thereof, ihe
whole of the covenanted estate he never did make over
to them, but the Jews freely admit that this was through
their own fault. They held this land as mortgaged to
him, he pledging himself not to foreclose while, they
dealt with him faithfully and fulfilled all the conditions
of the covenant. They were to pay him ten per cent,
per annum interest, with sundry other charges, to put
all their affairs into his hands, to have no dealings what
soever with any rival merchants, etc., etc. Under this
covenant the Jews continued in possession of the fine
little property of Canaan for several hundred years,
and they assert that this same Jah lived and conducted
his business throughout the whole period. But, as I
have ventured to suggest, the long existence of the
house of Jah may have been the sum total of the lives
of a series of individual Jahs. The Jews could not
have distinguished the one from the other ; for it is a
strange fact that Jah himself, they admit, was never
seen. Perhaps he did not affect close contact with
Jews. Perhaps he calculated that his power over them
would be increased by mystery ; this is certain, that he
kept himself wholly apart from them in his private
office, so that no one was admitted even on business.
It is indeed related that one Moses (the witness to the
execution of the covenant) caught a glimpse of him
from behind, but this glimpse could scarcely have
sufficed for identification ; and it is said, also, that at
certain periods the chief of the priesthood was admitted
to consultation with him ; but although his voice was
then heard, he did not appear in person—only the
shadow of him was seen, and everyone will allow that
a shadow is not the best means of identification. And
in further support of my humble suggestion it may be
noted that in many and important respects the later
proceedings attributed to Jah differ extremely in chal’acter from the earlier ; and this difference cannot be
explained as the common difference between the youth
and maturity and senility of one and the same. man,
for we are expressly assured that Jah was without
�10
Satires and Profanities.
change—by which we are not to understand that
either through thoughtlessness or parsimony he never
had small cash in his pocket for the minor occasions of
life ; but that he was stubborn in his will, unalterable
in his ideas, persistent in his projects and plans.
The records of his dealings at home with the Jews,
and abroad with the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the
Philistines, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Edomites,
and other nations, as kept by the Jews themselves, are
among the strangest accounts of a large general busi
ness which have ever been put down in black on
white. And in nothing are they more strange than in
the unsullied candor with which the Jews always admit
and proclaim that it was their fault, and by no means
the fault of Jah, whenever the joint business went
badly, and narrate against themselves the most astonish
ing series of frauds and falsehoods, showing how they
broke the covenant, and attempted to cheat the other
party in every imaginable way, and, in order to ruin
his credit, conspired with foreign adventurers of the
worst character—such as MM. Baal, Ashtaroth, and
Moloch. Jah, who gave many proofs of a violent and
jealous temper, and who was wont to sell up other
debtors in the most heartless way, appears to have been
very patient and lenient with these flagitious Jews.
Yet with all his kindness and long-suffering he was
again and again forced to put executions into their
houses, and throw themselves into prison ; and at
length, before our year One, having, as it would seem,
given up all hope of making them deal honestly with
him, he had put certain strict Romans in possession of
the property to enforce his mortgage and other rights.
And now comes a sudden and wonderful change in
the history of this mysterious Jah. Whether it was
the original Jah, who felt himself too old to conduct
the immense business alone, or whether it was some
successor of his, who had not the same self-reliance
and imperious will, one cannot venture to decide ; but
we all know that it was publicly announced, and soon
came to be extensively believed, that Jah had taken
unto himself two partners, and that the business was
thenceforth to be carried on by a firm, under the style
�Story of a Famous Old Jswish Firm.
11
of Father, Son, and Co. It is commonly thought that
history has more of certainty as it becomes more
recent ; but unfortunately in the life of Jah, uncertainty
grows ten more times uncertain when we attain the
period of this alleged partnership, for the Jews deny it
altogether ; and of those who believe in it not one is
able to define its character, or even to state its possi
bility in intelligible language. The Jews assert roundly
that the alleged partners are a couple of vile impostors,
that Jah still conducts his world-wide business alone,
that he has good reasons (known only to himself) for
delaying the exposure of these pretenders ; and that,
however sternly he has been dealing with the Jews for
a long time past, and however little they may seem to
have improved so as to deserve better treatment, he
will yet be reconciled to them, and restore them to
possession of their old land, and exalt them above all
their rivals and enemies, and of his own free will and
absolute pleasure burn and destroy every bond of
their indebtedness now in his hands. And in support
of these modest expectations they can produce a
bundle of documents which they assert to be his
promissory notes, undoubtedly for very large amounts ;
but which, being carefully examined, turn out to be all
framed on this model: “ I, the above-mentioned A. B.”
(an obscure or utterly unknown Jew, supposed to have
lived about three thousand years ago), “ hereby promise
in the name of Jah, that the said Jah shall in some
future year unknown, pay unto the house of Israel the
following amount, that is to say, etc.” If we ask,
Where is the power of attorney authorising this dubious
A. B. to promise this amount in the name of Jah ? the
Jews retort : “If you believe in the partnership, you
must believe in such power, for you have accepted all
the obligations of the old house, and have never refused
to discount its paper : if you believe neither in Jah
nor in the partnership, you are a wretch utterly with
out faith, a commercial outlaw.” In addition, however,
to these remarkable promissory notes, the Jews rely
upon the fact that Jah, in the midst of his terrible
anger, has still preserved some kindness for them. He
threatened many pains and penalties upon them for
�12
Satires and Profanities,
breach of the covenant, and many of these threats he
has carried out ; but the most cruel and horrific of all
he has not had the heart to fulfil : they have been
oppressed and crushed, strangers have come into their
landed property, they have been scattered among all
peoples, a proverb and a by-word of scorn among the
nations, their religion has been accursed, their holy
places are defiled, but the crowning woe has been spared
them (Deut. xxviii., 44) ; never yet has it come to pass
that the stranger should lend to them, and they should
not lend to the stranger. There is yet balm in Gilead,
a rose of beauty in Sharon, and a cedar of majesty on
Lebanon ; the Jew still lends to the stranger, and does
not borrow from him, except as he “borrowed ” from
the Egyptian—and the interest on money lent is still
capable, with judicious treatment, of surpassing the
noble standard of “ shent per shent.”
And even among the Gentiles there are some who
believe that Jah is still the sole head of the house, and
that the pair who are commonly accounted junior
partners are in fact only superior servants, the one a
sort of manager, the other general superintendent and
agent, though Jah may allow them a liberal commission
on the profits, as well as a fixed salary.
But the commercial world of Europe, in general,
professes to believe that there is a bond fide partnership,
and that the three partners have exactly equal authority
and interest in the concern ; that, in fact, there is such
thorough identity in every respect that the three may,
and ought to be, for all purposes of business, considered
as one. The second partner, they say, is really the son
of Jah ; though Jah, with that eccentricity which has
ever abundantly characterised his proceedings, had this
son brought up as a poor Jewish youth, apparently the
child of a carpenter called Joseph, and his wife Mary.
Joseph has little or no influence with the firm, and we
scarcely hear of a transaction done through him, but
Mary has made the most profitable use of her old liaison
with Jah, and the majority of those who do business
with the firm seek her good offices, and pay her very
liberal commissions. Those who do not think so
highly of her influence, deal with the house chiefly
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
13
through, the Son, and thus it has come to pass that poor
Jah is virtually ousted from his own business. He
and the third partner are little more than sleeping
partners, while his mistress and her son manage every
affair of importance.
This state of things seems somewhat unfair to Jah ;
yet one must own that there are good reasons for it.
Jah was a most haughty and humorous gentleman,
extremely difficult to deal with, liable to sudden fits of
rage, wherein he maltreated friends and foes alike,
implacable when once offended, a desperately sharp
shaver in a bargain, a terrible fellow for going to law.
The son was a much more kindly personage, very
affable and pleasant in conversation, willing and eager
to do a favor to any one, liberal in promises even
beyond his powers of performance, fond of strangers,
and good to the poor ; and his mother, with or without
reason, is credited with a similar character. Moreover,
Jah always kept himself invisible, while the son and
mother were possibly seen, during some years, by a
large number of persons ; and among those who have
never seen them their portraits are almost as popular
as photographs of the Prince and Princess of Wales.
With the real or pretended establishment of the
Firm, a great change took place in the business of Jah.
This business had been chiefly with the Jews, and even
when it extended to foreign transactions, these were all
subordinate to the Jewish trade. But the Firm lost
no time in proclaiming that it would deal with the
whole world on equal terms : no wonder the Jews
abhor the alleged partners I And the nature of the
contracts, the principal articles of trade, the mode of
keeping the accounts, the commission and interest
charged and allowed, the salaries of the agents and
clerks, the advantages offered to clients, were all
changed too. The head establishment was removed
from Jerusalem to Rome, and branch establishments
were gradually opened in nearly all the towns and
villages of Europe, besides many in Asia and Africa,
Bnd afterwards in America and Australia. It is worth
noting that in Asia and Africa (although the firm arose
in the former) the business has never been carried on
�14
Satires and Profanities.
very successfully; Messrs. Brahma, Vishnu, Seeva
and Co., the great houses of Buddha and Mumbo
Jumbo, various Parsee firms, and other opposition
houses, having among them almost monopolised the
trade.
The novel, distinctive, and most useful article -which
the Firm engaged to supply was a bread called par
excellence the Bread of Life. The Prospectus (which
was first drafted, apparently in perfect good faith, by
the Son ; but which has since been so altered and ex
panded by successive agents that we cannot learn what
the original, no longer extant, exactly stated) sets forth
that the House of Jah, Son and Co. has sole possession
of the districts yielding the corn whereof this bread is
made, the sole patents of the mills for grinding and
ovens for baking, and that it alone has the secret of the
proper process for kneading. The Firm admits that
many other houses have pretended to supply this in
valuable bread, but accuses them all of imposture or
poisonous adulteration. For itself, it commands the
genuine supply in such quantities that it can under
take to feed the whole world, and at so cheap a rate
that the poorest will be able to purchase as much as he
needs ; and, moreover, as the firm differs essentially
from all other firms in having no object in view save
the benefit of its customers, the partners being already
so rich that no profits could add to their wealth, it will
supply the bread for mere love to those who have not
money!
This fair and beautiful prospectus, you will easily
believe, brought vast multitudes eager to deal with the
firm, and especially large multitudes of the poor,
ravished with the announcement that love should be
henceforth current coin of the realm ; and the business
spread amazingly. But at the very outset a sad mis
chance occurred. The Son, by far the best of the
partners, was suddenly seized and murdered and buried
by certain agents of the old Jewish business (furious
at the prospect of losing all their rich trade), with the
connivance of the Roman installed as inspector. At
least, these wretches thought they had murdered the
poor man, and it is admitted on every side that they
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
15
buried him ; but the dependants of the Firm have a
strange story that he was not really killed, but arose
out of his tomb after lying there for three days, and
slipped away to keep company with his father, the
invisible Jah, in his exceedingly private office ; and
they assert that he is still alive along with Jah, molli
fying the old man when he gets into one of his furious
passions, pleading for insolvent debtors, and in all
things by act and counsel doing good for all the clients
of the house. They, moreover, assert that the third
partner, who as the consoling substitute for the absent
Son is commonly called the Comforter, and who is
very energetic, though mysteriously invisible in his
operations, superintends all the details of the business
in every one of the establishments. But this third
partner is so difficult to catch, that, as stated before,
the majority of the customers deal with the venerable
mother, as the most accessible and humane personage
belonging to the house.
Despite the death or disappearance of the Son, the
firm prospered for a considerable time. After severe
competition, in which neither side showed itself very
‘scrupulous, the great firm of Jupiter and Co., the old
Greek house, which had been strengthened by the
amalgamation of the wealthiest Roman firms, was
utterly beaten from the field, sold up and extinguished.
In the sale of the effects many of the properties in
most demand were bought in by the new firm, which
also took many of the clerks and agents into its em
ployment, and it is even said adopted in several impor
tant respects the mode of carrying on business and the
system of book-keeping. But while the firm was thus
conquering its most formidable competitor, innumerable
dissensions were arising between its own branch esta
blishments ; every one accusing every other of dealing
on principles quite hostile to the regulations instituted
by the head of the house, of falsifying the accounts,
and of selling an article which was anything but the
genuine unadulterated bread. There were also inter
minable quarrels among them as to relative rank and
importance.
And whether the wheat, as delivered to the various
�16
Satires and Profanities.
establishments, was or was not the genuine article
which the firm had contracted to supply, it was soon
discovered that it issued from the licensed shops adul
terated in the most audacious manner. And, although
the prospectus had stated most positively that the
bread should be delivered to the poor customers of the
firm without money and without price (and such seems
really to have been the good Son s intention), it was
found, in fact, that the loaves, when they reached the
consumer, were at least as costly as ever loaves of any
kind of bread had been. It mattered little that the
wheat was not reckoned in the price, when agents r
commissioners’, messengers fees, bakers charges, and
a hundred items, made the price total so enormous.
When, at length, the business was flourishing all over
Europe, it was the most bewildering confusion of con
tradictions that, perhaps, was ever known in the com
mercial world. Eor in all the establishments the
agents professed and very solemnly swore that they
dealt on principles opposed and infinitely superior to
the old principles of trade ; yet their proceedings (save
that they christened old things with new names) were w
identical with those which had brought to shameful
ruin the most villainous old firms. The sub-managers,
who were specially ordered to remain poor while in the
business, and for obedience were promised the most
splendid pensions when superannuated, all became rich
as princes by their exactions from the clients of the
house ; the agents, who were especially commanded to
keep the peace, were ever stirring up quarrels and
fighting ferociously, not only with opposition agents
but with one another. The accounts, which were tn
be regulated by the most honest and simple rules, were
complicated in a lawless system, which no man could
understand, and falsified to incredible amounts, to the
loss of the customers, without being to the gain of the
firm. In brief, each establishment was like one ot
those Chinese shops where the most beautiful and noble
maxims of justice and generosity are painted in gilt
letters outside, while the most unblushing fraud and
extortion are practised inside. When poor customers
complained of these things, they were told that the
�17
Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
system was perfect, that the evils were all from the
evil men who conducted the business ! but the good
people did not further explain how the perfection of
the system could ever be realised, since it must always
be worked by imperfect men. Complainants thus
mildly and vaguely answered were very fortunate ;
others, in places where the firm was very powerful,
were answered by imprisonment or false accusations, or
by being pelted and even murdered by mobs. Many
who thought the bread badly baked were themselves
thrust into the fire.
Yet so intense is the need of poor men for some
bread of life, so willing are simple men to believe fair
promises, that, in spite of the monstrous injustice and
falsehood and cruelty and licentiousness of the
managers and sub-managers and agents of the firm,
the business continued to flourish, and all the wealth
of Europe flowed into its coffers. And generations
passed ere some persons bethought them to think
seriously of the original Deed of Partnership and th©
fundamental principles of the Firm. These documents,
which had been carefully confined in certain old dead
languages which few of the customers could read, were
translated into vulgar tongues, which all could read or
understand when read, and everyone began studying
them for himself. This thinking of essentials, which,
is so rare a thought among mankind, has already pro
duced remarkable effects, and promises to produce
effects yet more remarkable in a short time.
Behold a few of the-questions which this study of the
first documents has raised.—The Father, whom no one
has seen, is there indeed such a personage ? The Son,
whom certainly no one has seen for eighteen hundred
years, did he really come to life again after being
brutally murdered ? The junior partner, whom no one
has ever seen, the Comforter, is he a comforter made of
the wool of a sheep that never was fleeced ? Th©
business, as we see it, merely uses the names, and
would be precisely the same business if these names
covered no personages. Do the managers and sub
managers really carry it on for their own profit, using
these high names to give dignity to their rascality, and
B
�18
Satires and Profanities.
to make poor people believe that they have unbounded
capital at their back ? One is punished for defamation
of character if he denies the existence of the partners,
yet not the very chief of all the managers pretends to
have seen any of the three !
