1 10 6 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e68430333bdc8a3decbb6bdaee6ecd68.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=d4hVMBH3UNReoEIEvK6Ixyb4AvrkiVgZocDD39LJ5tunO6DBeI0MoX2qeCfXbv5qWykMjzbLvEs-ZsEbnWunCMAQUxOLbueG0V3GfCHYqJ1tIIlp5VZAeqMtNG%7ELe-1lBzlTYmRrMS-DMrpzWf3rjIuiEgCswFASGolDetCs2xzc81b8uq2IZXVLGQAwB0Ambxh3ztgGUTBh4YUtFrIcAz-xqK2rXGHiQs5MN2CEIbXzt172ze5t%7EP4MeS82nVbxg-tBrpBOjFsBDZQT9zcjVZnrlJF69JeEUk%7ESY1MpN7Ssg48T1aTh4fVDQbFQn9mMcgs2DVjASRDL6hVBbD81WQ__&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 &amp; 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/3d7d4fef9814474994fa9762d1814887.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=Rza2UD6p1T3R6M-DjT8R1sg40VIGAwk1kV6UsUw6pCTQBqWjOxgHllrSZXJzpu20JF3DAPyK0XQWFr7qNCHMi05Ao2sDaxrLNK1c1fBP8ifYaycIFXtbj2RTCO8L6Efjf0HMIwo2iSUvfnVqNk3Z4kr3lEugnBjsAyAJC1toZ-A0eO5LhNLA8VExvrIzr0uuk3iG3CYSenXge%7EhyWR0L5DkJ0BabXjzjL54rvUUHcb2d1DHmsc5bRXOX7v72iBx2XOZfQbwIt7RbPIzvcOB6PKcMuJwIULWS0X0g7tLBC6dOhCgqA77sTakp36RANscjUkncnSg4QN1EivgdT--HSw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c0c215411aa59b819cc3a2203c0b7113 PDF Text Text CT ^9 PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, 11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD.) LONDON, S.E. 1875. Price Threepence. SIGNS OF THE TIMES. • NOVEMBER, 1875. HE Archbishop of Canterbury deserves pre­ cedence of all meaner folk, both by right of his primacy in the Church, and by right of having talked more than any of his brother Bishops during the past month. He has been delivering his soul upon the intricate subject of “ Christian unity,” and, as a proof of the unity, we suppose, upon “ Church and Dissent,” also on Foreign Missions. The readers of this series will fully understand the deep reverence with which should be received all the utterances of England’s primate, and they will not share in the evil sentiments of the Stockwhip, an Australian Free Thought paper, which profanely says that the Archbishop’s logic is not �2 always faultless, and that some of his arguments are sophisms, while others are fallacies. So, with child­ like faith, let us incline our hearts to listen to his Grace. On the subject of Christian unity the Archbishop was extremely facetious; he made jokes about his own enormous correspondence, and caused “ renewed laughter ” by speaking of a Bishop who lived “ in a place where it was dark a great portion of the year, and as a man cannot sleep during the whole of that long night, he naturally writes letters.” What a useful Bishop! not being able to be always asleep, he fills up the intervals of slumber with letter­ writing ! But also, what an injurious Bishop, for these same letters take up so much of the English Archbishop’s time, that he finds it difficult to visit his diocese as much as he should do. Might not the letter-writing and somnolent Bishop leave his See, and take ship to some other diocese F However, it seems that the letter-writing of this Father-in-God, together with the like—but less voluminous—writing from many other Bishops, is a proof of Christian unity, and of the desire of all Churches to enter into —or bind closer already existing — bonds with Canterbury. Then, not only is our Primate over­ whelmed with the number of letters, but he is also very busy in managing a number of thoughts. “ Every man has an opinion of his own nowadays, and I am not sorry that he should have. I think it is a wholesome sign that men think for themselves. But then it does not make the management of their various thoughts at all more easy.” But, in the name of common sense, who asks the Archbishop of Canterbury to manage his, or her, thoughts ? And how does he do it, and why ? This is as superfluous as the Bishop of the dark region, and is, in very truth, a work of supererogation. It would be deeply interesting to see the Archbishop at work, managing people’s thoughts : does he do it by “good words ?” �n O It is pleasant, at least, to be assured that the Arch­ bishop is “ not sorry ” that people should have opinions of their own, but does he really mean that Free Thought “ is a wholesome sign ? ” However, as “ every man, and I must almost say, every woman ” has an opinion, “ it becomes more difficult than ever to keep them altogether. That is my special mission —to try and keep people on good terms with one another.” Is the Archbishop making fun of us again ? there is no “ renewed laughter ” in the report, and yet it is impossible to forget that the speaker is the Archbishop of a Church which has just had passed a Public Worship Bill, and whose officers are already appealing to the secular LawCourts to crush out one division of the very united Christian body. Neither is it easy to avoid the re­ flection : “ If this be the special mission of the Archbishop, what a terrible failure his Grace makes of it; ” for the various opinions which it is his duty to manage are clashing together with such vigour and such fierceness, that the Church is rent in all directions, and is bleeding to death from the wounds inflicted by her own children. The Primate winds up by saying that he is continually being warned about “ detestable heresies,” and that “ if I were a nervous person, which, thank God, I am not, I should be frightened out of my wits.” The Church of England is to be congratulated on having so cool and careless a hand upon her helm, to guide her through the waves which rise higher day by day, and past the rocks which threaten her on every side. The day following the discourse of Christian unity, found our Archbishop discussing Christian divisions. Now, our Primate is not jocund; he is belligerent; he is self-asserting; it is “ the Primate of all England ” who speaks, and none must dare gainsay, “We are in very difficult times—very difficult times indeed. (Our Archbishop is not a Demosthenes.) We have �4 got a number of people who are very anxious to pull down the good works which we have undertaken.” This is true Christian humility; we desire to do good, but these Gentiles, these outer-court dogs, they are trying to hinder us, and to mar our work. There are the philosophers, the sceptics ; but “ those who entertain these opinions are in a very small minority.” True, 0 Archbishop! the thinkers are always in a small minority, but the thinkers rule never­ theless, and this small minority moulds the majority, and when they say “ go,” the world goes, and when they say “ come,”, the world comes. Luther was in a minority, but Luther conquered Rome; all Refor­ mations begin in the labours of the minority, because all Reformers are a few steps in advance of the crowd, and from their vantage-ground on the moun­ tain top, they proclaim the coming of the rising sun, whose first rays have not yet reached the dwellers in the valleys below. But the sun rises, and the minority becomes the majority. The Archbishop cares little for the thinkers ; he dismisses, in a curt sentence, “ modern philosophy, and modern theorists as to the regeneration of society ; ” but to an Archbishop, with several palaces, society needs no regeneration; the sorrows, the agonies, of humanity touch him not; the archiepiscopal throne remains unmoved. But now Dr. Tait attacks the Dissenters: “ Christian unity ” is forgotten : it was spoken of yesterday, and yester­ day is numbered with the past. Dissenters object to Archbishops : do they ? they had better put up with Archbishop Tait, for there is Archbishop Manning looming behind him, that “ I defy all the Dissenters in Europe to get rid of.” If “ I were to depart to-morrow ” he would be left, with “ a very old and powerful historical system ” behind him. This is very much like a plea ad misericordiam; it sounds like : “ I may be bad, but he is worse, so you had better put up with me.” The Dissenters are prayed �to hold their hands, lest “ a worse thing happen unto ” them. The Primate then declares : “ the seat I occupy is a sort of rallying point for all the civilisa­ tion and the reasonable religion of the world.” Alas, for the world, with nought to rally round save the throne of Canterbury filled by a Dr. Tait! Then the