And the vaunted Bread of Life, wherein does it
differ from the old corn-of-Ceres bread, from the baking
of the wheat of Mother Hertha ? Chiefly in this, that
it creates much more wind on the stomach. It is not
more wholesome, nor more nourishing, and certainly
not more cheap ; and it does us little good to be told
that it would be if the accredited agents were honest
and supplied it pure, when we are told, at the same
time, that we must get it through these agents. It is
indeed affirmed that, in an utterly unknown region
beyond the Black Sea, the genuine wheat may be seen
growing by anyone who discovers the place ; but, as
no one who ever crossed the sea on a voyage of
discovery ever returned, the assertion rests on the bare
word of people who have never seen the corn-land any
more than they have seen the partners of the firm ;
and their word is bare indeed, for it has been stripped
to shame in a thousand affairs wherein it could be
brought to the test. They tell us also that we shall all
in time cross the Black Sea, and if we have been good
customers shall dwell evermore in that delightful land,
with unlimited supplies of the bread gratis. This may
be true, but how do they know ? It may be true that
in the sea we shall all get drowned for ever.
These and similar doubts which, in many minds, have
hardened into positive disbelief, are beginning to affect
seriously the trade of the firm. But its interests are
now so inextricably bound up with the interests of
thousands and millions of well-to-do and respectable
people, and on its solvency or apparent solvency depends
that of so large a number of esteemed merchants, that
we may expect the most desperate struggles to postpone
its final bankruptcy. In the great Roman establish
ment the manager has been supported for many years
by charitable contributions from every one whom he
could persuade to give or lend, and now he wants to
borrow much more. The superintendent of the shops
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
19
in London is in these days begging for ten hundred
thousand pounds to assist the poor firm in its difficulties.
It seems a good sum of money ; but, bless you, it is but
a drop in the sea compared with what the business has
already absorbed, and is still absorbing. Scattered
shops in the most distant countries have only been sus
tained for many years by alms from customers here.
The barbarians won’t eat the bread, but the bakers sent
out must have their salaries. A million of pounds are
being begged here ; and people (who would prosecute a
mendicant of halfpence) will give it no doubt! Yet, 0
worthy manager of the London Shops, one proved loaf
of the real Bread would be infinitely more valuable,
and would infinitely more benefit your firm ! The
villainy of the agents was monstrous, generation after
generation, the cost of that which was promised without
money and without price was ruinous for centuries ; but
not all the villainy and extortion multiplied a hundred
fold could drive away the poor hungry customers while
they had faith in the genuineness of the bread. It was
the emptiness and the wind on the stomach after much
eating, which raised the fatal doubts as to the bona fides
of the whole concern. The great English managers
had better ponder this ; for at present they grope in
the dark delusion that more and better bakers salaried
with alms, and new shops opened with eleemosynary
funds, will bring customers to buy their bran cakes as
wheaten loaves. A very dark delusion, indeed ! If
the pure promised bread cannot be supplied, no amount
of money will keep the business going very long. Con
sider what millions on millions of pounds have been
subscribed already, what royal revenues are pouring in
still; all meant for investment in wholesome and
nourishing food, but nearly all realised in hunger and
emptiness, heartburn and flatulence. The old Roman
shrewdly calculated that the House of Olympus would
prove miserably insolvent if its affairs were wound up,
if it tried honestly to pay back all the deposits of its
customers. As for this more modern firm, one suspects
that, in like case, it would prove so insolvent that it
could not pay a farthing in the pound. For Olympus
was a house that dealt largely in common worldly
�20
Satires and Profanities.
goods, and of these things really did give a considerable
quantity to its clients for their money ; but the new
firm professed to sell things infinitely more valuable,
and of these it cannot prove the delivery of a single
parcel during the eighteen hundred years it has been
receiving purchase-money unlimited.
The humble compiler of this rapid and imperfect
summary ought, perhaps, to give his own opinion of the
firm and the partners, although he suffers under the
disadvantage of caring very little for the business, and
thinks that far too much time is wasted by both the
friends and the enemies of the house in investigation
of every line and figure in its books. He believes that
Jah, the grand Jewish dealer, was a succession of
several distinct personages ; and will probably continue
to believe thus until he learns that there was but one
Pharaoh, King of Egypt, but one Bourbon, King of
France, and that the House of Rothschild has always
been one and the same man. He believes that the Son
was by no means the child of the Father, that he was
a much better character than the Father, that he was
really and truly murdered, that his prospectus and
business plans were very much more wise and honest
and good than the prospectus as we have it now, and
the system as it has actually been worked. He believes
that the Comforter has really had a share in this as in
every other business not wholly bad in the world, that
he has never identified his interests with those of any
firm, that specially he never committed himself to a
partnership of unlimited liability with the Hebrew Jah,
that he undoubtedly had extensive dealings with the
Son, and placed implicit confidence in him while a
living man, and that he will continue to deal profitably
and bountifully with men long after the firm has
become bankrupt and extinct. He believes that the
corn of the true bread of life is sown and grown,
reaped, ground, kneaded, baked and eaten on this side
of the Black Sea. He believes that no firm or company
whatever, with limited or unlimited liability, has the
monopoly for the purveyance of this bread, that no
charters can confer such monopoly, that the bread is
only to be got pure by each individual for himself, and
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
21
that no two individuals of judgment really like it pre
pared in exactly the same fashion, but that unfor
tunately (as his experience compels him to believe)
the bulk of mankind will always in the future, no less
than in the past, persist in endeavoring to procure it
through great chartered companies.
Finally, he
believes that the worthy chief baker in London with
his million of money is extremely like the worthy
Mrs. Partington with her mop against the Atlantic.
Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
Top of Pike’s Peak, March Mh, 1873.
Honored with your special commission, I at once
hurried across to Denver, and thence still westward
until I found myself among the big vertebrae of this
longish backbone of America. I have wandered to and
fro among the new cities, the advanced camps of civili
sation, always carefully reticent as to my mission,
always carefully inquiring into the state of religion
both in doctrine and practice. You were so hopeful
that high Freethought would be found revelling trium
phant in these high free regions, that I fear you will be
acutely pained by this my true report. Churches and
chapels of all kinds abound—Episcopalian, Methodist
Episcopal (for the Methodists here have bishops), Pres
byterian, Baptist, Congregational, Roman Catholic, etc.
Zeal inflaming my courage, three and even four times
have I ventured into a Church, each time enduring the
whole service ; and if I have not ventured oftener, cer
tainly I had more than sufficient cause to abstain. For
�22
Satires and Profanities.
as I suffered in my few visits to churches in your Eng
land, so I suffered here ; and such sufferings are too
dreadful to be frequently encountered, even by the
bravest of the brave. Whether my sensations in church
are similar to those of others, or are peculiar to myself,
I cannot be sure; but I am quite sure that they are
excruciating. On first entering I may feel calm,
wakeful, sane, and not uncomfortable, except that here
I rather regret being shut in from the pure air and
splendid sky, and in England rather regret having come
out through the raw, damp murk, and in both regret
that civilisation has not yet established smoking-pews ;
but the Church is always behind the age. It is pleasant
for awhile to note the well-dressed people seated or
entering ; the men with unctuous hair and somewhat
wooden decorum ; the women floating more at ease,
suavely conscious of their fine inward and outward
adornments. It is pleasant to keep a hopeful look-out
for some one of more than common beauty or grace,
and to watch such a one if discovered. As the service
begins, and the old, old words and phrases come floating
around me, I am lulled into quaint dream-memories of
childhood ; the long unthought-of school-mates, the
surreptitious sweetstuff, the manifold tricks and
smothered laughter, by whose aid (together with total
inattention to the service, except to mark and learn the
text) one managed to survive the ordeal. The singing
also is pleasant, and lulls me into vaguer dreams.
Gradually, as the service proceeds, I become more
drowsy ; my small faculties are drugged into quiet
slumber, they feel themselves off duty, there is nothing
for which they need keep awake. But, with the com
mencement of the sermon, new and alarming symptoms
arise within me, growing ever worse and worse until
the close. Pleasure departs with tranquillity, the irrita
tion of revolt and passive helplessness is acute. I cannot
find relief in toffy, or in fun with my neighbors, as
when I was a happy child. The old stereotyped phrases,
the immemorial platitudes, the often-killed sophistries
that never die, come buzzing and droning about me
like a sluggish swarm of wasps, whose slow deliberate
stinging is more hard to bear than the quick keen
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
23
stinging of anger. Then the wasps, penetrating through
my ears, swarm inside me ; there is a horrid buzzing in
my brain, a portentous humming in my breast ; my
small faculties are speedily routed, and disperse in blind
anguish, the implacable wasps droning out and away
after them, and I am left void, void ; with hollow skull,
empty heart, and a mortal sinking of stomach ; my
whole being is but a thin shell charged with vacuity
and desperate craving ; I expect every instant to col
lapse or explode. It is but too certain that if anyone
should then come to lead me off to an asylum for idiots,
or a Young Men’s Christian Association, or any similar
institution, I could not utter a single rational word to
save myself. And though all my faculties have left
me, I cannot attempt to leave the church ; decorum,
rigid and frigid, freezes me to my seat ; I stare stonily
in unimaginable torture, feebly wondering whether the
sermon will outlast my sanity, or my sanity outlast the
sermon. When at length released, I am so utterly
demoralised that I can but smoke furiously, pour much
beer and cram much dinner into my hollowness, and
so with swinish dozing hope to feel better by tea-time.
Now, though in order to fulfil the great duties you
entrust to me, I have cheerfully dared the Atlantic,
and spent long days and perilous nights in railroad cars,
and would of course (were it indeed necessary) face
unappalled mere physical death and destruction, I
really could not go on risking, with the certainty of
ere long losing, my whole small stock of brains ; espe
cially as the loss of these would probably rather hinder
than further the performance of the said duties. For
suppose me reduced to permanent idiocy by church
going, become a mere brazen hollowness with a riotous
tongue like Cowper’s church-going bell ; is it not most
likely that I would then turn true believer, renouncing
and denouncing your noble commission, even as you
would renounce and denounce your imbecile commis
sioner ?
Finding that I could not pursue my inquiries in the
churches and chapels, I was much grieved and per
plexed, until one of those thoughts occurred to me
which are always welcome and persuasive, because ill
�24
Satires and Profanities.
exact agreement with our own desires or necessities.
I thought of what I had remarked when visiting your
England : how the churches and chapels and lecture
halls, each sect thundering more or less terribly against
all the others, made one guess that the people were
more disputatious than pious ; how one became con
vinced, in spite of his infidel reluctance, that the people
were indeed, as a rule, thoroughly and genuinely
religious, by mingling freely with them in their com
mon daily and nightly life. I asked myself, What really
proved to me the pervading Christianity of England ?
the sermons, the tracts, the clerical lectures, the mis
sionary meetings ? the cathedrals and other theatres
and music-halls crowded with worshippers on Sunday,
while the museums and other public-houses were empty
and shut? No, scarcely these things ; but the grand
princeliness of the princes, the true nobleness of the
nobles, the lowliness of the bishops, the sanctity of the
clergy, the honesty of the merchants, the veracity of
the shopkeepers, the sobriety and thrift of the artisans,
the independence and intelligence of the rustics ; the
general faith and hope and love which brightened the
sunless days, the general temperance and chastity which
made beautiful the sombre nights ; the almost universal
abhorrence of the world, the flesh, and the Devil ; the
almost universal devotion to heaven, the spirit, and God.
I thereupon determined to study the religion out
here, even as I had studied it in England, in the ordinary
public and private life of the people ; and you will
doubtless be sorely afflicted to learn that I have found
everywhere much the same signs of genuine, practical
Christianity as are so common and patent in the old
country. The ranchmen have sown the good seed, and
shall reap the harvest of heavenly felicity ; the stockmen will surely be corraled with the sheep, and not
among the goats, at the last day ; not to gain the whole
world would the storekeepers lose their own souls ; the
pioneers have found the narrow way which leadeth unto
life ; the fishermen are true disciples, the trappers catch
Satan in his own snares, the hunters are mighty before
the Lord; bright are the celestial prospects of the
prospectors, and the miners are all stoping-out that
�Religion in the Boclcy Mountains.
25
hidden treasure which is richer than silver and much
dine gold. As compared with the English, these
Western men are perchance inferior in two important
points of Christian sentiment; they probably do not
fear God, being little given to fear anyone ; they cer
tainly do not honor the king, perhaps because they
unfortunately have none to honor. On the other
hand, as I have been assured by many persons from
the States, and the old country, they are even superior
to the English in one important point of Christian
conduct. Christ has promised that in discharging the
damned to hell at the Day of Judgment, he will fling
.at them this among other reproaches, “ I was a stranger,
and ye took me not in ” ; and this particular rebuke
seems to have wrought a peculiarly deep impression in
these men perhaps because they have much more to
do with strangers than have people ih the old settled
countries, so much, indeed, that the wrord “ stranger
is continually in their mouths. The result is (as the
said persons from England and the States have often
solemnly assured me) that any and every stranger
arriving in these regions is most thoroughly, most
beautifully, most religiously taken in. So that should
any of these fine fellows by evil hap be among the
accursed multitude whom Christ thus addresses, they
will undoubtedly retort in their frank fashion of
•speech : “ Wall, boss, it may be right to give us hell
on other counts, but you say you was a stranger and
we' didn’t take you in. What we want to know is,
Did you ever come to our parts to trade in mines or
stock or sich ? If you didn't, how the Devil could we
take you in ? if you did, it’s a darned lie, and an insult
to our understanding to say we didn't."
But though the practical life out here is so veritably
'Christian, you still hope that at any rate the creeds and
doctrines are considerably heterodox. I am sincerely
sorry to be obliged to destroy this hope. In the ordinary
-talk of the men continually recur the same or almost
the same expressions and implications of orthodox
belief, as are so common in your England, and
throughout Christendom. Why such formulas are
.generally used by men onlj, I have often been puzzled
�26
Satires and Profanities.
to explain ; it may be that the women, who in all lands
attend divine service much more than do the men, find
ample expression of their faith in the set times and
places of public worship and private prayer ; while
the men, less methodical, and demanding liberal scope,
give it robust utterance whenever and wherever they
choose. These formulas, as you must have often
remarked, are most weighty and energetic ; they avouch
and avow the supreme personages and mysteries and
dogmas of their religion ; they are usually but brief
ejaculations, in strong contrast to those long prayers of
the Pharisees which Jesus laughed to scorn ; and they
are often so superfluous as regards the mere worldly
meaning of the sentences in which they appear, that it
is evident they have been interjected simply to satisfy
the pious ardor of the speaker, burning to proclaim in
season and out of season the cardinal principles of his
faith. I say speaker, and not writer, because writing,
being comparatively cold and deliberate, seldom flames
out in these sharp swift flashes, that leap from living
lips touched with coals of fire from the altar.
I am aware that these fervid ejaculations are apt tobe regarded by the light-minded as trivial, by the coldhearted as indecorous, by the sanctimonious as even
profane ; but to the true philosopher, whether he be
religious or not, they are pregnant with grave signi
ficance. For do not these irrepressible utterances burst
forth from the very depths of the profound heart of
the people ? Are they not just as spontaneous and
universal as is the belief in God itself ? Are they not
among the most genuine and impassioned words of man
kind ? Have they not a primordial vigor and vitality ?
Are they not supremely of that voice of the people which
has been well called the voice of God ? Thus when your
Englishman instead of “ Strange !” says “ The Devil !”
instead of “Wonderful!” cries “Good Heavens!” instead
of “ How startling !” exclaims “ 0 Christ 1” he does
more than merely express his emotions, his surprise, his
wonder, his amaze ; he hallows it to the assertion of
his belief in Satan, in the good kingdom of God, in
Jesus; and, moreover, by the emotional gradation
ranks with perfect accuracy the Devil lowest in the
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains,
27
scale, the heavens higher, Christ the loftiest. When
another shouts “ God damn you ! he not only con
demns the evil of the person addressed ; he also takes
occasion to avow his own strong faith in God and
God’s judgment of sinners. Similarly
God bless
you
implies that there is a God, and that from him
all blessings flow. How vividly does the vulgar
hyperbole “ Infernally hot,” prove the general belief
in hell-fire? And the phrase “God knows! not
merely declares that the subject is beyond human
knowledge, but also that an all-wise God exists. Here
in the West, as before stated, such brief expressions
of faith, which are so much more sincere than. long
formularies repeated by rote in church, are quite as
common as in your England. When one has sharply
rebuked or punished another, he says, “ 1 gave him
hell.” And that this belief in future punishment per
vades all classes is proved by the fact that even a
profane editor speaks of it as a matter of course. lor
the thermometer having been stolen from his sanctum,
the said worthy editor announced that the .mean cuss
who took it might as well bring or send it back (no
questions asked) for it could not be of any use to him
in the place he was going to, as it only registered up
to 212 degrees. The old notion that hell or Hades is
located in the middle of the earth (which may have a
scientific solution in the Plutonic theory that we dwell
on the crust of a baked dumpling full of fusion and
confusion) is obviously tallied by the miner s assertion
that his vein was true-fissure, reaching from the grass
roots down to hell. The frequent phrase A Go damned liar,” “A God-damned thief,” recognises God
as the punisher of the wicked. I have heard a man
complain of an ungodly headache, implying first, theexistence of God, and secondly, the fact that the God1 Is it not time that we wrote such words as this damn at lull
length, as did Emily Bronte, the Titaness, whom Charlotte just y
vindicates in this as in other respects; instead of putting oni y
initial and final letters, with a hypocritical fig-leaf dash m the
middle, drawing particular attention to what it affects to conceal ? These words are in all men’s mouths, and many ot
em
are emphatically the leading words of the Bible.
�58
Satires and Profanities.
head does not ache, or in other words is perfect.
Countless other phrases of this kind might be alleged,
a few of them astonishingly vigorous and racy, for new
countries breed lusty new forms of speech ; but the
few already given suffice for my present purpose. One
remarkable comparison, however, k cannot pass over
without a word : it is common to say of a man who has
too much self-esteem, He thinks himself a little tin
Jesus on wheels. It is clear that some profound sug
gestion, some sacrosanct mystery, must underlie this
bold locution ; but what I have been hitherto unable
to find out. The connection between Jesus and tin
may seem obvious to such as know anything of bishops
and pluralists, pious bankers and traders. But what
about the wheels ? Have they any relation to the
opening chapter of Ezekiel ? It is much to be wished
that Max Muller, and all other such great scholars, who
(as I am informed, for it’s not I that would presume to
study them myself) manage to extract whatever noble
mythological meanings they want, from unintelligible
Oriental metaphors and broken phrases many thousand
years old, would give a few years of their superfluous
time to the interpretation of this holy riddle. Do not,
gentlemen, do not by all that is mysterious, leave it to
the scholars of millenniums to come ; proceed to probe
and analyse and turn it inside out at once, while it is
still young and flourishing, while the genius who
invented it is still probably alive, if he deceased not in
his boots, as decease so many gallant pioneers.
And here, before afflicting you further, 0 muchenduring editor, let me soothe you a little by stating
that some particles of heresy, some few heretics, are to
be found even here. I have learned that into a very
good and respectable bookstore in a city of these
regions, certain copies of Taylor’s Diegesis have pene
trated, who can say how ? and that some of these have
been sold. A living judge has been heard to declare
that he couldn’t believe at all in the Holy Ghost outfit.
It has also been told me of a man who must have held
strange opinions as to the offspring of God the Father,
though certainly this man was not a representative
pioneer, being but a German miner, fresh from the
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
29“
States. This Dutchman (all Germans here are Dutch,
doubtless from Deutsche, the special claims of the
Hollanders being ignored) was asked solemnly by a
clergyman, “ WIio died to save sinners ?” and answered
“Gott.” “What,” said the pained and pious pastor,
“Don’t you know that it was Jesus the Son of God ?”
“ Ah,” returned placidly the Dutchman, “ it vass one
of te boys, vass it ? I always dought it vass te olt man
himselben.” This good German may have been misled
by the mention of the sons of God early in Genesis,
yet it is strange that he knew not that Jesus is the only
son of God, and our Savior. A story is moreover told
of two persons, of whom the one boasted rather too
often that he was a self-made man, and the other at
length quietly remarked that he was quite glad to hear
it, as it cleared God from the responsibility of a darned
mean bit of work. Whence some have inferred the
heresy that God is the creator of only a part of the
universe, but I frankly confess that in my own opinion
the reply was merely a playful sarcasm.
The most decided heresy which has come under my
own observation was developed in the course of a chat
between two miners in a lager-beer saloon and billiardhall ; into the which, it need scarcely be remarked, I
was myself solely driven by the fierce determination
to carry out my inquiries thoroughly. Bill was
smoking, Dick was chewing ; and they stood up
together, at rather rapidly decreasing intervals, for
drinks of such “fine old Bourbon” rye whiskey as
bears the honorable popular title of rot-gut. The fre
quency with which the drinking of alcoholic liquors
leads to impassioned and elevated discussion of great
problems in politics, history, dog-breeding, horse
racing, moral philosophy, religion and kindred
important subjects, seems to furnish a strong and
hitherto neglected argument against teetotalism. There
are countless men who can only be stimulated to a
lively and outspoken interest in intellectual questions
by a series of convivial glasses and meditative whiffs.
If such men really take any interest in such questions
at other times, it remains deplorably latent, not exer
cising its legitimate influence on the public opinion of
�.'30
Satires and Profanities.
the world. Our two boys were discussing theology ;
and having had many drinks, grappled with the doctrine
of the triune God. “ Wall,” said Bill, “ I can’t make
out that trinity consarn, that three’s one and one’s three
outfit.” Whereto Dick : “ Is that so ? Then you
warn’t rigged out for a philosopher, Bill. Look here,”
pulling forth his revolver, an action which caused a
•slight stir in the saloon, till the other boys saw that he
didn’t mean business ; “ look here, I’ll soon fix it up
for you. Here’s six chambers, but it’s only one pistol,
with one heft and one barrel; the heft for us to catch
hold of, the barrel to kill our enemy. Wall, God
a’mighty’s jest made hisself a three-shooter, while he
remains one God; but the Devil, he’s only a single-shot
derringer : so God can have three fires at the Devil for
one the Devil can have at him. Now can’t you figure
it out ?” “ Wall,” said Bill, evidently staggered by
the revolver, and feeling, if possible, increased respect
for that instrument on finding it could be brought to
bear toward settlement of even such a difficulty as the
present; “Wall, that pans out better than I thought
it could : but to come down to the bed-rock, either
God's a poor mean shot or his piece carries darned
light ; for I reckon the Devil makes better play
with his one chamber than God with his three.”
“ Maybe,” replied Dick, with calm candor, strangely
indifferent to the appalling prospects this theory held
out for our universe ; “ some of them pesky little
things jest shoot peas that rile the other fellow without
much hurting him, and then, by thunder, he lets day
light through you with one good ball. Besides, it’s
likely enough the Devil’s the best shot, for he’s been
consarned in a devilish heap of shooting more than
God has ; at any rate”—perchance vaguely remember
ing to have heard of such things as “ religious wars ”—
“ of late years, between here and ’Frisco. Wall, I
guess I don’t run the creation. Let’s liquor
mani
festly deriving much comfort from the consciousness
that he had no hand in conducting this world. Bill
acquiesced with a brief “ Ja,” and they stood up for
another drink. I am bound to attest that, in spite or
because of the drinks, they had argued throughout
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
31
-with the utmost deliberation and gravity, with a
dignified demeanor which Bishops and D.Ds. might
■envy, and ought to emulate.
Having thus comforted you with what little of heresy
and infidelity I have been able to gather, it is now my
painful duty to advance another class of proofs of the
general religiousness here ; a class of which you have
very few current specimens in England, unless it be
among the Roman Catholic. All comparative mythologists—indeed, all students of history—are said to
agree that the popular legends and myths of any race
at any time are of the utmost value, as showing what
the race then believed, and thus determining its moral
and intellectual condition at that period ; this value
being quite irrespective of the truth or untruth to fact
■of the said legends. Hence in modern times collections
of old traditions and fairy tales have been excellently
well received, whether from the infantile literature of
ancient peoples, as the Oriental and Norse, or from the
■senile and anile lips of secluded members of tribes
whose nationality is fast dying out, as the Gaelic and
Welsh. And truly such collections commend them
selves alike to the grave and the frivolous, for the
scientific scholar finds in them rich materials for
•serious study, and the mere novel-reader can flatter
himself that he is studying while simply enjoying
strange stories become new from extreme old age. All
primitive peoples, who read and write little, have their
most popular beliefs fluidly embodied in oral legends
and myths ; and in this respect the settlers of a new
region, though they may come from the oldest countries,
resemble the primitive peoples. They are too busy
with the tough work of subduing the earth to give
much time to writing or reading anything beyond their
local newspapers ; they love to chat together when not
working, and chat, much more than writing, runs into
stories. Thus religious legends in great numbers circu
late out here, all charged and surcharged with faith in
the mythology of the Bible. Of these it has been my
sad privilege to listen to not a few. As this letter is
already too long for your paper, though very brief for
the importance of its theme, I will subjoin but a couple
�32
Satires and Profanities.
of them, which I doubt not will be quite enough to
indicate what measureless superstition prevails in
these youngest territories of the free and enlightened
Republic.
It is told—on what authority no one asks, the legend
being universally accepted on its intrinsic merits, as.
Protestants would have us accept the Bible, and Papists
their copious hagiology—that St. Joseph, the putative
father of oui’ Lord, fell into bad habits, slipping almost
daily out of Heaven into evil society, coming home
very late at night and always more or less intoxicated.
It is suggested that he may have been driven into these
courses by unhappiness in his connubial and parental
relations, his wife and her child being ranked so much
above himself by the Christian world, and the latter
being quite openly attributed to another father. Peter,
though very irascible, put up with his misconduct for
a long time, not liking to be harsh to one of the Royal
Family ; and it is believed that God the Father sym
pathised with this poor old Joseph, and protected him,
being himself jealous of the vastly superior popularity
of Mary and Jesus. But at length, after catching a
violent cold through getting out’ of bed at a prepos
terous hour to let the staggering Joseph in, Peter told
him roundly that if he didn’t come home sober and in
good time, he must just stay out all night. Joseph,
feeling sick and having lost his pile, promised amend
ment, and for a time kept his word. Then he relapsed
the heavenly life proved too slow for him, the continual
howling of “all the menagerie of the Apocalypse”
shattered his nerves, he was disgusted at his own
insignificance, the memory of the liaison between his
betrothed and the Holy Ghost filled him with gall and
wormwood, and perhaps he suspected that it was still
kept up. So, late one night or early one morning,.
Peter was roused from sleep by an irregular knocking
and fumbling at the gate, as if some stupid dumb
animal w.ere seeking admittance. “Who’s there?”
growled Peter. “ It’s me—Joseph,” hiccoughed the
unfortunate. “You’re drunk,” said Peter, savagely.
“ You’re on the tear again ; you’re having another
bender.” “Yes,” answered Joseph, meekly. “Wall,”
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
33
said Peter, “you jest go back to where you come from
and spend the night there; get.” “I can’t,” said
Joseph. “They’re all shut up; they’ve turned me
out.” “ Then sleep outside in the open air ; it’s whole
some, and will bring you round,” said Peter. After
much vain coaxing and supplicating, old Joe got quite
mad, and roared out, “ If you don’t get up and let me
in at once, by God I’ll take my son out of the outfit
and bust up the whole consarn!” Peter, terrified by
this threat, which, if carried out, would ruin his pro
spects in eternal life by abolishing his office of celestial
porter, caved in, getting up and admitting Joseph, who
ever since, has had a latch-key that he may go and
come when he pleases. It is to be hoped that he will
never when tight let this latch-key be stolen by one of
the little devils who are always lurking about the
haunts of dissipation he frequents ; for in that case the
consequences might be awful as can be readily imagined.
Again it is told that a certain miner, a tough cuss,
who could whip his weight in wild cats and give points
to a grizzle, seemed uncommonly moody and lowspirited one morning, and on being questioned by his
chum, at length confessed that he was bothered by a
very queer dream. “ I dreamt that I was dead,” he
explained ; “ and a smart spry pretty little angel took
me up to heaven.” “Dreams go by contraries,” sug
gested the chum, by way of comfort. “ Let that slide,”
answered the dreamer ; “ the point isn’t there. Wall,
St.. Peter wasn’t at the gate, and the angel critter led
me on to pay my respects to the boss, and after travelling
considerable we found him as thus. God the Father,
God the Son, God the Holy Ghost and Peter, all as large
as life, were playing a high-toned game of poker, and
there was four heavy piles on the table—gold, not shin
plasters, you bet. I was kinder glad to see that they
played poker up in heaven, so as to make life there not
onbearable ; for *it would be but poor fun singing
psalms all day ; I was never much of a hand at singing,
more particularly when the songs is psalms. Wall, we
waited, not liking to disturb their game, and I watched
the play. I soon found that Jesus Christ was going
through the rest, cheating worse than the heathen
C
�34
Satires and Profanities.
Chinee at euchre ; but of course I didn’t say nothing,
not being in the game. After a while Peter showed
that he began to guess it to, if he wasn’t quite sure ; or
p’raps he was skeared at up and telling Christ to his
face. At last, however, what does Christ do, after a
bully bluff which ran Pete almost to his bottom, dollar,
but up and show five aces to Pete’s call; and ‘ What’s
that for high ?’ says he, quite cool. ‘ Now look you,
Christ,’ shouts Pete, jumping up as mad as thunder, and
not caring a cent or a continental what he said to any
body ; ‘ look you, Christ, that’s too thin ; we don’t want
any of your darned miracles here !’ and with that he
grabbed up his pile and all his stakes, and went off in a
mighty huff. Christ looked pretty mean, I tell you, and
the game was up. Now you see,” said the dreamer, sadly
and thoughtfully, “ it’s a hard rock to drill and darned poor
pay at that, if when you have a quiet hand at poker up
there, the bosses are allowed to cheat and a man can’t
use his deringer or put a head on ’em ; I don’t know
but I’d rather go to the other place on those terms.”
Not yet to be read in books, as I have intimated, but
circulating orally, and in versions that vary with the
various rhapsodists, such are the legends you may hear
when a ring is formed round the hotel-office stove at
night, in shanties and shebangs of ranchmen and
miners, in the shingled offices of judge and doctor, in
railroad cars and steamboats, or when bumming around
the stores ; whenever and wherever, in short, men are
gathered with nothing particular to do. The very
naivete of such stories surely testifies to the child-like
sincerity of the faith they express and nourish. It is
the simple unbounded faith of the Middle Ages, such
as we find in the old European legends and poems and
mysteries, such as your poetess Mrs. Browning well
marks in Chaucer—
“ the infantine
Familiar clasp of things divine.”
Many of the so-called Liberal clergy complain of the
gulf which yawns in this age of materialistic science
between religion and every-day life, this world and the
next, heaven and earth, God and man. The higher
things are treated as mere thin abstractions, they say ;
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
35
and only the lower things are recognised as real. These
pious pioneers, in the freshness and wonderfulness of
their new life, overleap this gulf without an effort,
realising heaven as thoroughly as earth. How could
the communion and the human nature of saints be
better exhibited than in St. Joseph falling into dissipa
tion and St. Peter playing poker ? How could the
manhood as well as the Godhead of Jesus Christ be
more familiarly brought home to us than by his taking
a hand at this game and then miraculously cheating.
When generations have passed away, if not earlier, such
legends as these will assuredly be gathered by earnest
and reverent students as quite invaluable historical
relics. They must fill the Christian soul with delight;
they must harrow the heart of him who hath said in
his heart, There is no God.