lover of unity generously says that the Dissenters “ keep up a sort of running fire against the Church ©f England,” but they only do it because “ it is part of their business.” (How, this will increase Christian unity!) True, “the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and all sorts of commissioners, have been cutting and paring away at our revenues.” Poor Archbishop, passing poor, on £15,000 a year; from our heart’s depths we sympathise with him. Yet is there balm in Gilead; Lord Hampton has moved for a return of “ how much has been spent in the extension of the Church of England during the last forty years?” The Primate thinks that about thirty millions “ have been added to the aggregate property of the Church of England in the matter of repairing of churches.” Thirty millions spent to make houses for the God, who, according to the Bible, “ dwelleth not in temples made with hands ; ” and, meanwhile, man pines and agonises in filthy dens and hovels, and “no man careth ” for him. When the return is made to Lord Hampton’s motion, perhaps the Archbishop of Can­ terbury will deign to move for “ a return of how much has been spent in the education of the people, and the improving of labourers’ dwellings, during the last forty years.” In his speech at Maidstone, on Eoreign Missions, the Archbishop clearly shows that if God does care for mission work, he, just at present, if we may judge from what is going on in Africa, approves more of Mahomedanism than of Christianism. But the Archbishop of Canterbury must not make us forget the Bishop of Lincoln. Dr. Wordsworth �6 takes up the cudgels on behalf of the licensed victuallers, and declares that the temperance pledge is unscriptural, that it undermines belief in the deity of Christ, that it is therefore heretical, and that it is “ a deadly sin for Christians to sign it.” Hereupon, all those whose interest lies in drinking rejoice mightily; the Licensed Victuallers’ Guardian reprints extracts from the Bishop’s sermon, and this is, in turn, reprinted at the end of a wine-merchant’s list. Imagine the Bishop of Lincoln quoted to gain cus­ tomers for wine, “ gin, whiskey, and rum.” Dr. Wordsworth is certainly marvellously unfortunate; he always appears to be doing the wrong thing. It is curious to note that some very prominent Chris­ tians must have committed deadly sin; there is the Rev. Basil Wilberforce, for instance, the son of the late Bishop, who raves against wine as an invention of the devil, and who urges all Christians to sign the pledge as a matter of duty to God. Whom is a poor, puzzled, anxious believer to follow ? One light of the Church urges him to do the very thing which another light of the Church declares to be a deadly sin. If only these good people would settle among themselves what to say ! A very sad event has taken place. The Rev. R. S. Hawker, vicar of Morwenstow, Cornwall, was received into the Roman Catholic Church on his deathbed, and was duly buried in the Roman Catholic cemetery at Plymouth, by a Roman Catholic priest. This is terrible for all believers in a One Holy Catholic Church. The Lock takes it seriously to heart, and spends nearly two columns in lamentations : besides, who can tell how long Mr. Hawker may have been a Roman Catholic at heart, and how many such may there not be in our Church of England ? Is not Bishop Claughton craftily encouraging such, by pro­ claiming that the Public Worship Act is but empty thundering, and that no Ritualists will be interfered �7 with ? But why should Bishop Claughton bring “balm and comfort and hope to the trembling bosom of the foe?” The Rock is sad at heart, and fore­ bodes disaster, unless all good men and true come “to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.” Poor Almighty Lord ! but the editor of the Rock will stand by him. No words of ours could add solemnity to the following notice :—The Church Herald announced, at the end of September, that “ after our next issue we shall cease to appear.” In times past the readers of Signs of the Times have gained much amusement from the pages of the deceased paper, and, recording its death, we drop a farewell tear upon its tomb. What the Rock is to the Low Churchman, and what the Church Herald was to the High Churchman, that is the Christian to the “ believer.” Many gems might be drawn from this delightful paper. In a review of past and present the Herald says : “ The nations of Christendom have almost without excep­ tion left Christianity behind,” and not only Chris­ tianity, startling as the assertion may be, nations as nations have nothing to do with God. It is the impelling power of the great Liberal movement of these latter days that secular governments as such have nothing to do with God. This is from the Herald’s point of view, whose ideal of Christendom is that “ Christ is the head of nations in temporal as in spiritual affairs, and delegated his offices to others to rule for him till he should return to occupy his own again.” That reign of superstition is,, thanks to liberal education, nearly over; the Church which is considered in the light of Christ’s delegate has ruled the world for pretty nigh two thousand years, and in parts of it, autocratically and absolutely, and what has come of it ? “ That the fool says in his heart there is no God.” By confession of its staunchest friends and adherents “ the Church is torn �8 by internal strife, and is all powerless to meet the dangers to overcome which is her special mission; indeed it is a sad truth that to a great extent she has been the cause of them,—where should be the unity of heaven, is the discord of hell.” From it we also learn that a new danger is added to railway travel­ ing ; a plan is started for placing large texts along the tops of houses, so that railway travellers may see them as they whiz past. A lad, “ passing in a train for a ‘ change of air,’ was seriously impressed by one of these ghastly signs: it is depressing to be told, immediately afterwards, that he died, trusting in Jesus.” These suddenly converted people always do die, by some strange fatality. The “ Rev. F. Baldey, of Southsea, has over his door: ‘ When I see the blood I will pass over you!”” Why it should do any one the smallest good to see offensive texts of this kind, it is hard to say. Placarding texts has become quite a fashion in London just now, especially at the East end. It is really hard to believe that any earnest Christian can like to see, “ Prepare to meet thy God,” flanked on either side by Newsome’s circus, and the latest comic singer. It is somewhat trying to hear that the irrepressible Moody and Sankey have started again in America, and are going “ to revive ” the United States. In England their whilom friends are complaining that they have done more harm than good, because they have only reached the church and chapel-goers, and they have made these discontented with less exciting ministrations. If they will kindly persevere, and visit each country in turn, we may then look for a serious decrease in church-goers. Abroad, there are signs of much disturbance. We are pretty well accustomed to “ Burial Scandals ” at home, but one has taken place at Montreal, Canada, which throws all ours into the shade. “ A literary society, known as the ‘ Canadian Institute,’ has in �9 its library a number of books that several years ago came under the ban of the Roman Catholic Church.” The Bishop objected to the books, and, as the Society did not discard them, he promptly excommunicated the Society. A member of the Institute, one Joseph Guibord, died, and before his death was refused the Sacrament, he being one of the banned Society. His widow claimed that he should be buried in a grave in the Catholic cemetery, owned by the heirs of the deceased. This was refused. The widow died, and left the Institute legatee ; the Institute carried on the lawsuit begun by the widow, and at last triumphed ; a royal, decree was issued to bury Joseph Guibord. Mr. Guibord was duly exhumed, and carried towards the cemetery; but the gates were barred, and a crowd had assembled round them. Stones were thrown; the cross was pulled down; the hearse was driven away. According to the last advices, an escort of troops had been asked for to convey Joseph Guibord to his grave, and to protect his corpse from his Chris­ tian brethren. The Bishop of Montreal has threatened to “ curse the ground if compelled by the Privy Council to bury Mr. Guibord.” This brings out forcibly the truth of Mr. Gladstone’s warning that, in a conflict between the civil power and the Pope, Catholics, though sub­ jects of England, would side with the head of their Church. It is a pity for its own sake that Trans­ atlantic Vaticanism does not think it necessary to sheath its claws in velvet, and this episode of the nineteenth century is a curious comment on the vaunted advance of Christian civilisation, on the power of “ Christian charity and brotherly love over the passions.” In Spain, matters look very dark. The Pope’s Nuncio has issued a letter to all the Spanish Bishops, which has evoked much popular indignation. This circular appears to have aroused a really strong �10 national feeling, and it is even rumoured that the Nuncio will have to ask for his passport. Article XI. of the proposed Constitution states that: “ No persons shall be molested in Spanish territory for their reli­ gious opinions, nor for the exercise of their respective worships.” This Article has much troubled the Holy See, and the Pope, through his Nuncio, denies the right of Spain to pass such an Article without his consent. The Nuncio states that no worship, save' the Roman Catholic, should be tolerated in Spain, “ all consent to the exercise of other worships ” should be withheld. Further, the Spanish Bishops have the right, by the Concordat, to invoke “ the efficacy and strength of the secular arm, wherever these might be necessary to resist the malignity of men,” who spread false doctrine and print heretical books. But this promise of support is perfectly useless if religious toleration is to exist in Spain, and the Nuncio adds that the nation “ rejects freedom, or even toleration, of worship, and asks with loud voice the re-establish­ ment in Spain of her traditional religious unity.” It is surely a welcome “sign of the times” that this circular has been received with one shout of indigna­ tion, and that “ the press of every colour, save the Neo-Catholic, is up in arms.” Even Spain is not, as she once was, the complete slave of the Papacy. FEINTED BY C. W. RRYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; 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 Signs of the times. November 1875 Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 10 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1875 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT139 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 (Signs of the times), 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 Subject The topic of the resource Catholic Church Catholic Church-Controversial Literature Conway Tracts https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3bb80287f453f24d18e9d8937329c197.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=vRMRzYh0SSrN6K95QglZchJACziff2ukxEP1%7EfxEtuvszg0ekX96Q37aGiRKuaZUFEkwllvzaTP6xVfyFPrQurZUrq0ogcgxDEmxTRtJIHcLlk9SAxyj62Aim1ijmXdwMhpAe3Jf3O2dxWUpxQPyX2RzFPI9YbCAVDGVne-ktxQpw4q7aZ7XVvIVJHO9pInAMQeq0w9E0it-K-Td1GMrZp2r8rjOBEAImhbHQ6ansT-UkHNNkpMV%7EupqwCMjFJcyWvh%7EHyrJvqWzfMZtogrqpvRR5ONVffr%7EuAw4HB4MPG1780dFY5ZBOE1BUz%7EVVaphrjxmq85RbkYqKETh5ni3Kg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 47745c3c7f88bed3de08b6bb88f02028 PDF Text Text CT 136 THE ADVANTAGES, MENTAL AND MORAL, A FAITH UNCHANGEABLE, CERTAIN, AND COMPLETE, IN A.D. 1876. By AV. H. K. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E. Price Sixpence. �“ 1 had imagined that in submitting to the Catholic Church I had exchanged the uncertainty of private opinion for the certainty of a faith complete and unchangeable ; and now I am compelled to choose again.”—A Roman Catholic Layman. Ex uno disce omnes. �To all who imagine, or who are in danger of imagin­ ing, that the uncertainty of individual opinion in matters supernatural, is an evil in itself, or that, being an evil, it can, with mental and moral impunity be exchanged, by one supreme act of volition, for the self-constituted certainty of collective opinion—com­ plete and unchangeable—the following pages are offered, as being worthy of mature consideration. ��PREFACE. UNIVERSAL—APOSTOLIC—ROMAN. “ What stronger testimony can we have for a bare fact than that it has been ever so believed, so declared, so recorded, so acted upon from the first down to this day, that there is no assignable point of time when it was not believed; no assignable point at which the belief was introduced; that the records of past ages vanish in the belief; that in proportion as past ages speak at all, they speak in one way, and only fail to bear witness when they fail to have a voice. “ Now, evidence such as this we have for Catholic doctrines. They have never and nowhere not been maintained! This is the great canon of the quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, which saves us from the misery of having to find out the truth for our­ selves from Scripture on our independent and private judgment. “ Wherefore the Roman Pontiff is possessed of that infallibility which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regard­ ing faith and morals, and therefore his definitions are of themselves irreformable, and are not dependent upon the consent of the Church. “ Moreover, we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce, that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is, for every human creature, necessary to salvation. “ In the case of educated minds, investigation into the argumentative, proof of the things to which they have given their assent, is an obligation, or rather a neces­ sity. Such processes of investigation certainly—whether �4 The Advantages of Faith Unchangeable. in religious subjects or secular, often issue in the re­ versal of the assents which they were originally in­ tended to confirm; but to incur risk is not to expect reverse. “ If any one, however, shall say that Catholics may possibly have just cause of suspending their assent to, and questioning the faith which they have already re­ ceived, under the supreme authority of the Church, until they shall have accomplished a scientific demon­ stration of the credibility and truth of their faith, let him be accursed. 11 It is hardly necessary to say that the state of mind which we variously denominate faith or belief does not depend for its origin upon a mere act or volition, but upon appropriate sources or grounds of belief. The structure of the mind is such that it does not allow a person to believe merely as he chooses or wills to believe, but, on the contrary, requires the belief to be conformed to the evidence appropriate to it.” “ Truth must be investigated without any side glanee to the consequences which that investigation may have upon our hopes. No consequence can destroy any truth; the sole matter for consideration is, ‘ Are our arguments correct ? ’—not, ‘ Do they lead to a result which is embarrassing and unwelcome ? ’ Our faith is sure to fail us in the hour of trial if we have based it upon fallacious grounds, and maintained it by wilfully closing our eyes to the flaws in its foundations.” “The Pope, owing to his infallibility, is undoubtedly the organ on earth of the Divine thought, not only in matters of faith, but in all other matters, civil and political as well. “The bishops and the clergy, depositaries of the divine word, participate in the Papal infallibility ; and the faithful who do not yield to them the most com­ plete obedience in all things, commit a grave sin, and cease to belong to the Catholic community.” “ It is not the place or authority of Church or Bible �Preface. 