In conclusion, I must again express my deep regret
at being forced by the spirit of truth to give you so
favorable an account of the state of religion out here,
both in creed and practice. I trust that you will lose
no time and spare no exertion in attacking, and if pos
sible, routing out the Christianity now entrenched in
these great natural fortresses. Be your war-cry that
of the first pioneers, “ Pike’s Peak or bust ” ; and be
not like unto him found teamless half-way across the
plains, with the confession on his waggon-tilt, “ Busted,
by thunder.” For you can come right out here by
railroad now. As for myself, I climbed wearily and
with mortal pantings unto the top of this great moun
tain, thinking it one of the best coigns of vantage
whence to command a comprehensive view of the
sphere of my inquiries, and also a spot where one
might write without being interrupted or overlooked
by loafers. Unfortunately I have not been able to dis
cover any special religious or irreligious phaenomena ;
for, though the prospect is indeed ample where not
intercepted by clouds or mist, very few of the people
and still fewer of their characteristics can be made out
distinctly even with a good glass. How I am to get
down and post this letter puzzles me. The descent
will be difficult, dangerous, perhaps deadly. Would
that I had not come up. After all there is some truth
�36
Satires and Profanities.
in the Gospel narrative of the Temptation : for by
studying the general course of ecclesiastical promotion
and the characters of the most eminent churchmen, I
was long since led to recognise that it is indeed Satan
who sets people on pinnacles of the temple ; and I am
now, moreover, thoroughly convinced that it is the
Devil and the Devil only that takes any one to the top
of an exceeding high mountain.
The Devil in the Church of England.
[Whitten
in
1876.]
The Judical Committee of the Privy Council has
delivered judgment in the case of Jenkins v. Cook.
Many of the highest personages in the realm, including
the Archbishop of Canterbury and the great law-lords,
were present to give weight and solemnity to the
decision, which was read by the Lord Chancellor. It
was reported at full length in the Times of the follow
ing day, Feb. 17, 1876, the length being two columns
of small print.
I must try to indicate briefly the main facts of the
case, before hazarding any comments on it. Mr. Jen
kins, of Christ Church, Clifton, brought an action
against his vicar, the Rev. Flavel S. Cook, for refusing
him the Sacrament of the Holy Communion. Mr.
Cook justified the refusal on the ground that Mr. Jen
kins did not believe in the Devil, all passages relating
to the Devil and evil spirits having been excluded from
a bulky volume published by Mr. Jenkins, entitled
Selections from the Old and New Testaments. By
�The Devil in the Church of England.
37
the evidence of Mrs. Jenkins, who attempted an amic
able arrangement, it appears that Mr. Cook said to her :
“Let Mr. Jenkins write me a calm letter, and say he
believes in the Devil, and I will give him the Sacra
ment.” Whereupon Mr. Jenkins wrote on July 20,
1874: “With regard to my book, Selections from the
Old and New Testaments, the parts I have omitted,
and which has enabled me [[meaning, doubtless, and
the omission of which has enabled mej to use the book
morning and evening in my family are, in their present
generally received sense, quite incompatible with
religion or decency (in my opinion). How such ideas
have become connected with a book containing every
thing that is necessary for a man to know, I really
cannot say ; I can only sincerely regret it.” Mr. Cook
replied in effect: “ Then you cannot be received at
the Lord’s table in my church.” Mr. Jenkins, a
regular communicant, and admittedly a man of exem
plary and devout life, answered: “ Thinking as you do,
I do not see what other course you could consistently
have taken. I shall, nevertheless, come to the Lord’s
table as usual at ‘your’ church, which is also mine.”
Accordingly he presented himself, and was repelled,
whereupon he brought an action against Mr. Cook.
The case was first tried in the Court of Arches, and
the dean dismissed the suit and condemned Mr. Jen
kins in costs, saying, “ I am of opinion that the avowed
and persistent denial of the existence and personality
of the Devil did, according to the law of the Church,
as expressed in her canons and rubrics, constitute the
promoter [Mr. JenkinsJ ‘ an evil liver, and ‘ a depraver
of the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of
the Sacraments,’ in such sense as to warrant the defen
dant in refusing to administer the Holy Communion to
him until he disavowed or withdrew his avowal of the
heretical opinion, and that the same consideration
applies to the absolute denial by the promoter of the
doctrine of the eternity of punishment, and, of course,
still more to the denial of all punishment for sin in a
future state, which is the legitimate consequence of
his deliberate exclusion of the passages of scripture
referring to such punishment.”
�38
Satires and Profanities.
So far, so well; the Church of England was assured
of the Devil and the eternal punishment it has always
held so dear. But Mr. Jenkins appealed to the highest
court, and this has reversed the decision of the lower,
admonished Mr. Cook for his conduct in the past,
monished him to refrain from the like offence in
future, and condemned him in the costs of both suits.
Do you think, then, that the Church of England is
authoritatively deprived of her dear Devil and her
beloved eternal punishment? Not at all ; the really
important problem is evaded with consummate lawyer
like wariness ; the points in dispute are most shiftily
shifted like slides of a magic lantern ; we have a new
decision essentially unrelated to that which it cancels ;
we have a judgment which concerns not the Devil—
except that he would chuckle over the too clever
unwisdom which fancies it can extinguish “ burning
questions ” with legal wigs.
Their most learned lordships in the first place
observe that the learned judge of the Court of Arches
appears to have considered that the canon and the
rubric severally warrant the repulsion from the Lord’s
table of “ an evil liver,” and “ a depraver of the Book
of Common Prayer,” whereas the terms are “ an open
and notorious evil liver,” and “ common and notorious
depravers.”
This is a most pregnant distinction,
teaching us that an evil liver and a depraver of the
said book, as long as he is not notoriously such, is fully
entitled to the Holy Communion, fully entitled to the
privilege of “ eating and drinking damnation to him
self
a privilege from which the notorious evil liver
and depraver is righteously debarred.
Now, their most learned lordships find that there is
absolutely no evidence that the appellant was an evil
liver, much less an open and notorious evil liver. The
question follows, Was he a common and notorious
depraver of the Book of Common Prayer ? It was
contended that the Selections, coupled with the letter
of July 20, proved him to be this. But the letter was
not written spontaneously. He was invited by the
respondent, Mr. Cook, to write it. It was a friendly
and private, as well as a solicited, communication.
�lhe Devil in the Church of England.
39
Therefore, whatever be the construction of the letter,
and even if there be in it a depravation of the Book of
Common Prayer, still it would be impossible to hold
that the writing of such a letter in such circumstances
could make the appellant “ a common and notorious
depraver.” Whence it is clear that a man may deprave
the Book of Common Prayer as much as he pleases m
private conversation and letters, yet retain the precious
privilege of “ eating and drinking damnation to him
self ” in the Holy Communion ; he can only forfeit
this by common and notorious depravation of that
blessed book—for instance, by a depravation repeatedly
published in a newspaper, or persistently proclaimed
by the town-crier.
So far the law seems most clear, and the judgment
quite incontestible. But leaving the strait limits of
the law, and looking at the facts in evidence, there is
one part of the judgment which to the common lay
mind is simply astonishing. Their most learned lord
ships “ desire to state in the most emphatic manner that
there is not before them any evidence that the appellant^
entertains the doctrines attributed to him by the Dean of
Archeswherefore their most learned and subtle
lordships “ do not mean to decide that those doctrines
are otherwise than inconsistent with the formularies of
the Church of England.” Nor, of course, do they mean
to decide that those doctrines are inconsistent with
those formularies. No, “ This is not the subject for
their lordships’ present consideration.” Indeed, “If
they were [Nad been ] called upon to decide that
[whether] those opinions, or any of them, could be
entertained or expressed by a member of the Church,
whether layman or clergyman, consistently with the
law and with his remaining in communion with the
Church, they would have looked upon this case with
much greater anxiety than they now feel in its
decision •
Mr. Jenkins compiles and publishes a book of
Selections from the Bible, carefully . excluding all
passages relating to the Devil and evil spirits. The
book is bulky ; and, in fact, though this is not expressly
stated, seems to contain pretty well all the Bible except
�40
Satires and Profanities.
such passages. He farther exhibits in the case a book
of selections from the liturgy of the Church of England,
apparently compiled on the same principle of exclusion.
Mr. Cook sends through Mrs. J. a message : “ Let
Mr. J. write me a calm letter, and say he believes in
the Devil and I will give him the Sacrament.” Mr. J.
replies, as we have seen, that the parts he has omitted
are, in his opinion, quite incompatible with religion
or decency, in their generally received sense; such
generally received sense being evidently (to all of us
save their most learned and subtle lordships) that in
which the Church of England receives them. Mr. C.
replies, “ Then I must refuse to you the Communion.”
Mr. J. answers, “ Thinking as you do, I do not see
what other course you could consistently have taken
and resolves to test the question of legality. With
these facts staring them in the face, their most learned
and most subtle lordships can, with the utmost
solemnity, and in the most emphatic manner, declare
that there is not any evidence before them that
Mr. Jenkins does not believe in the Devil in the com
mon Church of England sense ! What the eyes of
laymen, however purblind, cannot help seeing clearly,
their far-sighted lordships, putting on legal spectacles,
dim with the dust of many ages, manage not to discern
at all.
The question cannot be left thus undecided. As
matters stand, the poor Church does not know whether,
legally, it has a Devil or not. Its Devil, its dear and
precious old Devil, is in a state of suspended animation,
neither dead nor alive ; a most inefficient and burden
some Devil. He must either be restored to full health
and vigor, or buried away decently for ever ; decently
and solemnly, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the
presence of all their lordships of the Judicial Com
mittee of the Privy Council, reading the appropriate
Church service over his grave. That would be touch
ing and impressive !—“ Forasmuch as it hath pleased
Almighty God (with the sanction and authority of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) of his great
mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother
here departed, we therefore commit his body to the
�The Devil in the Church of England.
41
ground ; earth, to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;
in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal
life, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” At present it
appears that every clergyman and layman in the
Church has the legal right to sing as a solo in private,
especially if solicited, Beranger’s refrain, “ lhe Deml
is dead! The Devil is dead!" while it is doubtful
whether he is at liberty to chant it publicly and in
chorus—a state of things anomalous beyond even the
normal anomalism of all things in this our happy
England. It is urgent that some one, lay or cleric,
should compel the decision which the suit of Mr. Jen
kins has failed to obtain.
.
In considering the question whether disbelief m the
Devil would “deprave” the Prayer Book, we must
refer to this book itself. It contains three creeds—the
Apostles’, the Nicene, and that called of Athanasius.
Of these the Nicene (the creed in the Communion
Service, by the way) mentions neither the Devil nor
Hell; the Apostles’ and the so-called Athanasian men
tion Hell but not the Devil. In No. Ill of the Thirtynine Articles hell is solidly established, but again there
is no mention of the Devil. It may be argued that
hell implies the Devil, as a fox-hole implies a fox ; but
his existence is not authoritatively averred. . Strangely
enough, the only personage who, according to the
creeds and articles, has certainly been in hell, is Jesus
Christ himself : “ He descended into hell ; the third
day he rose again from the dead ; he ascended into
heaven.” What took him to hell ? The Prayer Book
does not inform us. But we learn from the Epistle
called 1 Peter, chap, iii., 19, 20, and chap, iv., 6_: f By
which also he went and preached unto the spirits in
prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once
the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah,
while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is
eight souls, were saved by water. ... For this cause
was the gospel preached also to them that are dead,
that they might be judged according to men in the
flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” Whence
it appears that the spirits in prison were not the Devil
and his angels, but the spirits of those who were
�42
Satires and Profanities.
drowned in the Flood for disobedience ; and it further
more appears that these spirits were saved by the
preaching of Christ ; so that in this famous harrying
of hell, he seems to have left it as empty as the moss
troopers in their forays left farmsteads. It is true
that No. VI. of the Articles settles the canon of the
Old and New Testaments, and that anyone daring to
exclude from belief anything in this canon might be
convicted of depraving the Prayer Book. But in that
case all the best scholars and divines of the Church are
guilty of this dreadful sin ; and not only guilty, but
openly, commonly and notoriously guilty ; and there
fore all merit repulsion from the Lord’s table. Let
the truly faithful clergy, those who believe all wuthout
question or distinction, do their duty to the Articles of
religion of their Church (the Creeds, as I have pointed
out, are neutral), and they will shut out from their
Communion nearly all the intelligent piety and learn
ing which lend it whatever dignity it still retains „
Granted the canon in its integrity, and the existence of
a personal Devil, and the doctrine of eternal punish
ment cannot be fairly disputed. Without multiplying
texts, I may refer to Revelation, chap, xx., as decisive
on these points.
From these considerations it follows that if the
Church of England is bound by her own articles she
will hold fast to the Devil and hell, and deny the
privilege of her Communion to any one who depraves
the Prayer Book by common and notorious disbelief
in them. And for my own part, I do not see how the
Church could get on at all without a Devil and hell,
especially in competition with the other Christian sects,
which make unlimited use of both. The Devil is in
fact as essential to the Christian scheme as a leader
of the opposition to that great political blessing,
government by party. If he were to die, or be deposed,
it would be necessary to elect another to the vacant
dignity. You cannot put the leadership in commission
as the unfortunate Liberals were taunted with doing
in their demoralisation after their disasters of the
General Election, and Mr. Gladstone’s sudden retire
ment. Just as Mr. Disraeli lamented the withdrawal
�The Devil in the Church of England.
43
of Mr. Gladstone, complaining of the embarrassment
caused to the Government by having no responsible
leader opposed to it, so we can imagine dear God
lamenting the absence of a Devil, and declaring that
the Christian scheme could not work well without one.
His utter loss would make the government of the
world retrograde from an admirably balanced consti
tutional monarchy to a mere Oriental absolute
despotism. You must choose some one to lead, if only
in name and for the time, as the Whigs chose Lord
Hartington. But though Lord Hartington is still
tolerated by us English, a Lord Hartington of a Devil,
be it said with all respect to both his lordship and his
Devilship, would scarcely be tolerated by either the
celestial or the infernal benches.
In Beranger’s authentic record, already alluded to, of
“ The Death of the Devil ’’—which, however, relates
only to the Church of Rome—we read how, on
learning the catastrophe :—
“ The conclave shook with mortal fear;
Power and cash-box, adieu! they said;
We have lost our father dear,
The Devil is dead ! the Devil is dead ! ”
But while they were in this passion of grief and
despair, St. Ignatius offered to take the place of the
dead Devil ; and none could doubt that he with his
Jesuits for imps would prove a most efficient substitute.
Wherefore the Church threw off its sorrow and
welcomed his offer with holy rapture :—
“ Noble fellow! cried all the court,
We bless thee for thy malice and hate.
And at once his Order, Rome’s support,
Saw its robes flutter Heaven’s gate.
Prom the Angels tears of pity fell:
Poor man will have cause to rue, they said;
St. Ignatius inherits Hell.
The Devil is dead! the Devil is dead.”
Thus matters continued well for the Church of Rome,
and, in fact, became even better than before. But if
the Devil should die in the Church of England, whom
has she that could efficiently take his place ? She has
no saints except the disciples and apostles of the New
�44
Satires and Profanities.
Testament, and these have long since gone to glory.
Would Mr. Gladstone undertake the office? or Mr'
Beresford Hope, with the Saturday Review for his
infernal gazette ? or the editor of the Rock ? or he of
the Church Times ? or the man who does religion for
the Daily Telegraph? Each of these distinguished
gentlemen might well eagerly accept the candidature
for a post so lofty : but I fear that none of them
could be considered equal to its functions. Perhaps
Mr. Disraeli has the requisite genius, and probably he
would be very glad to exchange the Premiership of
little England for that of large hell: but unfortunately
he has already committed himself to the side of the
angels, meaning by angels the humdrum Tory angels
of heaven—for, as Dr. Johnson said, the Devil was the
first Whig. On the whole, the Church of England had
better keep loyal to its ancient and venerable Devil,
being too impoverished in intellect and character to
supply a worthy successor.