5 to strangle reason, defy criticism, and fetter inquiry; for reason is a faculty given to man by God for the pur­ pose of criticising and thereby distinguishing error, so that he may reject it; and of inquiring, so that he may find truth under the veil which ignorance and error has cast on it. “No error has been more fatal to the simplicity and spirituality of religion than the inveterate confusion of thought ■which has to so large an extent identified 1 faith ’ with ‘ opinion.’ “ It was this confusion which generated the fierce, intolerant spirit too often exhibited in the controversial writings of even the noblest among the fathers of the Church. It is this which has retarded the progress of inquiry, which has set a ban on science, and for long centuries has committed the keys of knowledge to a stolidly self-sufficient priesthood. “ Contrary to the Scriptures, the doctrines of the Church, and of the holy fathers, men do not hesitate to declare that the best government is that in which the State does not recognise the duty of punishing the violators of the Catholic religion except when the public peace demands it. In consequence of this absolutely false idea, they do not scruple to support that erroneous principle, so fatal to the Catholic Church and the safety of souls, which Gregory the Sixteenth called an insanity —viz., that liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of every man ! “ Man being man on the banks of the Tweed, the Tiber, and the Ganges, we naturally find the Brahman priest, the Boman Catholic priest, and the Scotch minister of the seventeenth century, doing precisely the same things. “ We find them claiming to be sole interpreters of the sacred books and the sole ministers of God upon earth; and we find them establishing and regulating schools and colleges, and training up men in the groove they think it best for him to work in.” �6 The Advantages of Faith Unchangeable. “ The Catholic Church is the true exponent of revela­ tion, science, history, politics, and morals. “ Ignorance and want of thought are so nearly allied, that the one is often mistaken for the other, and in law, carry much the same force.” “ As there is a faculty of speech independent of all the historical forms of language, so there is a faculty of faith in man independent of all historical religions.” “ No simply historical fact can ever fall under the cognizance of Faith.” “ There is but one Catholic Apostolic Church, out­ side of which there is no salvation and no remission of sins.” “ As long as the doctrine of exclusive salvation was believed and realised, it was necessary for the peace of mankind that they should be absolutely certain of the truth of what they believed; in order to be certain it was necessary to suppress adverse arguments; and, in order to effect this object, it was necessary that there should be no critical or sceptical spirit in existence. A habit of boundless credulity was therefore a natural consequence of the doctrine of exclusive salvation; and not only did this habit necessarily produce a luxuriant crop of falsehood, but it was itself the negation of the spirit of truth. For the man who really loves truth cannot possibly subside into a condition of con­ tented credulity.” “Belief in eternal retribution has been indeed a powerful engine in shaping the life of nations as of individuals. It has been made the servant of all work of many faiths. “ Priesthoods have used it unscrupulously for their professional ends; to gain wealth and power for their caste; to stop intellectual and social progress beyond the barrier of their own consecrated systems. On the banks of the river of death, a band of priests has stood for ages to bar the passage against all poor souls who cannot satisfy their demand for ceremonies, and formulas, and fees. �Preface. 7 “ Through the most widely differing religions, the doctrine of eternal torment has been made to further goodness and check wickedness, according to the shifting rules by which men have divided right from wrong.” “We live in the midst of religious machinery; many mechanics of piety, often only apprentices, and slow to learn, are turning the various ecclesiastical mills, and the croak of the motion is thought to be the voice of God.” “That which we know is little; that which we know not is immense.” �THE ADVANTAGES OF FAITH UNCHANGEABLE. DETAILED statement of the reasons why a Roman Catholic layman cannot, in his own opinion, accept the decisions of a general council of the church to which he has voluntarily belonged, must be, for many reasons, a document of very general interest. It is not often that such a statement is allowed to see the light. We have lately seen, among other start­ ling consequences of political expostulation against ecclesiastical claims to authority and supremacy, one of an “Apostate Triumvirate”* of Old English Roman Catholics—by reputation,—when daring to exercise his private opinion publicly, on the decisions of a council of his church, abruptly silenced and effectually restored to orthodoxy, by the simple threat of excommunication by his bishop. The subject is the more interesting, because the council in question is one which was assembled—not in the dim obscurity of the mediaeval past, but in the comparative daylight of the living present; and because—if we may accept the recently published state­ ments of an eminent Father of the Church f—crowds of educated English men and women are accepting the decisions of this general council, and adding their numbers to the already claimed two hundred millions of the Roman Catholic Church, here in England every day. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to imagine A * Lords Camoys and Acton, and Mr Petre,—The Times, Nov. 24, 1874. + M. le Pore Hnguet. �The Advantages of Faith Unchangeable. 9 a more useful and instructive document than that which has recently been given to the world in the form of a pamphlet, entitled, “ Reasons why a Roman Catholic cannot accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Vatican Council,” by a Roman Catholic Layman.* As might be anticipated, the author’s arguments lead him inevitably to issues of much deeper importance than that immediately suggested by the title of his work. Of far nearer interest to all English men and women than the reasons why a Roman Catholic cannot submit himself to any particular manifestation of authority inside his church, must be the reasons which can be discovered or adduced from his own confessions, to account for the fact of his complete submission to the infallible authority of that particular church in the first instance. It is, in point of fact, as a rare and valuable contribution to our knowledge of Catholic mental physiology in this particular direction, and as a remarkable illustration of the peculiar effects upon the mind which the Roman Catholic system produces on those who submit their reason to her teaching and authority, and not merely as a fresh addition to the curiosities of theological literature already existing, that the pamphlet in question possesses for us so great an interest. The author begins by stating that he is a convert to the Roman Catholic Church of more than twenty years’ standing. After that period of apparently undisturbed belief in the infallibility of a not inconveniently defin­ able body called the “ Church ” of Rome, he finds him­ self suddenly “ commanded, under ‘ penalty of anathema,’ to believe in the infallibility of an all too clearly defined unit of that body called the ‘ Pope of Rome,’ as set forth by the Vatican Council.” This he affirms positively that he cannot do, “ for,” as he asserts, “ the very reasons which induced him to join the Roman Catholic Church.” * Messrs Rivington & Co. �IO The Advantages What he himself believes to have been these “reasons,” he proceeds to describe as follows :—“ I had imagined,” he says, “ that in submitting to the Catholic Church I HAD EXCHANGED THE UNCERTAINTY OF PRIVATE OPINION FOR THE CERTAINTY CHANGEABLE.” OF A FAITH COMPLETE AND UN­ We have here, undoubtedly, the point in which the whole interest of the writer’s subsequent reasons and arguments is centred. There are no grounds for sup­ posing that this “ reason,” such as it is, differs mate­ rially from that which would be put forward by the great majority of those who voluntarily submit