■ I have ventured to compare the government of the
world in the Christian scheme, by a God and a Devil,
with our own felicitous government by party. There
is, however, or rather there appears to be, a striking
difference between the two. In our government, when
the Prime Minister finds himself decidedly in a minority,
he goes out of office, and the Leader of the Opposition
goes in; in the Government of the World the
Leader of the Opposition seems to have always had
an immense majority (and his majority in these days
is probably larger than ever before, seeing that
sceptics and infidels have multiplied exceedingly),
yet the other side is supposed to retain permanent
possession of office. I say “ supposed,” because the
Bible itself suggests that this popular opinion is a
mistake, the Devil (if there be a Devil) being entitled
by it the prince of this world, which surely implies his
accession to power.
Although the Godhead or governing power of the
world, according to the Christian scheme, is usually
spoken and written of as a trinity, it is in fact, qua
ternary oi’ fourfold fcr Protestants, and quinary or
fivefold for Roman Catholics. The former have God
�The Devil in the Church of England.
45
the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, and
God the Devil; the latter supplement these with
Goddess the Virgin Mary. Both formally acknow
ledge the first three as collectively and severally
almighty, but Protestants implicitly acknowledge the
fourth, and Roman Catholics the fifth, as more almighty
still (these solecisms of dogma cannot be expressed
without solecisms of language.) With the Roman
Catholics I am not concerned here. With regard to
the Protestants, and those especially professing the
Protestantism of the Church of England, I may safely
affirm that the Devil is not less essential to their
theology than is any person of the Trinity, or, in fact,
than are the three persons together. Indeed, the
Father and the Holy Ghost have been practically dis
pensed with, leaving Christ and Satan to fight the
battle out between themselves.
As this is a gloriously scientific age, nobly enamored
of the exact sciences, I will endeavor to expound this
sublime subject of the divinity of the Church of Eng
land mathematically, even after the manner of the
divine Plato in Book VIII. of “ The Republic,” treat
ing of divine and human generation; and in the
“ Timseus,” treating of the creation of the universal
soul. His demonstrations, indeed, are so divinely
obscure as to confound all the scholiasts ; my demon
stration, however, shall be so translucent that even the
most learned and subtle lords of the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council, with their legal spectacles on,
shall not be able to help seeing through it. And
whereas the figures, which are shapes, are more intel
ligible to most people than the figures which are
numbers, let the exposition be geometrical. We will
say, then, that the Church of old conceived the divinity
in the form of an equilateral triangle, whereof the base
was Christ as the whole system was founded on belief
in the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father and the Holy
Ghost were the two sides, leaning each on the other ;
and the Devil was the apex, as opposed to, and farthest
from, our blessed Savior. But in course of time the
theologians (perhaps merely wanting some occupation
for their vigorous talents, perhaps deeming it undig-
�46
Satires and Profanities.
nified to have two persons of the Godhead supporting
each other obliquely like a couple of tipsy men, perhaps
simply in order to make matters square) set to work,
and pushed up the two sides, so that each might stand
firm and perpendicular by itself. This process had two
unforeseen results ; it expanded the apex, which was a
very elastic point, so that it became the crowning side
of the square, and it so unhinged the sides that after a
brief upright existence they lost their balance, and
were carried to Limbo by the first wind of strange
doctrine which blew that way ; and the Devil and
Christ, or Christ and the Devil (arrange the precedence
as you please), were left alone confronting each other.
These two are of course equal and parallel, the main
distinction between them being that Christ is below,
and the Devil above, or, in other words, that the Devil
is superior and Christ is inferior(theDevil seems entitled
to the precedence). Thus matters have continued even
to the present time, the divinity showing itself, as we
may say, without form and void ; and we are free to
speculate on the momentous questions : Will the crown
(which is the Devil) fall into the base (which is Christ)?
Will the base float up into the crown ? Will the two
coalese half way ? Will they both, unknit from their
sides, be carried away to Limbo by some blast of strange
doctrine ? One thing is certain, they cannot long remain
as they are. Rare Ben Johnson chanted the Trinity, or
Equilateral Triangle ; rare Walt Whitman has chanted
the Square Deific (with Satan for the fourth side); no
poet can care to chant the two straight lines which, in
the language of Euclid, and in the region of intelli
gence, cannot enclose a space, but are as a magnified
symbol of equal—to nothing.
PS.—It may be appropriately added that the books
of Euclid are really symbolic and prophetic expositions
of most sublime and sacrosanct mysteries, though in
these days few persons seem aware of the fact. Thus
the very first definition, “ A point is position without
magnitude,” exactly defines every point of difference
between the theologians. So a line, which is as the
prolongation of a point, or length without breadth,
represents in one sense (for each symbol has manifold
�The Devil in the Church of England.
47
meanings) the history of any theological system. An
acute angle is, say, Professor Clifford ; an obtuse
angle, Mr. Whalley ; a right angle, the present writer :
non angeli sed Angli. The first proposition, “ To erect
an equilateral triangle upon a given finite straight line,”
indicates the problem solved by Christianity, when it
erected the Trinity on the basis of the man we call
Jesus. This pregnant subject should be worked out in
detail through the whole eight books.
Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
[Written
in
1866.]
Poor dear God sat alone in his private chamber,
moody, melancholy, miserable, sulky, sullen, weary,
dejected, supernally hipped. It was the evening of
Sunday, the 24th of December, 1865. Waters con
tinually dripping wear away the hardest stone ; year
falling after year will.at length overcome the strongest
god : an oak-tree outlasts many generations of men ;
a mountain or a river outlasts many celestial dynasties.
A cold like a thick fog in his head, rheum in his eyes,
and rheumatism in his limbs and shoulders, his back
bent, his chin peaked, his poll bald, his teeth decayed,
his body all shivering, his brain all muddle, his heart
all black care ; no wonder the old gentleman looked
poorly as he cowered there, dolefully sipping his
Lachryma Christi. “I wish the other party would
lend me some of his fire,” he muttered, “ for it is
horribly frigid up here.” The table was crowded and
the floor littered with books and documents, all most
�48
Satires and Profanities.
unreadable reading : missionary reports, controversial
divinity, bishops’ charges, religious periodicals, papal
allocutions and encyclical letters, minutes of Exeter
Hall meetings, ponderous blue books from the angelic
bureaux—dreary as the humor of Punch, silly as the
critiques of the Times, idiotic as the poetry of AU the
Year Round. When now and then he eyed them
askance he shuddered more shockingly, and looked at
his desk with loathing despair. For he had gone
through a hard day’s work, with extra services appro
priate to the sacred season ; and for the ten-thousandth
time he had been utterly knocked up and bewildered
by the Athanasian Creed.
While he sat thus, came a formal tap at the door,
and his son entered, looking sublimely good and re
spectable, pensive with a pensiveness on which one
grows comfortably fat. “ Ah, my boy,” said the old
gentleman, '• you seem to get on well enough in these
sad times : come to ask my blessing for your birthday
fete ?” “ I fear that you are not well, my dear father ;
do not give way to dejection, there was once a man—”
“ 0, dash your parables I keep them for your disciples ;
they are not too amusing. Alack for the good old times!”
“ The wicked old times you mean, my father ; the times
when we were poor, and scorned, and oppressed ; the
times when heathenism and vain philosophy ruled
everywhere in the world. Now, all civilised realms
are subject to us. and worship us.” “ And disobey us.
You are very wise, much wiser than your old worn-out
father ; yet perchance a truth or two comes to me in
solitude, when it can’t reach you through the press of
your saints, and the noise of your everlasting preaching
and singing and glorification. You knowhow I began
life, the petty chief of a villainous tribe. But I was
passionate and ambitious, subtle and strong-willed, and,
in spite of itself, I made my tribe a nation ; and I
fought desperately against all the surrounding chiefs,
and with pith of arm and wile of brain I managed to
keep my head above water. But I lived all alone, a
stern and solitary existence. None other of the gods
■was so friendless as I ; and it is hard to live alone when
memory is a sea of blood. I hated and despised the
�Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
r
4J
Greek Zeus and his shameless court; yet I could not
but envy him, for a joyous life the rogue led. So I,
like an old fool, must have my amour ; and a pretty
intrigue I got into with the prim damsel Mary ! Then
a great thought arose in me : men cannot be loyal to
utter aliens ; their gods must be human on one side,
divine on the other ; my own people were always
deserting me to pay homage to bastard deities. I
would adopt you as my own son (between ourselves, I
have never been sure of the paternity), and admit you
to a share in the government. Those infernal Jews
killed you, but the son of a God could not die ; you
came up hither to dwell with me ; I the old absolute
king, you the modern tribune of the people. Here you
have been ever since ; and I don’t mind telling you
that you were a much more lovable character below
there as the man Jesus than you have proved above
here as the Lord Christ. As some one was needed on
earth to superintend the executive, we created the
Comforter, prince royal and plenipotentiary ; and
behold us a divine triumvirate ! The new blood was
I must own, beneficial. We lost Jerusalem, but we
won Rome ; Jove, Neptune, Apollo, Bacchus, and the
rest, were conquered and slain ; our leader of the
opposition ejected Plato and Pan. Only I did not
bargain that my mistress should more than succeed to
Juno, who was, at any rate, a lawful wife. You
announced that our empire was peace ; you announced
likewise that it was war; both have served us. Our
power extended, our glory rose ; the chief of a miser
able tribe has become emperor of Europe. But our
empire was to be the whole world ; yet instead of signs
of more dominion, I see signs that what we have is
falling to pieces. From my youth up I have been a
man of war; and now that I am old and weary and
wealthy, and want peace, peace flies from me. Have
we not shed enough blood ? Have we not caused
enough tears ? Have we not kindled enough fires ?
And in my empire what am I ? Yourself and my
mistress share all the power between you ; I am but a
name at the head of our proclamations. I have been a
man of war, I am getting old and worn out, evil days
•
D
�50
Satires and Profanities.
are at hand, and I have never enjoyed life ; therefore
is my soul vexed within me. And my own subjects
are as strangers. Your darling saints I cannot bear.
The whimpering, simpering, canting, chanting block
heads ! You were always happy in a pious miserable
ness, and you do not foresee the end. Do you know
that in spite of our vast possessions we are as near
bankruptcy as Spain or Austria ? Do you know that
our innumerable armies are a Chinese rabble of cowards
and traitors ? Do you know that our legitimacy (even
if yours were certain) will soon avail us as little as that
of the Bourbons has availed them ? Of these things
you are ignorant : you are so deafened with shouts and
songs in your own praise that you never catch a whisper
of doom. I would not quail if I had youth to cope
with circumstance ; none can say honestly that I ever
feared a foe ; but I am so weak that often I could not
walk without leaning on you. Why did I draw out my
life to this ignominious end ? Why did I not fall
fighting like the enemies I overcame ? Why the Devil
did you get born at all, and then murdered by those
rascally Jews, that I who was a warrior should turn
into a snivelling saint ? The heroes of Asgard have
sunk into a deeper twilight than they foresaw; but
their sunset, fervent and crimson with blood and with
wine, made splendid that dawnless gloaming. The
joyous Olympians have perished, but they all had lived
and loved. For me, I have subsisted and hated. What
of time is left to me I will spend in another fashion.
Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.” And he
swallowed hastily a bumper of the wine, which threw
him into convulsions of coughing.
Serene and superior, the son had let the old man run
on. “ Do not, I entreat you, take to drink in your old
age, dear father. You say that our enemies lived and
loved ; but think how unworthy of divine rulers was
their mode of life, how immoral, how imprudent, how
disreputable, how savage, how lustful, how un-Christian! What a bad example for poor human souls
“ Human souls be blessed ! Are they so much improved
now ? . . . Would that at least I had conserved Jove’s
barmaid ; the prettiest, pleasantest girl they say (we
�Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
51
know you are a Joseph, though you always had
three or four women dangling about you) ; fair-ankled
was the wench, bright-limbed ; she might be unto me
evfen as was Abishag, the Shunammite, unto my old
friend David.” “ Let us speak seriously, my father, of
the great celebration to-morrow.” “ And suppose I am
speaking very seriously, you solemn prig ; not a drop
of my blood is there in you.”
Here came a hurried knocking at the door, and the
angelic ministers of state crawled in, with super
elaborate oriental cringings, to deliver their daily
reports. “ Messages from Brahma. Ormuzd, etc., to
congratulate on the son’s birthday.” “ The infidels!
the mockers I” muttered the son. “Good words,” said
the father ; “ they belong to older families than ours,
my lad, and were once much more powerful. You are
always trying to win over the parvenus.” “ A riot in
the holy city. The black angels organised to look after
the souls of converted negroes having a free fight with
some of the white ones.” “ My poor lambs !” sighed the
son. “ Black sheep,” growled the father; “ what is
the row ?” “ They have plumed themselves brighter
than peacocks, and scream louder than parrots ; claim
precedence over the angels of the mean whites ; insist
on having some of their own hymns and tunes in the
programme of to-morrow’s concert.” “Lock ’em all
up, white and black, especially the black, till Tuesday
morning ; they can fight it out then—it’s Boxing Day.
We’ll have quite enough noise to-morrow without ’em.
Never understood the nigger question, for my part :
was a slave-holder myself, and cursed Ham as much as
pork.” “ New saints grumbling about lack of civilised
accommodation : want underground railways, steamers
for the crystal sea, telegraph wires to every mansion,
morning and evening newspapers, etc., etc. ; have had
a public meeting with a Yankee saint in the chair, and
resolved that heaven is altogether behind the age.”
“ Confound it, my son, have I not charged you again
and again to get some saints of ability up here ? Bor
years past every batch has been full of good-for-nothing
noodles. Have we no engineers, no editors at all?”
“ One or two engineers, we believe, sire, but we can’t
�52
Natives and Profanities.
find a single editor.” “ Give one of the Record fellows
the measles, and an old I' Univers hand the cholera, and
bring them up into glory at once, and we’ll have two
daily papers. And while you are about it, see whether
you can discover three or four pious engineers—not
muffs, mind—and blow them up hither with their own
boilers, or in any other handy way. Haste, haste, post
haste !” “ Deplorable catastrophe in the temple of the
New Jerusalem : a large part of the foundation given
way, main wall fallen, several hundred workmen
bruised.” “ Stop that fellow who just left; counter
mand the measles, the cholera will be enough ; we will
only have one journal, and that must be strictly official.
If we have two, one will be opposition. Hush up the
accident. It is strange that Pandemonium was built
so much better and more quickly than our New Jeru
salem !” “ All our best architects and other artists have
deserted into Elysium, my lord ; so fond of the
company of the old Greeks.”
"When these and many other sad reports had been
heard, and the various ministers and secretaries savagely
dismissed, the father turned to the son, and said : “ Did
I not tell you of the evil state we are in ?” “ By hope
and faith and charity, and the sublime doctrine of selfrenunciation, all will yet come right, my father.”
“ Humph ! let hope fill my treasury, and faith finish the
New Jerusalem, and charity give us peace and quiet
ness, and self-renunciation lead three-quarters of your
new-fangled saints out of heaven ; and then I shall
look to have a little comfort.” “ Will you settle to-mor
row’s programme, sire ? or shall I do my best to spare
you the trouble ?” “ You do your best to spare me the
trouble of reigning altogether, I think. What pro
gramme can there be but the old rehearsal for the
eternal life (I wish you may get it) ? 0, that horrible
slippery sea of glass, that bedevilled throne vomiting
thunders and lightning, those stupid senile elders in
white nightgowns, those four hideous beasts full of
eyes, that impossible lamb with seven horns and one
eye to each horn ! 0, the terrific shoutings and harpings and stifling incense! A pretty set-out for my
time of life! And to think that you hope some time
�Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
53
or other to begin this sort of thing as a daily amuse
ment, and to carry it on for ever and ever! Not much
appearance of its beginning soon, thank goodness—•
that is to say, thank badness. Why can’t you have a
play of Aristophanes, or Shakespeare, or Molidre ? Why
should I meddle with the programme ? I had nothing
to do with first framing it. Besides, it is all in your
honor, not in mine. You like playing the part of the
Lamb ; I’m much more like an old wolf. You are
ravished when those beasts give glory and honor and
thanks ; as for me, I am utterly sick of them. Behold
what I will do; I must countenance the affair, but I
can do so without disturbing myself. I’ll not go
thundering and roaring in my state-carriage of the
whirlwind ; I’ll slip there in a quiet cloud. You cant
do without my glory, but it really is too heavy for my
aged shoulders ; you may lay it upon the throne ; it
will look just as well. As for my speech, here it is all
ready written out ; let Mercury, I mean Raphael or
Uriel, read it; I can’t speak plainly since I lost so
many teeth. And now I consider the matter, what
need is there for my actual presence at all ? Have me
there in effigy ; a noble and handsome dummy can
wear the glory with grace. Mind you have a hand
some one ; I wish all the artists had not deserted us.
Your pious fellows make sad work of us, my son.
But then their usual models are so ugly ; your saints
have good reason to speak of their vile bodies. How
is it that all the pretty girls slip away to the other
place, poor darlings ? By the bye, who are going on
this occasion to represent the twelve times twelve
thousand of the tribes of Israel ? Is the boy Mortara
dead yet ? He will make one real Jew.” “We are
converting them, sire.” “Not the whole gross of thou
sands yet, I trust ? Faugh ! what a greasy stench there
would be—what a blazing of Jew jewelry ! Hand me
the latest bluebook, with the reports. . . . Ah, I see ;
great success ! Power of the Lord Christ! (always you,
of course). Society flourishing. Eighty-two thousand
pounds four shillings and twopence three-farthings last
year from Christians aroused to the claims of the lost
sheep of the House of Israel. (Very good.) Five con-
�54
Satires and Profanities.
versions !! Three others have already been persuaded
to eat pork sausages. (Better and better.) One, who
drank most fervently of the communion wine suffered
himself to be treated to an oyster supper. Another,
being greatly moved, was heard to ejaculate ‘ 0 Christ!’
. . . Hum, who are the five ? Moses Isaacs : wasn’t he
a Christian ten years ago in Italy, and afterwards a
Mahommedan in Salonica, and afterwards a Jew in
Marseilles ? This Mussulman is your oyster-man, I
presume ? You will soon get the one hundred and fortyfour thousand at this rate, my son ! and cheap too 1”
He chuckled, and poured out another glass of
Lachryma Christi ; drank it, made a wry face, and then
began coughing furiously. “ Poor drink this for a god
in his old age. Odin and Jupiter fared better. Though
decent for a human tipple, for a divinity it is but
am&rosze stygiale, as my dear old favorite chaplain
would call it. I have his devotional works under lock
and key there in my desk. Apropos, where is he ?
Left us again for a scurry through the more jovial
regions ? I have not seen him for a long time.” “ My
father! really, the words he used, the life he led ; so
corrupting for the young saints ! We were forced to
invite him to travel a little for the benefit of his health.
The court must be kept pure, you know.” “ Send for
him instantly, sir. He is out of favor because he likes
the old man and laughs at your saints, because he can’t
cant and loves to humbug the humbugs. Many a fit
of the blues has he cured for me, while you only make
them bluer. Have him fetched at once. 0, I know
you never liked him ; you always thought him laughing
at your sweet pale face and woebegone airs, laughing
‘ en horrible sarcasm et sanglante derision ’ (what a
style the rogue has I what makes that of your favorite
parsons and holy ones so flaccid and flabby and hectic ?)
‘ Physician, heal thyself 1’ So, in plain words, you
have banished him ; the only jolly soul left amongst
us, my pearl and diamond and red ruby of Chaplains,
abstracter of the quintessence of pantagruelism ! The
words he used ! I musn’t speak freely myself now,
and the old books I wrote are a great deal too coarse
for you ! Michael and Gabriel told me the other day
�Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
55
that they hacl just been severely lectured on the
earnestness of life by one of your new proteges; they
had to kick him howling into limbo. A fine set of
solemn prigs we are getting !” “ My father, the holi
ness of sorrow, the infiniteness of suffering!” “ Yes,
yes, I know all about it. That long-winded poet of
yours (he does an ode for you to-morrow ?) began to
sermonise me thereon. By Jupiter, he wanted to
arouse me to a sense of my inner being and responsi
bilities and so forth. I very soon packed him off to
the infant school, where he teaches the alphabet and
catechism to the babies and sucklings. Have you sent
for my jovial, joyous, jolly Cure of Meudon ?” “I
have ; but I deeply regret that your Majesty thinks it
fitting to be intimate with such a free-liver, such a
glutton and wine-bibber and mocker and buffoon.”
“Bah ! you patronised the publicans and sinners your
self in your younger and better days. The strict ones
blamed you for going about eating and drinking so
much. I hear that some of your newest favorites
object to the wine in your last supper, and are going to
insist on vinegar-and-water in future.”
Whereupon entered a man of noble and courtly
presence, lively-eyed and golden bearded, ruddy complexioned, clear-browed, thoughtful, yet joyous, serene,
and unabashed. “Welcome, thrice welcome, my beloved
Alcofribas,” cried the old monarch; “ very long is it
since last I saw you.” “ I have been exiled since then,
your Majesty.” “ And I knew nothing of it!” “And
thought nothing of it or of me until you wanted me.
No one expects the King to have knowledge of what
is passing under his eyes.” “ And how did you manage
to exist in exile, my poor chaplain?” “Much better
than here at court, sire. If your Majesty wants a little
pleasure, I advise you to get banished yourself. Your
parasites and sycophants and courtiers are a most
morose, miserable, ugly, detestable, intolerable swarm
of blind beetles and wasps ; the devils are beyond
comparison better company.” “ What ! you have
been mixing with traitors ?” “ Oh, I spent a few
years in Elysium, but didn’t this time go into the
lower circles. But while I sojourned as a country
�56
Satires and Profanities.
gentleman on the heavenly borders,’ I met a few
contrabandists.
I need not tell you that large, yea,
enormous quantities of beatitude are smuggled out of
your dominions.” “ But what is smuggled in ?” “ Sire,
I am not an informer ; I never received anything out
of the secret-service money. The poor angels are glad
to run a venture at odd times, to relieve the tedium of
everlasting Te Deum. By the bye, I saw the Devil
himself.” “ The Devil in my kingdom ? What is
Uriel about ? he’ll have to be superannuated.” “ Bah !
your Majesty knows very well that Satan comes in and
returns as and when he likes. The passport system
never stops the really dangerous fellows. When he
honored me with a call he looked the demurest young
saint, and I laughed till I got the lockjaw at his earnest
and spiritual discourse. He would have taken yourself
in, much more Uriel. You really ought to get him on
the list of court chaplains. He and I were always good
friends, so if anything happens. . . . It may be well for
you if you can disguise yourself as cleverly as he.
A revolution is not quite impossible, you know.”
The Son threw up his hands in pious horror ; the
old King, in one of his spasms of rage, hurled
the blue-book at the speaker’s head, which it
missed, but knocked down and broke his favorite
crucifix. “Jewcy fiction versus crucifixion, sire;
magna est veritas et prevalebit! Thank Heaven,
all that folly is owfeide my brains ; it is not the first
book full of cant and lies and stupidity that has been
flung at me. Why did you not let me finish ? The
Devil is no fonder than your sacred self of the new
opinions ; in spite of the proverb, he loves and dotes
upon holy water. If you cease to be head of the
ministry, he ceases to be head of the opposition ; he
wouldn’t mind a change, an innings for him and an
outings for you ; but these latest radicals want to crush
both Whigs and Tories. He was on his way to confer
with some of your Privy Council, to organise joint
action for the suppression of new ideas. You had
better be frank and friendly with him. Public oppo
sition and private amity are perfectly consistent and
praiseworthy. He has done you good service before
�Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
57
now ; and you and your Son have always been of the
greatest assistance to him.” “ By the temptation of
Job ! I must see to it. And now no more business.
I am hipped, my Rabelais ; we must have a spree. The
cestus of Venus, the lute of Apollo, we never could
find; but there was sweeter loot in the sack of
-Olympus, and our cellars are not yet quite empty. We
will have a petit souper of ambrosia and nectar.” “ My
father! my father! did you not sign the pledge
to abstain from these heathen stimulants ?” “ My
beloved Son, with whom I am not at all well pleased,
go and swill water till you get the dropsy, and permit
me to do as I like. No wonder people think that I am
failing when my child and my mistress rule for me 1”
The Son went out, shaking his head, beating his
breast, scrubbing his eyes, wringing his hands, sobbing
and murmuring piteously. “ The poor old God ! my
dear old father 1 Ah, how he is breaking! Alack, he
will not last long 1 Verily his wits are leaving him 1
Many misfortunes and disasters would be spared us
were he to abdicate prudently at once. Or a regency
might do. But the evil speakers and slanderers would
say that I am ambitious. I must get the matter judi-ciouslv insinuated to the Privy Council. Alack I
alack !”
“ Let him go and try on his suit of lamb’s wool for
to-morrow,” said the old monarch. “ I have got out of
the rehearsal, my friend ; I shall be conspicuous by my
.absence ; there will be a dummy in my stead.” “ Rather
perilous innovation, my Lord ; the people may think
that the dummy does just as well, that there is no need
to support the original.” “ Shut up, shut up, 0, my
'Cure ; no more politics, confound our politics ! It is
Bunday, so we must have none but chaplains here.
You may fetch Friar John and sweet Dean Swift and
the amiable parson Sterne, and any other godly and
-devout and spiritual ministers you can lay hold of ;
but don’t bring more than a pleiad.” “ With Swift for
the lost one ; he is cooling his ‘ sseva indignatio ’ in
the Devil’s kitchen-furnace just now, comforting poor
Addison, who hasn’t got quit for his death-bed brandy
jet.” “ A night of devotion will we have, and of in-
�58
Satires and Profanities.
extinguishable laughter ; and with the old liquor we
will pour out the old libations. Yea, Gargantuan shall
be the feast ; and this night, and to-morrow, and all
next week, and twelve days into the new year the
hours shall reel and roar with Pantagreulism. Quick,
for the guests, and I will order the banquet1” “ With
all my heart, sire, will I do this very thing. Parsons
and pastors, pious and devout, will I lead back, choice
and most elect souls worthy of the old drink delectable.
And I will lock and double bolt the door, and first
warm the chamber by burning all these devilish books ;
and will leave word with the angel on guard that we
are not to be called for three times seven days, when
all these Christmas fooleries and mummeries are long
over. Amen. Selah. Aurevoir. Tarry till I come.”’
A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty.
[Written
in
1866.]
The subjects for our solemn consideration are the
seclusion of her Most Gracious Majesty, and the com
plaints thereanent published in several respectable
journals. In order to investigate the matter thoroughly,
we constituted ourselves (the unknown number rr) into
a special Commission of Inquiry. We are happy to
state that the said Commission has concluded its
arduous labors, and now presents its report within
a week of its appointment; surely the most prompt and
rapid of commissions. The cause of this celerity we
take to be the fact that the Commissioners were un-
�A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty.
salaried ; we being unanimously of opinion that had .we
received good pay for the inquiry throughout the period
of our session, we could have prolonged it with certain
benefit, if not to the public yet to ourselves, for a.gr.eat
number of years. If, therefore, you want a commission
to do its work rapidly vote no money for it. And do
not fear that the most headlong haste in gathering
evidence and composing the report will diminish the
value of such report; for when a Commission has lasted
for years or months it generally rises in a quite different
state of the subject matter from that in which it first
sat, and the report must be partly obsolete, partly a
jumble of anachronisms. In brief, it may be fairly
affirmed as a general rule that no Commission of
Inquiry is of any value at all; the appointment, of one
being merely a dodge by which people who don’t want
to act on what they and everybody else see quite well
with their naked eyes, set a number of elderly gentle
men to pore upon it with spectacles and magnifying
glasses until dazed and stupid with poring, in the hope
that this process will last so long that ere it is finished
the public will have forgotten the matter altogether.
And now for the result of our inquiries on this subject,
which is not only immensely important, but is even
sacred to our loyal hearts.
A West-end tradesman complains bitterly that
through the absence of the Court from Buckingham
Palace, and the diminished number and splendor of
royal pomps and entertainments, the “ Season ” is for
him a very poor season indeed. The Commissioners
find that the said tradesman (whose knowledge seems
limited to a knowledge of his business, supposing he
knows that) is remarkably well off ; and consider that
West-end tradesmen have no valid vested interest in
Royalty and the Civil List, that at the worst they do a
capital trade with the aristocracy and wealthy classes
(taking good care that the punctual and honest shall
amply overpay their losses by the unpunctual and dis
honest) ; and if they are not satisfied with the West
end, they had better try the East-end and see how
that will suit them ; and, in short, that this tradesman
is not worth listening to.
�60
Satires and Profanities.
Numerous fashionable and noble people (principally
ladies) complain that they have no Court to shine
in. The Commissioners think that they shine a great
■deal too much already, and in the most wasteful
manner, gathered together by hundreds, light glittering
■on light; and that if they really want to shine
beneficially in a court there are very many dark courts
in London where the light of their presence would be
most welcome.
It is complained on behalf of their Royal Highnesses
the Prince and Princess of Wales that they have to
perform many of the duties of royalty without getting
a share of the royal allowance. The Commissioners
think that if the necessary expenses of the heir to the
throne are really too heavy for his modest income, and
are increased by the performance of royal duties, he
had better send in yearly a bill to his Mamma for
expenses incurred on her account, and a duplicate of
the same to the Chancellor to the Exchequer ; so that
in every Budget the amount of the Civil List
shall be equitably divided between her Majesty
and her Majesty’s eldest son, doubtless to their com
mon satisfaction.
It is complained on behalf of various foreign royal or
ruling personages that while they in their homes treat
generously the visiting members of our royal family,
they are treated very shabbily when visiting here. The
Commissioners think that Buckinghan Palace, being
seldom or never wanted by the Queen, and very seldom
wanted for the reception of the English Court, should
be at all times open for such royal or ruling visitors ;
that a Lord Chamberlain, or other such noble domestic
servant should be detailed to attend on them, and see
to their hospitable treatment in all respects ; and that
to cover the expenditure on their account a fair
deduction should be made from her Majesty’s share
of the Civil List, which deduction, being equitable,
her Majesty would no doubt view with extreme
pleasure.
It is complained on the part of her Majesty’s
Ministers, that when they want the royal assent and
signature to important Acts of Parliament, they have
�A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty.
61
to lose a day or two and undergo great fatigue (which
is peculiarly hard on men who are mostly aged, and
all overworked) in travelling to and from Osborne or
Balmoral. The Commissioners think the remedy plain
and easy, as in the two preceding cases. Let a law be
passed assuming that absence, like silence, gives
consent; so that whenever her Majesty is not in town,
the Speaker of the Commons or the Lord Chancellor,
or other great officer of State, be empowered to seal
and sign in her name, and generally to perform any of
her real and royal duties, on the formal demand of the
Ministry, who always (and not the Queen) are respon
sible to Parliament and the country for all public acts.
A Taxpayer complains that for fourteen years her
Majesty has been punctually drawing all moneys
allotted to support the royal dignity, while studiously
abstaining from all, or nearly all, the hospitalities and
other expensive functions incident to the support of the
said dignity. The Commissioners consider that her
Majesty is perchance benefiting the country more (and
may be well aware of the fact) by taking her money
for doing nothing than if she did something for it ;
that if she didn’t take the said money, somebody else
would (as for instance, were she to abdicate, the Prince
of Wales, become King, would want and get at least as
much); so that while our Government remains as it is,
the complaint of the said taxpayer is foolish.