their reason to the infallible authority of the self-styled “ mother and mistress of all churches.” The remark­ able fact about the statement is, that while the Roman Catholic Layman proceeds to supplement this simple explanation by ninety-five pages of further “ reasons ” for not submitting to the infallibility of the Pope, as defined by a council of the church, he says not one word throughout the pamphlet in moral support of that arbitrary exercise of the imagination by virtue of which he discerned the inherent infallibility of the Church of Rome in the first instance. That this original act of voluntary submission to authority in search of “ the complete,” “ the certain,” and “ the unchangeable,” twenty years ago, must of necessity have been the result either of a reasoning process of the mind, capable, of full explanation, or else of an arbitrary assumption and exercise of personal infalli­ bility on his own part, never seems to strike the Roman Catholic Layman’s mind for an instant. This is the most noteworthy and curious feature in the pamphlet. Although driven to the most extraordinary and palpable contradictions in his efforts to justify himself in his absolute rejection of the infallibility of the Pope, he avoids the examination, even for an instant, of the process by which he first came to accept the infallibility of the Church. That “ reason ” must inevitably precede “ faith,” as �of Faith Unchangeable. 11 an inconvenient necessity of human nature,—is a simple fact of which he takes no notice whatever. This awkward omission of the topmost link, in his chain of reasoning, frustrates naturally all his efforts to prevent his conclusion from falling to the ground, and is, at the same time, the cause of infinite confusion of idea, and bewilderment to the ordinary reader. It is somewhat difficult at the outset, for instance, to apply the “ reasons” furnished by the Boman Catholic Lay­ man for his original submission to the Church of Rome, to his present act of non-submission to the authority of the head of that church. The “reasons” seem to adapt themselves most indifferently to their new situa­ tion. Applying, however, his own words exactly in accordance with his own statement, it may be assumed that the Roman Catholic layman now imagines that, in not submitting to the infallibility of the Pope, as de­ fined by the council of an infallible church, he is still further relinquishing or “ exchanging the uncertainty of private opinion for the certainty of faith, complete and unchangeable.” To understand his position here more clearly, it is necessary, before following him further, to recall to mind certain solemn obligations which devolved upon him by virtue of his original submission to the Church. In accordance with the Creed of Pius the Fourth, he voluntarily declared, on becoming a Roman Catholic twenty years ago, as follows:—“ I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the Mother and Mistress of all churches, and I promise true obe­ dience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.” Also, “ I do at this present freely profess and sincerely hold this true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved ; and I promise most constantly to retain and confess the same entire and inviolate, with God’s assist­ ance, to the end of my life.” Considering the gravity and solemnity of this state­ �12 The Advantages ment, it will seem strange to the ordinary, non-Catholic mind to find the Roman Catholic Layman, when now commanded by the Bishop of Rome, successor to St Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ, to believe, under penalty of anathema, a doctrine set forth by a general council of the church, declaring point blank that he can do nothing of the kind, and that, on the contrary, for reasons good and sufficient to himself, “ he utterly rejects it ! ” It is evident, however, that he has not been reduced to this curiously illogical exer­ cise of that “ private opinion ” which he imagined that he had finally relinquished twenty years ago, without being sorely pressed. “ My feeling,” he previously declares, “ has been that of utter dismay at finding that which I have supposed for so many years to be solid rock, melting away under my feet like ice exposed to the burning rays of a July sun.” Utter dismay has no doubt driven many to strange action before now, and certainly nothing can well be stranger than the action which the Roman Catholic Layman proceeds to adopt. Having, it appears, “ stated his dilemma privately, and having met with nothing but evasions, or refusals to discuss a matter already settled” he has recourse to the Apologia pro Vita Sud of Father Newman. In the appendix to that work he finds laid down, among other important truths, “that the truest expe­ dience is to answer right out when you are asked; that the wisest economy is to have no management; that the best prudence is not to be a coward ; that the most damaging folly is to be found out shuffling; and that the first of virtues is ‘ to tell truth and shame the devil.’ ” Adopting these Catholic principles as his own, and “ determining,” as he says, “ to act as Dr Newman pre­ scribes,” he proceeds forthwith to demonstrate to the world “ that the Vatican doctrine of infallibility con­ tradicts the antecedent teaching of the Church; that it �of Faith Unchangeable. 13 has changed the basis of faith ; that it is, in the fullest sense of the word, a new doctrine ; ” and that, conse­ quently, “ he is fully justified in utterly rejecting it.” Before considering the evidence upon which he essays to establish these several points, and which he himself pronounces to be “ overwhelming,” it is impossible to avoid recalling to mind certain “ antecedent teaching ” of the Church of Rome, about two centuries and a half ago, which bears directly on his position. It was then formally decreed, “ By the grace of God,” on the authority of certain “ cardinals of the Church, inquisitors-general throughout the whole Christian re­ public, special deputies of the Holy Apostolic Chair against heretical depravity, that the then new doctrine, that the earth is not the centre of the universe, nor im­ moveable, is absurd, philosophically false, and, theolo­ gically considered, erroneous in faith.” Here again, the ordinary and non-Catholic mind would naturally enquire, before going further, whether ■the Roman Catholic Layman, who so clings to the old and rejects the new, was aware of this “doctrine” and “antecedent teaching” of the “mother and mistress of all churches,’’ when he sought “ the com­ plete and the unchangeable in her bosom ; and further whether he now believes that the earth is indeed the centre of the universe and immoveable 1 ” Of all this however he tells us nothing. ' Certain indirect testimony nevertheless, bearing pertinently on this important question is to be found in a subsequent page of his pamphlet, where, being for the moment concerned in protesting against addition of doctrine, and not its subtraction, he produces the testimony of a Bishop of the Church to prove that :— “ The doctrines of faith which have been declared, defined, and delivered by the Catholic Church, cannot be added to—nor subtracted from* and can never be changed nor superseded without heresy or schism. * The italics are not as in the original. �14 The Advantages In default of any explanation of the Roman Catholic Layman’s own views as to his acceptance of the “ Immoveable ” as well as the “ unchangeable,” on the infallible authority of the church, it will be here not out of place to supplement the Bishop’s evidence just given, by that of a Cardinal Archbishop, which furnishes him with a curious and characteristic loophole of escape from obligatory belief in Ptolemaic Astronomy in a.d. 1876. “Enlightened by the teachings of the Church, the Catholic may view in peace, and even with delight the progress of science. If he hears of a contradiction between science and religion it will soon be found only an appearance of contradic­ tion ; or if a contradiction really exists, it will be found that the boasted discovery which creates it is but an ephemeral theory and not the truth; or if its truth be beyond gainsay, and the contradiction plain, then the doctrine with which it is in conflict will be found to be but a ^theological opinion and not a dogma ; or if it be a dogma, it has been misunder­ stood or not explained according to the mind of the Church.’’* These two remarkable pieces of Catholic evidence bring us now face to face with the time-honoured and inevitable difficulty which confronts the Roman Catholic Layman from the first, and entangles him— and his readers also—in its folds to the very last, viz., the true definition of “ the Church,” and the infallible recognition and determination of the organ by means of which she reveals her “ mind,” and gives utterance to those unchangeable “declarations,” “ definitions,” and “ deliverances ” which cannot, without heresy, be added to or subtracted from. Having, in short, twenty years ago voluntarily joined an infallible body, the main power and influence of which lay probably in its mysterious indefinability ; and having, as he has told us, “utterly rejected” the * Pastoral of P. Cullen. �of Faith Unchangeable. 15 Infallibility of the head of that body, as inconveniently defined by one of its own councils, he has now to determine the locality of such an Infallible mouth­ piece of the Church of his adoption as shall protect him from the disagreeable, yet most legitimate results of his own arbitrary action. The manner in which, according to his own imagina­ tion, he succeeds in grasping this veritable Ignis Fatuus of the Pontine Marshes is curious and instructive. Having, as we have seen, undertaken according to Dr Newman’s prescription, the duty, among others, of “ shaming the devil,” it is not surprising that we should find the Roman Catholic Layman depicting himself in a notably embarrassing dilemma at the very outset of the operation—not only as regards the ques­ tion of the actual individuality of the spirit of darkness, but also as regards his own immediate position with reference to the “gates of Hell.” “ Commanded,” as he says, “ by the Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ on earth, to believe the doctrines set forth by the Vatican Council, under penalty of Anathema; ” he has, he affirms, “ been also taught that he is obliged by Jesus Christ himself to believe what the pastors of the Church teach him under pain of damnation.” “ The pastors of the Church,” in their turn teach him, he declares, that “ that only is Catholic doctrine which has been believed everywhere and by all,” and that inasmuch as the infallibility of the Pope has not been believed as a doctrine of the church, anywhere by any­ body, he is “bound under pain of damnation—not only to refuse his assent to it, as defined by the Vatican Council, but “ to believe that it cannot be turned into a doctrine of the Church even by the Pope and Council united together.” . It is not at all surprising that in this appalling dilemma—surrounded as it were with a circle of ever­ lasting fire, the Roman Catholic Layman should find ■» �16 The Advantages himself eventually driven to the most painful extremities. The process hy which he effects his own moral selfimmolation, as a last refuge from the inevitable of his own imagination, is bold and conclusive. Finding Pope and Pastors in such stupendous anta­ gonism on the vital point at issue, he proceeds to ignore or repudiate both Popes and Councils together, wher­ ever their dogmatic utterances are objectionable or inconvenient at the moment; and to accredit an unde­ fined body under the title of “ the Pastors of the Church,” alone with infallibility of teaching whenever he is in want of immediate assistance or support. The method has at least the virtue of simplicity. Before adopting it, however, he goes through the process of forcing himself up to the resource by suggest­ ing certain arguments against himself which threaten vitally his existence as a Roman Catholic, and which—• presenting themselves quite naturally to the ordinary, non-Catholic mind—might also fairly be expected to force themselves upon the Catholic intelligence when stimulated by such maxims as those we have seen adopted from the “Apologia ” of Father Newman. “ You have submitted to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and are consequently bound to believe what she has taught, do&s teach, or shall teach.” To this most pertinent application to his position of the creed of Pius the Fourth, which he has so solemnly adopted and subscribed to as necessary to salvation, the Roman Catholic layman piteously replies : “But, I say, what is to be done if the Church teaches me to-day something which is in contradiction to that which she taught me yesterday, and this I contend, in this matter, she has done.” This “ contradiction ” of infallible teaching, it is the main purpose of his subsequent argument to establish. Without reference to its establishment however, he tells us that to this expostulation, it will be replied : �of Faith Unchangeable. 17 “ You are no longer a Catholic since you deny, or at least douht, the infallibility of the Catholic Church.” In this strait, the Roman Catholic Layman is evidently forced to save his Catholicity at all hazards. Snatching at a straw, he clings to the circular reasoning that “ lie has been taught that, as a Catholic, he is obliged, by Jesus Christ himself, to believe what the Pastors of the Church teach, under pain of damna­ tion.” Then calling in the assistance of the particular pastor of the Church of his adoption, whose testimony suits him at the moment, he replies : “ This by no means follows, as the following quotation from the Summse Doctrinse of an illustrious saint, the Archbishop Antoninus of Florence, will show. He says : ‘ Even the Council can err. For though an (Ecumenical Council belongs to the whole church, it is not the whole church, it only represents it.’ ” Catholicity is thus saved for the moment, no doubt, but at a heavy sacrifice—moral and mental. It would seem as if the Roman Catholic layman had, in fact, forgotten, for the moment, the maxims of his mentor, and in particular, that which warns him which way “ damaging folly ” is most surely to be found. For almost the entire evidence subsequently produced in the pamphlet goes to contradict directly the testimony of Saint Antoninus of Florence; and being intent, above all, upon disproving the infallibility of the head pastor of the Church, his arguments are elsewhere brought to prove that certainly on no one pastor was the gift of infallible teaching originally bestowed, but on the body of the pastors of the Church. Thus it is that, having proved that an (Ecumenical Council can er)- to suit the exigencies of the moment, he elsewhere calls upon Bellarmin to declare that, “ All Catholic divines constantly teach that general councils, confirmed by the Pope, cannot err, either in explaining matters of faith or precepts of morality, wherein the whole Church is concerned.” �The Advantages Bellarmin he supports by Suarez : “A general council, at which the Pope is present, after it is confirmed by the Pope, is an infallible rule of faith. This is an article of faith, wherein all Catholics agree.” Having by this and similar evidence thus invalidated the testimony of Saint Antoninus of Florence, and impeached his credibility as a witness, the Roman Catholic Layman further proceeds to prove that the Saint has neither right nor title to the very gift of teaching—“ under pain of damnation,”—with which he himself accredited him, and upon which alone the value of his support depends. This he effects by an appeal to Bishop Hay, who sets it forth as “ a Catholic rule of faith that Jesus Christ was pleased to authorise the pastors (not one pastor),” as he remarks himself, “ of his Church to be the depositaries of the sacred truths he had revealed to the world, and the interpreters of his word.” Further, he maintains, on his own conviction, that “it is a contradiction to affirm that the infallibilty of the Church resides in one person only when the Church has distinctly taught that it resides in the