Another Taxpayer, who must be a most mean-minded
fellow, a stranger to all sacred sympathies and hallowed
emotions, says : “ If a washerwoman, being stupified by
the death of her husband, neglected her business for
more than a week or two, she would certainly lose her
custom or employment, and not all the sanctity of con
jugal grief (about which reverential journalists gush)
would make people go on paying her for doing nothing ;
and if this washerwoman had money enough of her own
to live on comfortably, people would call her shameless
and miserly if she asked for or accepted payment while
doing nothing ; and if this washerwoman had a large
family of boys and girls around her, and shut herself
up to brood upon her husband’s death for even three or
four months, people would reckon her mad with selfish
�62
Satires and Profanities.
misery.” The Commissioners (as soon as they recover
from the stupefaction of horror into which this blas
phemy has thrown them) consider and reply that there
can be no proper comparison of a Queen and a washer
woman, and that nobody would think of instituting one,
except a brute, a Republican, an Atheist, a Communist’
a fiend in human form ; that anyhow if, as this wretch
says, a washerwoman would be paid for a week or two
without working, in consideration of her conjugal
affliction, it is plain that a Queen, who (it will be uni
versally allowed) is at least a hundred thousand times
as good as a washerwoman, is therefore entitled to at
least a hundred thousand times the “ week or two ” of
salary without performance of duty—that is, to at least
1,923 or 3,846 years, whereas this heartless and ribald
reprobate himself only complains that our beloved
Sovereign has done nothing for her wage throughout
“ fourteen years.” The Commissioners therefore eject
this complainant with ineffable scorn ; and only wish
they knew his name and address, that they might
denounce him for prosecution to the Attorney-General.
A Malthusian (whatever kind of creature that may
be) complains that her Majesty has set an example of
uncontrolled fecundity to the nation and the royal
family, which, besides being generally immoral, is
likely, at the modest estimate of £6,000 per annum per
royal baby, to lead to the utter ruin of the realm in a
few generations. The Commissioners, after profound
and prolonged consideration, can only remark that
they do not understand the complaint any better than
the name (which they do not understand at all) of the
“ Malthusian ” ; that they have always been led to
believe that a large family is a great honor to a legiti
mately united man and woman ; and that, finally, they
beg to refer the Malthusian to the late Prince Consort.
A devotedly loyal Royalist (who unfortunately does
not give the name and address of his curator) complains
that her Majesty, by doing nothing except receive her
Civil List, is teaching the country that it can get on
quite as well without a monarch as with one, and might
therefore just as well, and indeed very much better,
put the amount of the Civil List into its own pocket
�A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty.
63
and call itself a Republic. The Commissioners remark
that this person seems the most rational of the whole
lot of complainants (most rational, not for his loyalty,
but most rational as to the grounds of his complaint,
from his own point of view) ; in accordance with the
dictum, “ A madman reasons rightly from wrong pre
mises ; a fool wrongly from right ones
and that his
surmise is very probably correct—namely, that her
Majesty is really a Republican in principle, but not
liking (as is perfectly natural in her position) to publicly
profess and advocate opinions so opposed to the worldly
interests of all her friends and relatives, has been con
tent to further these opinions practically for fourteen
years past by her conduct, without saying a word on
the subject. The Commissioners, however, find one
serious objection to this surmise in the fact that if her
Majesty is really a Republican at heart, she must wish
to exclude the Prince of Wales from the throne ; while
it seems to them that the intimate knowledge she must
have of his wisdom and virtues (not to speak of her
motherly affection) cannot but make her 1661 that no
greater blessing could come to the nation after her
death than his reigning over it. As this is the only
complaint which the Commissioners find at once wellfounded and not easy to remedy, they are happy to
know that it is confined to the very insignificant class
of persons who are “ devotedly loyal Royalists.”
The Commissioners thus feel themselves bound to
report that all the complaints they have heard against
our beloved and gracious sovereign (except the one
last cited, which is of no importance) are without
foundation, or frivolous, or easily remedied, and that
our beloved and gracious Sovereign (whom may
Heaven long preserve!) could not do better than she is
now doing, in doing nothing.
But in order to obviate such complaints, which do
much harm, whether ill or well founded, and which
especially pain the delicate susceptibilities of all respec
table men and women, the Commissioners have thought
it their duty to draw up the following project of a Con
stitution, not to come into force until the death of our
present beloved and gracious Sovereign (which may
�64
Satires and Profanities.
God, if it so please him, long avert!), and to be
modified in its details according to the best wisdom of
our national House of Palaver.
DRAFT.
Whereas it is treasonable to talk of dethroning a
monarch, but there can be no disloyalty in preventing
a person not yet a monarch from becoming one :
And whereas it is considered by very many, and
seems proved by the experience of the last...................
years that the country can do quite well without a
monarch, and may therefore save the extra expense of
monarchy :
And whereas it is calculated that from the accession
of George I. of blessed memory until the decease of the
most beloved of Queens, Victoria, a period of upwards
of a century and a half, the Royal Family of the House
of Guelph have received full and fair payment in every
respect for their generous and heroic conduct in
coming to occupy the throne and other high places of
this kingdom, and in saving us from the unconstitu
tional Stuarts :
And whereas the said Stuarts may now be considered
extinct, and thus no longer dangerous to this realm :
And whereas the said Royal Family of the House of
Guelph is so prolific that the nation cannot hope to
support all the members thereof for a long period tn
come in a royal manner :
And whereas the Dukes of this realm are accounted
liberal and courteous gentlemen :
And whereas the constitution of our country is so
far Venetian that it cannot but be improved in har
mony and consistency by being made more Venetian
still :
Be it enacted, etc., That the Throne now vacant
through the ever-to-be-deplored death of her late most
gracious Majesty shall remain vacant. That the mem
bers of what has been hitherto the Royal Family keep
all the property they have accumulated, the nation re
suming from them all grants of sinecures and other
salaried appointments. That no member of the said
Family be eligible for any public appointment whatever
for at least one hundred years. That the Dukes in the
�A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty.
65
order of their seniority shall act as Doges (with what
ever title be considered the best) year and year about,
under penalty of large fines in case of refusal, save
when such refusal is supported by clear proof of poverty
(being revenue under a settled minimum), imbecility,
brutality, or other serious disqualification. That no
members of a ducal family within a certain degree of
relationship to the head of the house be eligible for any
public appointment whatever ; the head of the house
being eligible for the Dogeship only. That the duties
of the Doge be simply to seal and sign Acts of Parlia
ment, proclamations, etc., when requested to do so by
the Ministry ; and to exercise hospitality to royal or
ruling and other representatives of foreign countries,
as well as to distinguished natives. That a fair and
even excessive allowance be made to the Doge for the
expenses of his year of office. That the royal palaces
be official residences of the Doge. That the Doge be
free from all political responsibility as from all political
power ; but be responsible for performing liberally and
courteously the duties of hospitality, so that Bucking
ham Palace shall not contrast painfully with the Man
sion House. Etc., etc.
God preserve the Doge !
The Commission of Inquiry having thus trium
phantly vindicated our beloved and gracious Sovereign
against the cruel aspersions of people in general, and
having moreover drafted a plan for obviating such
aspersions against any British King or Queen in future,
ends its Report, and dissolves itself, with humble
thankfulness to God Almighty whose grace alone has
empowered it to conclude its arduous labors so speedily,
and with results so incalculably beneficial.
�66
Satires and Profanities.
A Bible Lesson on Monarchy.
[Whitten in 1876.]
The old theory of “ The right divine of kings to
govern wrong,” and the much-quoted text, “Fear God
and honor the king,” seem to have impressed many
good people with the notion that the Bible is in favor
of monarchy. But “ king ” in the text plainly has the
general meaning of “ruler,” and would be equally
applicable to the President of a Republic. In
Romans xiii., 1—3, we read : “ Let every soul be
subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power
but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the
ordinance of God : and they that resist shall receive
to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror
to good works, but to the evil.” Without stopping to
discuss the bold assertion in the last sentence, we may
remark that the real teaching of this passage is that
Christians ought to be indifferent to politics, quietly
accepting whatever government they find in power ; for
if the powers that be are ordained of God, or in other
words, if might is right, all forms of government are
equally entitled to obedience so long as they actually
exist. Of course Christians are not now, and for the
most part have not been for centuries, really indifferent
to politics, because for the most part they now are and
long have been Christians only in name ; but it is easy
to understand from the New Testament itself why the
first Christians , naturally were thus indifferent, and
why Christianity, has never afforded any political
inspiration. Nothing can be clearer to one who reads
the New Testament honestly and without prejudice
than the fact that Christ and his apostles believed that
the end of the world was at hand. Thus in Matt, xxiv.,
Jesus after foretelling the coming to judgment of the’
son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and
great glory,"when the angels shall gather the elect from
�A Bible Lesson on Monarchy.
67
the four winds, adds, v. 34, “Verily I say unto you,
This generation shall not pass, till all these things be
fulfilled.” This is repeated in almost the same words
in Mark xiii., and Luke xxi., and a careful reading
of the Epistles shows that their writers were profoundly
influenced by this prophecy. But with the world
coming to an end so soon, it would be as absurd to take
any interest in its politics as for a traveller stopping
two or three days in an inn to concern himself
with schemes for rebuilding it. when about to leave
for a far country where he intends settling for life. If
therefore, we want any political guidance from the
Holy Scriptures, we must go to the Old Testament, not
to the New.
Now the first lesson on Monarchy, which we re
member made us think even in childhood, is the fable
of the trees electing a king, told by Jotham, the son of
Gideon, in Judges ix. The trees in the process of this
election showed a judgment much superior to that
which' men usually show in such a business. It is
true that they did not select first the most strong and
stalwart of trees, the cedar or the oak, but they had
the good sense to choose the most sweet-natured and
bountiful, the olive, then the fig, then the vine. But
the bountiful trees thus chosen had good sense too, and
would not forsake the fatness and the sweetness and the
wine which cheereth God and man, to rule over their
fellow trees. Then the poor trees, like a jilted girl who
marries in spleen the first scamp she comes across,
asked the bramble to be their king ; and that barren
good-for-nothing of course accepted eagerly the crown
which the noble and generous had refused, and called
upon the trees to put their trust in its scraggy shadow,
“ and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and
devour the cedars of Lebanon.” Young as we were
when this fable first caught our attention, we mused a
good deal over it, and even then began to learn that
those most eager for supremacy, the most forward
candidates in elections, are nearly always brambles, not
olives or fig-trees or vines ; and that the first thought
of a bramble, when made ruler over its betters, is
naturally to destroy with fire the cedars of Lebanon.
�68
Satires and Profanities.
But God himself in the case of the Israelites has
vouchsafed to us a very clear judgment on the question
of Monarchy. In the remarkable constitution for that
people -which he gave to Moses, he did not include a
king, and Israel remained without a king for more
years than it is worth while endeavoring to count here.
We read, 1 Samuel viii., how ‘‘All the elders of Israel
gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel
unto Ramah, and said unto him, Behold thou art old,
and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a
king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing
displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to
judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And
the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice
of the people in all that they say unto thee : for
they have not rejected thee, but they have
rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
... Now therefore hearken unto their voice : how
beit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show
them the manner of the king that shall reign over
them.” Some students of the Bible may have thought
that God’s severe condemnation of the Israelites for
wanting a king arose chiefly from wounded pride, from
the fact that they had rejected him, and we cannot
affirm that this feeling did not inflame his anger, for
he himself has said that he is a jealous God ; but the
protest which he orders Samuel to make, and the
exposition of the common evils of kingship, prove
clearly that God did not (and therefore, of course, does
not) approve this form of government. And, indeed,
it is plain that if he had approved it, he would have
given it to his chosen people at first. For although
divines have termed the form of government under
which the Jews lived before the kings a theocracy,
God did not then rule immediately, but always through
the medium of a high-priest or judge, and could have
governed through the medium of a king had he thought
it well so to do. And he who reads the history of the
Jews under the Judges, as contained in the Book of
Judges, and especially the narratives in chapters xvii.
to xxi. which illustrate the condition of Jewish society
in those days when “there was no king in Israel:
�J Bible Lesson on Monarchy.
69
every man did that which was right in his own eyes,”
will see that God must have thought a Monarchy very
vile and odious indeed when he was angry at the
request for it, and implied that it was actually worse
than that government by Judges alternated with bond
age under neighboring tribes which the theologians call
a theocracy. Samuel warned the people of what a
king would do, and doubtless thought he was warning
them of the worst, but kings have far outstripped all
that the prophet could foresee. The king, he said, will
take your sons to be his warriors and servants ; and
will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and
cooks, and bakers. This was the truth, and nothing
but the truth, but it was not the whole truth ; for the
sons have been taken to be far worse than mere
warriors and servants, and the daughters for much viler
purposes than cooking and baking. Samuel goes on :
“ And he will take your fields, and your vineyards,
and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give
them to his servants ”—when he does not keep them
for himself might have been added. “ And he will
take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards,
and give to his officers, and to his servants.” Surely
much more than a tenth, 0 Samuel! We will not
quote the remainder of this wise warning. Like most
wise warnings it was ineffectual ; the foolish people
insisted on having a king, and in the following chapters
we read how Saul the Son of Kish, going forth to seek
his father’s asses, found his own subjects.
The condemnation of Monarchy by God, as we read
it in this instance, is so thorough and general that we
feel bound to add a few words on an exceptional case
in which a king is highly extolled in the Scriptures,
without any actions being recorded of him, as in the
instances of David and Solomon, to nullify the praise.
The king in question was Melchizedek, King of Salem,
and priest of the most high God, who met Abram
returning from the defeat of the four kings and blessed
him, and to whom Abram gave tithes of all, as we read
in Genesis xiv. But this short notice of Melchizedek
in. Genesis does not by any means suggest to us the
fall wonderfulness of his character, though we natu-
�70
Satires and Profanities.
rally conclude from it that he was indeed an important
personage to whom Abram gave tithes of all. The
New Testament, however, comes to our aid, and for
once gives us a most valuable political lesson, though
the inspired writer was far from thinking of political
instruction when he wrote the passage. In Hebrews
vi., 20, and vii., 1 to 3, we read : “ Jesus, made an High
Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec. For
this Melchisedec, King of Salem, priest of the most
high God, who met Abraham returning from the
slaughter of the kings, and blessed him ; to whom also
Abraham gave a tenth part of all ; first being by inter
pretation King of righteousness, and after that also
King of Salem, which is King of peace ; without father,
without mother, without descent, having neither be
ginning of days nor end of life ; but made like unto
the Son of God ; abideth a priest continually.” Now
he to whom Jesus is compared, and who is like the Son
of God, is clearly the noblest of characters ; and there
fore, as the history in the first book of Samuel teaches
us that Monarchy is generally to be avoided, these fine
verses from the Epistle to the Hebrews delineate for
us the exceptional king whose reign is to be desired.
The delineation is quite masterly, for a few lines give
us characteristics which cannot be overlooked or mis
taken. This model monarch must be a priest of the
most high God—a king of righteousness and king of
peace; without father, without mother, without descent,
having neither beginning of days nor end of life ; but
made like unto the Son of God. Whenever and
wherever such a gentlemen is met with, we would
advise even the most zealous Republicans to put him
forthwith upon the throne. But in the absence of
such a gentleman we can hardly do wrong if we follow
the good advice of Samuel dictated by God Almighty,
and manage without any monarch.
�The One Thing Needful.
71
The One Thing Needful.
[Whitten
in
1866.]