body of the pastors.” “Why?” he asks,—anticipating no doubt, future possible decrees of individual infallibilities,—“ should not three persons be declared to be only one person, if the body of the pastors can be declared to be only one pastor ? ” Levelled at the Pope, this argument strikes Saint Antoninus of Florence a crushing blow, and then recoils upon the Roman Catholic Layman in a fashion which none can probably be blind to but himself. The position is simply this: Having, by the exer­ cise of his own private judgment, in years gone by, accredited the pastors of the Church of Rome with divine authority for infallible teaching, under pain of damnation, he now maintains, as an argument, that he is manifestly obliged to believe, without a doubt, that these same pastors were so divinely authorised and com­ missioned, because they command him, under such �of Faith Unchangeable. l9 tremendous pains and penalties, to do so. Having, after this fashion, established the moral obligation of believ­ ing “ the pastors ” of the Church of his adoption, he passes rapidly, to suit the exigencies of the moment, to assume the consequent obligation of listening to the teaching of one pastor in particular. Producing, then, this chosen pastor as a witness in his defence, he pro­ ceeds, when his services are no longer required, not only to impeach his credibility, but to prove that he never was a competent witness in the case at issue. In preserving his Catholicity, in short, at all hazards, he has not chosen to notice the one weak point in his line of defence, which the ordinary and non-Catholic mind will at once remark and seize upon, viz., that before he could “have been taught” the necessity of belief in the teachings of the pastors of the Church of Rome, under so severe a penalty as damnation, he must himself have been able, by some inherent infallibility of his own, to pronounce and determine where these particular pastors were to be discovered. The missing link is none the less important,—being top­ most,—for being a small one; and that its absence has not been noted in the pamphlet is all-important to its comprehension. A subsequent argument of his own might, neverthe­ less, have fairly been expected to lead the Roman Catholic Layman directly to the omission. Intent here again upon discrediting the Pope's Infallibility only, he quotes words of Bishop Milner’s as follows :__“ If Christ had intended that all mankind should learn His religion from a book, namely, the New Testament, He Himself would have written that book, and would have laid down as the first and fundamental principle of His religion, the obligation of learning to read it.” On this he comments with undoubted justice. ((It must be equally true that if Christ had intended that all man­ kind should learn His religion from the Pope, He Him­ self would have said so, and would have laid down as B �20’ The Advantages the first and fundamental principle of his religion, the obligation of hearing the Pope.” There can be little doubt that if the Roman Catholic Layman had not been here exclusively intent upon undermining the particular phase of Infallibility which happens to run counter to his judgment, he would have driven these arguments home to their legitimate and just conclusion. Assuming that both the arguments are true, it must of course be similarly true that, “ If Christ had in­ tended that all mankind should learn His religion from the pastors of the Roman Catholic Church, He Himself would have distinctly said so, and would have laid down as the first and fundamental principle of His religion the obligation of hearing the pastors of the Church of Rome.” And this brings us, before examining the Roman Catholic Layman’s further accusations against himself, to the enquiry, what after all constitutes this Church of Rome, in his own opinion and discernment ? This question, so absolutely essential to the ap­ proximate comprehension of a*ll Catholic reasoning, he anticipates himself, and answers in a fashion which, to himself no doubt, is perfectly satisfactory and conclusive. “ It is necessary,” he remarks, “ to have a clear idea of what ‘ the Church ’ is.” “ The Ultramontane idea of the Church seems inex­ tricably confused.” The true and clear idea he then conveys by the following quotations :—“ The Church is the congregation of all the faithful under Jesus Christ, their invisible head, and his Vicar on earth, the Pope. “ The Church on earth is the visible community of believers founded by Christ. “ The Church of Christ consists of the body of the faithful united with its pastors. “ The Church militant is the society of all the faith­ ful still dwelling on earth. “ The Church is the congregation or society of all �of Faith Unchangeable. 21 true followers of Jesus Christ throughout the whole world, united together in one body under one head. “ In a word, the Church consists of the faithful dis­ persed throughout the world.” To this summary he adds, u I could easily furnish a hundred more definitions, but as they are all substanti­ ally the same it is not necessary.” That these definitions should be considered by the Roman Catholic Layman to unfold a “ clear idea ” of the Church of Rome, as directly opposed to “an inextricably confusing one,” is fully accounted for by the fact that he is at the moment intent, solely and entirely upon proving, as he asserts in the paragraph immediately following, that “ it is clear that the Pope does not con­ stitute the Church.” For this purpose the definitions are no doubt fully sufficient, as they are also to furnish him with a way of escape from the self-directed home thrust which, as we have seen, Saint Antoninus of Florence has failed to parry, viz., that “ since he denies or doubts the In­ fallibility of the Catholic Church he is no longer a Catholic.” It is only necessary to substitute for “ the Church,” the meaning to be discovered from the sum total of its de­ finitions, in order to comprehend the nature of the position. It is easily conceivable, of course, that the Roman Catholic Layman may neither' doubt nor deny the In­ fallibility of ‘£ the congregation of all the faithful throughout the whole world, united together in one body, under one head—the Pope.” Between “not denying,” however, and “believing,” there is a great moral and mental gulf, irrevocably fixed, which he cannot, if he would, ignore. The Catholic Church—this church of the “ clear definition’’—has laid down, he tells us, as its very principle and ground of faith, that “ all mankind must believe whatever she decides and sanctions with the assistance of the Holy Ghost.” �22 The Advantages Manifestly, however, before believing “ whatever the congregation of all the faithful under one head,” “ decides and sanctions,” “ under penalty of anathema,” all mankind must be in a position to discern beyond all possibility of doubt or error the mechanism by which this corporate body can come to the knowledge of its own mind the manner in which it has already clearly revealed its “principles and ground of faith and the mouth-piece by which it will give future utterance to the teachings of its Infallible, authority • those moment­ ous “declarations, definitions, and deliverances, with the non-acceptance of which the eternal punishment of “all mankind ’ is so inevitably linked, and “ which cannot be added to or subtracted from, without heresy or schism.” Now, that all mankind are in this position, the Roman Catholic Layman’s reasoning does not in any way help to establish. On the contrary, that, both outside and inside of the congregation of all the faithful under one head, “ mankind ” are in a state of absolute uncertainty or declared contradiction as to the means and method of determining and revealing these infal­ lible decisions, is an awkward and obstinate fact, which every line of his pamphlet but helps to make the more effectually clear and apparent. It is thus that we come to the second of those suppo­ sititious accusations which he propounds so aptly and straightforwardly against himself. There would seem to be here lurking in his own mind a certain uneasiness as to the satisfactory nature of his escape from the charge of doubting the infallibility of the Church, and consequently being no longer a Catho­ lic, by appeal to one of its pastors, under such heavy penalties for disbelief. He consequently again brings the same objection forward, disguised, however, in somewhat different form of words :—“It will be said to such as myself,” he now suggests, “ you acknowledge the infallibility of a Gene­ �of Faith Unchangeable. 