When I survey with pious joy the present world of
Christendom, finding everywhere that the true believers
love their neighbors as themselves and are specially
enamored of their enemies ; that no one of them takes
thought for the morrow, what he shall eat or what he
shalfdrink, or wherewithal he or she shall be clothed ;
that all the pastors and flocks endeavor to outstrip each
other in laying not up for themselves treasures upon,
earth, where moth and rust corrupt, and where thieves
break through and steal ; and all are so intensely eager
to quit this earthly tabernacle and become freeholders
of mansions in the skies ; when I find faith as universal
as the air, and charity as common as cold water ; I
sometimes wonder, how it is that any misbelievers and
unbelievers are left, and feel astonished that the New
Jerusalem has not yet descended, and hope that the
next morning’s Times (rechristened The Eternities) will
announce the inauguration of the Millennium.
What delayeth the end ? Can there indeed be any
general hindering sin or imperfection among the pure
saints, the holy, unselfish, aspiring, devout, peaceful,
loving men and women who make up the population of
every Christian land ? Can any error infect the
teachings of the innumerable divines and theologians,
who all agree together in every particular, drawing all
the same doctrines from the same texts of the one un
varied Word of God ? I would fain believe that no
such sin or error exists, not a single inky spot in the
universal dazzling whiteness ; but then why have we to
deplore the continued existence of heathens and
infidels ? why is the New Jerusalem so long a-building ?
why is the Millennium so long a-coming ? why have
we a mere Sardowa instead of Armageddon ?
After long and painful thought, after the most
serious and reverent study, I think I have found the
�72
Satires and Profanities.
rock on which the ship of the Church has been wrecked ;
and I hasten to communicate its extreme latitude and
interminable longitude, that all Christian voyagers may
evade and circumvent it from this time forward.
The error which I point out, and the correction
which I propose, have been to a certain extent, in a
vague manner, pointed out and proposed before. A
clergyman named Malthus, not in his clerical capacity,
but condescending to the menial study of mundane
science, is usually considered the first discoverer. But
mundane science is conditioned, limited, vague, its
precepts are full of hesitation ; while celestial science
is absolute, unlimited, clear as the noonday sun, and its
precepts are imperiously forthright.
It seems to me that the one fatal error which has
lurked in our otherwise consummate Christianity, and
which demands immediate correction is this, that the
propagation of children is reconcileable with the pro
pagation of the faith—an error which while it lasts
adjourns sine die the day of judgment, and begins the
Millennium with the Greek Kalends.
One need not quote the numerous texts throughout
the New Testament (let Matthew xix., 12, suffice)
proving that Jesus and the epistolary apostles ac
counted celibacy essential to the highest Christian life.
One only of the disciples, so far as we know, was
married ; and he it was who denied his master ; and
most of the more profound divines consider that Peter
was justly punished for marrying, when Christ cured
his mother-in-law of that fever which might else have
carried her off.
But many modest people may be content with a
respectable Christian life which is not of the very
highest kind. They may think that as husbands and
wives they will make very decent middle-class saints in
heaven, after a comfortable existence on earth, leaving
the nobler crowns of holiness for more daring spirits.
Humility is one of the fairest graces, and we revere it;
but there is a consideration, most momentous for the
kind Christian heart, which such good people must
have overlooked—very naturally, since it is very
obvious.
�The One. Thing Needful.
73
Jesus tells us that many are called but few are
chosen; that few enter the strait gate and travel
€^narrow way, while many take the broadwaythat
leadeth to destruction. In other words, the 1 g
majority of mankind, the large majority of even those
who have the gospel preached to them, must be damn .
When a human soul is born into the world the odds
«re at least ten to one that the Devil will get it. Can
any pious member of the Church who has thought o
this take the responsibility of becoming a Parent. 1
thoroughly believe not. I am convinced that we have
so many Christian parents only because this very con“nous aspect of the case ^s not caught their vie
■ If the parents could have any assurance that the piety
of their offspring would be in proportion to their own
they would be justified in wedding m holiness But
alas7; we all know that some of the most religious
parents have had some of the most wicked children.
Dearly beloved brethren and sisters, pause and calcu
late that for every little saint you give to heaven, you
beget and bear at least nine sinners who will eventually
g The remedy proposed is plain and simple as a gospel
precept : let no Christian have any child at ail—a
rule which, in the grandeur of its absoluteness makes
the poor timid and tentative Malthusianism very
ridiculous indeed. For this rule is drawn immediately
from the New Testament and cannot but be perfect as
its source.
, . ,
7,
Let us think of a few of the advantages which would
flow from its practice. The profane have sometimes
sneered that Jesus and his disciples manifestly thought
that the world would come to an end, the millennium
be inaugurated, within a very few years from the public
ministry of Jesus. Luckily the profane are always
ignorant or shallow, or both. For, as the New Jeru
salem is to come down while Christians, are alive, and
as Christians in the highest sense or Christians without
offspring must have come to an end with the first gene
ration, it is plain that the belief which has been sneered
at was thoroughly well founded ; and that it has been
disappointed only because the vast majority of Cnris-
.
�74
Satires and Profanities.
,n°tbeen Christians in the highest senseat
all, but in their ignorance have continued to propagate
like so many heathen proletarians.
Now, supposing the very likely case that all Chris
tians now living reflect upon the truth herein expounded, and see that it is true, and, therefore, always
act upon it, it follows that, with the end of our now
young generation, the whole of Christendom will be
translated into the kingdom of heaven. Either the
mere scum of non-Christians left upon the earth will
be wholly or m great part converted by an example so
splendid and attractive, and thus translate all Christen
dom in the second edition in a couple of generations
more; or else the world, being without any Christianitv
a matter of course, be so utterly vile and evil
that the promised fire must destroy it at once, and so
bring m the New Heavens and New Earth.
Roman Catholic Christians may indeed answer that,
although the above argument is irresistible to the
Protestants, who have no mean in the next life between
Heaven and Hell, yet that it is not so formidable tn
them, seeing that they believe in the ultimate salvation
of nearly every one born and reared in their com
munion, and only give a temporary purgatory to the
worst of their own sinners. And I admit that such
reply is very cogent. Yet, strangely enough, the
Catholics even more than the Protestants, recognise and
cultivate the supreme beatitude of celibacy ; their
legions of unwedded priests, and monks, and nuns and
saints are so many legions of concessions to the truth
of my main argument.
I am aware that one of the most illustrious dignitariesof our own National Church, the very reverend and
reverent Dr. Swift, Dean of St. Patrick’s, has advo
cated on various grounds, and with impressive force of
reasoning, the general eating of babies : and I antici
pate that some prudent Christians may, therefore, argue .
that it is better to get babies and eat them than to have *
none &t a^’ s^nce th© souls of the sweet innocents
would surely go to heaven, while their bodies would be
very nourishing on earth. Unfortunately, however
the doctrine of Original Sin, as expounded and illus-
�The One Thing Needful.
75
trated by many very thoughtfui theologians and specially theologians of the most determined Protestant
Ze makes it very doubtful whether the souls of
iX “are not damned. It will surely be better, then,
for good Protestants to have no infants at all:
The Athanasian Creed.
[Written
in 1865.]
ON Christmas Day, as on all other chief holidays of theyear, the ministers and congregations of our National
Church have had the noble privilege and pleasure o
standing up and reciting the creed commonly called of
St. Athanasius. The question of the authorship does
not concern us here, but a note of Gibbon (chapter 37)
is so brief and comprehensive that we may as well cite
it •_ “ But the three following truths, however strange
thev may seem, are now universally acknowledged.
1 St Athanasius is not the author of the creed which
is so frequently read in our churches. 2. It does not
appear to have existed within a century after his death.
3 It was originally composed in the Latin tongue,
and consequently in the western provinces. Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, was so much amazed
by this extraordinary composition, that he frankly pro
nounced it to be the work of a drunken man.
(Ihis
Gennadius, by the bye, is the same whom Gibbon
mentions two or three times afterwards in the account
of the siege and conquest of Constantinople by the
Whoever elaborated the Creed, and whether he did
it drunk or sober, the Church of England has made it
thoroughly her own by adoption.
�76
Satires and Profanities.
Yet it must be admitted that many good churchmen
and perhaps even a few churchwomen, have not loved
th? adopted child of their Holy Mother as warmly as
their duty commanded. The intelligently pion?
Tillotson wishes Mother Church well rid of the bant
ing ; and poor George the Third himself, with all his
immense genius for orthodoxy, could not take kindly
to it. He was willing enough to repeat all its expres
sions of theological faith—in fact, their perfect non
sense, their obstinate irrationality, must have been
exquisitely delightful to a brain such as his?but he
was not without a sort of vulgar manhood, even when
worshipping m the Chapel Royal, and so rather choked
its denunciations—“ for it do curse dreadful.” He
am d mu'
faith Whole and ^defiled by reason, yet
did not like to assert that all who had been and were
and should in future be in this particular less happy
than himself, must without doubt perish everlastingly.
^OnS6 ^her.hand °ne of our most liberal Church
men, Mr. Maurice, has argued that this creed is essen
tially merciful, and that its retention in the Book of
Common Prayer is a real benefit. Mr. Maurice, how
ever, as we all know, interprets “perish everlastingly”
into a meaning very different from that which most
members of the Church accept. And his opinions lose
considerably in weight from the fact that no man save
himself can infer any one of them from any other.
? -°U T C^eered UP a bit by bis notions
?tern.al, a?d “ Everlasting,” you are soon
depressed again by his pervading woefulness. Of all
the rulers we hear of—the ex-king of Naples, the king
of Prussia the Elector of Hesse-Cassel, Abraham
Lincoln, and the Pope included—the poor God of Mr.
Maurice is the most to be pitied : a God whose world
is m so deplorable a state that the good man who owns
him lives in a perpetual fever of anxiety and misery
m endeavoring to improve it for him.
What part of this creed shocks the pious who are
shocked at. all by it ? Simply the comprehensive
damnation it deals out to unbelievers, half-believers,
and all except whole believers. For we do not hear
that the pious are shocked by the confession of theo-
�The Athanasian Creed.
77
logical or theo-illogical faith, itself. Their reverence
bowsand kisses the rod, which we cool outsiders mibht
fairly have expected to be broken up and. flung out
doors in a fury of indignation. Their sinful human
nature is shocked on account of their fellow-men ; their
divine religious nature is not shocked on account o
their God : yet does not the creed use God as badly as
m A chemist secures some air, and analyses it into its
ultimate constituents, and states with precise numerals
the proportions of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbonic acid
therein Just so the author of this creed secures the
Divinity and analyses it into Father, Son, and Ho y
Ghost, and just as precisely he reports the relations
these A mathematician makes you a problem of a
certain number divided into three parts in certain ratios
to each other and to the sum, from which ratios you
are to deduce the sum and the parts Just so the
author of this creed makes a riddle of his God dividing
him into three persons, from whose inter-relations you
are to deduce the Deity. An anatomist gets hold of
a dead body and dissects it, exposing the structure and
functions of the brain, the lungs, the hearts, etc. Just
so the author of this creed gets possession of the corpse
of God (he died of starvation doing slop-work toi
Abstraction and Company ; and the dead body .was
nurveved by the well-known resurrectionist Priest
craft), and cuts it open and expounds the generation
and functions of its three principal organs. But the
chemist does not tell- us that oxygen, nitrogen, and
carbonic acid are three gases and yet one gas, that each
of them is and is not common air, that they have each
peculiar and yet wholly identical properties; the
mathematician does not tell us that each of the three
parts of his whole number is equal to the whole, and
equal to each of the others, and yet less than the whole
and unequal to either of the others ; the anatomist does
not tell us that brain and lungs and heart are each dis
tinct and yet all the same in substance, structure, and
function, and that each is in itself the whole body and
at the same time is not : while the author of this creed
goes tell us analogous contradictions of the tnree
�78
Satires and Profanities.
aMe and tolerant as human nature can hope to be •
while the author of this creed aims at and manages to’
reach an almost super-human unreason and intnlpran™
™ W®re a sample of air, a certain number,
a dead body This humble-minded devotee, who knows
+£ Tn? c
1S finite and that God is infinite, and
that the finite cannot conceive, much less comprehend
SS exPress ibe infinite, yet expounds this Infinite
with the most complete and complacent knowledge
turns it inside out and upside down, tells us all about
it, cuts it up into three parts, and then glues it together
again with a glue that has the tenacity of atrocious
wrongheadedness instead of the coherence of logic puts
his mark upon it, and says, “ This is the only genuine
thing in the God line. If you are taken in by any
other why, go and be damned
and having done all
this finishes by chanting “ Glory be to the Father, and
to the Son, and to the Holy Ghcst !” And the pious
are not shocked by what they should abhor as horrible
sacrilege and blasphemy ; they are shocked only by
the Go, and be damned,” which is the prologue and
epilogue of the blasphemy. Were the damnatory
clauses omitted, it appears that even the most devout
worshippers could comfortably chant the Glory be to
the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost ”
immediately after they had been thus degrading Father
Son, and Holy Ghost to the level and beneath the level
ot their low human understanding. And these very
people are horrified by the lack of veneration in
�The Athanasian Creed.
79
Atheists and infidels! What infidel ever dealt with
God more contemptuously and blasphemously than this
creed has dealt with him ? Can it be expected that
Xe and sensible men, who have out-grown the pre
judices sucked in with their mothers milk, will be
reconverted to reverence a Deity whom his votaries
■dare to treat in this fashion ?
..
Ere we conclude, it may be as well to anticipate a
probable objection. It may likely enough be urged
that the author and reciters of the creed do not pretend
to know the Deity so thoroughly as we have ass^med’
since they avouch very early in the creed that the
three persons of the Godhead are one and all incom
prehensible. If the word incomprehensible, thus used
means (what it apparently meant in the author s mind)
unlimited as to extension, just as the word eternal
means unlimited as to time, the objection is altogether
wide of the mark. But even if the word incompre
hensible be taken to mean (what it apparently means
in the minds of most people who use the creed) beyond
the comprehension or capacity of the human intellect,
still the objection is without force. lor in the same
sense a tuft of grass, a stone, anything and everything
in the world is beyond the capacity of the human
intellect : the roots of a tuft of grass stride as deeply
into the incomprehensible as the mysteries of the Deity
Relatively this creed tells us quite as much about God
as ever the profoundest botanist can tell us about the
grass ; in fact, it tells relatively more, for it implies
a knowledge of the Final Cause of the subsistence of
God, which no future botanist can tell or imply of the
grass.
���
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
Satires and profanities : with a preface by G. W. Foote
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: New ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 79 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Printed and published by G.W. Foote. First published 1884: see Preface. Satires previously published in the National Reformer and the Secularist.
Contents: The story of a famous old Jewish firm -- Religion in the Rocky mountains -- The Devil in the Church of England -- Christmas eve in the upper circles -- A commission of inquiry on royalty -- A Bible lesson on monarchy -- The one thing needful --The Athanasian creed.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Thomson, James [1834-1882]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N639
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rationalism
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 (Satires and profanities : with a preface by G. W. Foote), 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
Athanasian Creed
Church of England
Monarchy
NSS
Rationalism
Satire
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/00921a226c52f44cb558de27a679103d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=W131uwKd3hMfN4iqDmjkMYS-8mVlV%7EABwRCLVQZxEBjtSf4AihQc82MHQQ07i0m5mBQG4tddfXxhRknrc1AEPV70iebV4eWtutQSGUPeIUPEjfr34K9kr0q7amqWvf1%7EmhWFN9RD%7EeZWN12fIPhNlQnjBS633ta-IU06dPLREYsqOFebYsDadGJSOpYu8ajp6ZnzO%7EGUFY2Wc6MFGg4kIfZkfWrczzRm5SrfGS8eQVcvoihLxm42z5PNCrHAQe%7EQ-uyqG%7Ea5y7RqhcF-2BeEM7iPwGTHJMrVIERK9whedTEW8Rm1KIcHeum-Mr5-YuEoRspu1jup-72ynC9L8hOOZA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0fc84ca232a9106a8e5229be9d8f6573
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
Supernatural and rational morality
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,63, Fleet St., E. C. - 1886 (p. 8).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G903
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rationalism
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 (Supernatural and rational morality), 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
Morality
Rationalism
Religion
Supernatural