23 ral Council. Such a Council was that of the Vatican, and it defined the Pope’s infallibility ; therefore, if you deny its decisions, you deny infallibility to a General Council.” Tn making this point blank objection against himself, the Roman Catholic Layman has undoubtedly adhered manfully to the maxims of his special adoption. It cannot be said, however, that in maintaining his de­ fence, their application seems equally clear. He has, as we have already seen, escaped from a very similar dilemma by establishing, on the authority of a saint and pastor of the Church, that Councils, even though oecumenical, “ can err.” Shifting his ground, he now for the moment dis­ regards all pastors altogether, and answers on what ap­ pears to be the authority of his own private judgment only :—11 To this I reply, that the decision of a Council, to be of force, must be unanimous. Such was not the case with the Vatican Council, as I shall show here­ after.” This bold argument, if it stood alone, might have some possible force in it, and would, at any rate, open up an inconvenient field for almost unlimited discussion. Unfortunately, however, for its proposer, who has renounced “ the uncertainty of private opinion,” and fortunately for his ordinary readers, who are content to exercise that human attribute with all its drawbacks of non-Catholic uncertainty, this plea is immediately put out of court and disposed of by his own subsequent assertion, and also by the further direct testimony of those fathers and “ pastors of the Church ” whom he is bound to believe under penalty of damnation. Cardinal Manning, for instance, has declared that “ it may truly be affirmed that ’never was there a greater unanimity than in the Vatican Council.” Appealing also himself to Saint Vincent of Lerins, he quotes conclusively from his authoritative teaching as follows :—££ Where the majority of the bishops �24 The Advantages visibly appears, there, according to both parties, is in­ fallibility to be found,—according to us, who attribute it to this majority, and according to them who teach that the Pope can never be separated from it in solemn decisions. We have no difficulty in acknowledging the Pope to be infallible when united to the majority of the bishops ! ” Not content with this authoritative annihilation of his own line of defence, the Roman Catholic Layman proceeds to show clearly that this “ want of unanimity/’ even when established as a feature of the Vatican Coun­ cil, is not in any way required, in his own opinion, as a reason for rejecting the decisions of that Council utterly. This “utter rejection” has, as we have seen, been already arrived at, upon anterior considerations alto­ gether. These he now strengthens, finally and con­ clusively, as follows “ To accept the conclusion that the Pope is infallible “ because a Council has defined it, is absurd, because the fact of his infallibility proves that the Council has no authority in the matter. If he is infallible, there can be no infallible authority for be­ lieving it but his own word.” This absolute disregard of the authority of General Councils—not when there is “want of unanimity” among their members, but when the doctrines they inculcate seem absurd, or happen to be repugnant altogether to private Catholic opinion-—he fully confirms and justifies by reference to another “ pastor of the Church.” Calling upon Arch­ bishop Kenrick, he establishes clearly the necessity of believing, under penalty of anathema, that “the dogma of Papal infallibility is not of faith, and cannot become so by any definition of a Council! ” It is quite evident that the Roman Catholic Layman here fully and com­ pletely cuts away the ground from under his own feet, and, that the objection which he has just advanced against the Vatican Council, on the score of “ want of unanimity,” is in reality irrelevant to his argument �1 of Faith Unchangeable. 25 altogether. He now, however, finds himself confronted by the notorious fact—of which the very existence of his pamphlet is merely an additional standing record— that the doctrine of Papal infallibility lias been pro­ nounced to be of faith by the definition of a Council; and that, further, the main body of the pastors of the Church have, either by the most unmistakable out­ spokenness, or by the here not less conclusive silence of consent, accepted this most momentous “ definition, declaration, and deliverance,” as an infallible utterance and dogma of “ the Church.” He has consequently now to face about, in order to meet yet one more accusation against himself, which threatens the existence of his Catholicity more gravely and conclusively than those even which he has hitherto imagined. He has already proved, by an appeal to the authori­ tative teaching of Saint Vincent of Lerins—one of the pastors of the Church endowed, according to his own showing, with direct divine authority of teaching—that “ it is granted on all sides that infallibility is insepar­ able from the great number of the pastors.” It is by no means unnatural, therefore, that “ it should be,” as he tells us, “ often remarked to him,”—“ Why do you set yourself up against the great body of the bishops, priests, and laity who accept the doctrine of Papal infallibility, as though you knew better than them all 1” Before noting the manner in which the Roman Catholic Layman meets this simple question, it is neces­ sary to remember that he has virtually already ex­ plained, that the reason which obliges him to set himself up against the great body of the bishops, priests, and laity, is precisely that which induced him, in the first instance, to join the Roman Catholic Church—viz., the desire of “ exchanging the uncertainty of private opinion for the certainty of a faith complete and unchangeable.” �26 The Advantages As mere volition, however, is manifestly a “ reason” altogether insufficient to meet the logical necessities of the case, he now further attempts to answer the seemingly unanswerable, by saying, “ To this I can only reply, that the Bible, which the Catholic Church teaches me is the Word of God, tells me, “ But though we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you be­ sides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” In order to estimate and fully appreciate the value of this answer, it must not be forgotten that in ex­ changing his own uncertainty for the certainty of Roman Catholic faith, unchangeable and complete, the Roman Catholic Layman has most solemnly registered a vow that “ he will admit the Holy Scrip­ ture according to that sense only which the Church has held, and does hold ; to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scrip­ tures.” He has, in point of fact, believed that the Bible is the word of God in the first instance, because the pastors of the Church of Rome have taught him that it is so ; and he has then believed that the pastors of the Church of Rome are gifted and endowed with divine authority for such supernatural teaching, because the Bible—when duly interpreted by themselves—clearly so reveals its sense and meaning to him! Under these circumstances of circular reasoning, the ordinary mind will doubtless remark at once that the entire weight and value of the reply just given, lies in the peculiar phraseology and resulting obscurity of the text, and that the actual connection of the two nomina­ tive pronouns of eighteen hundred years ago, with “ the pastors ” of the mother and mistress of all churches of to-day, is one which, according to his own assertion, that Church alone has either right or power to determine. Transposed to meet the inexorable necessities of the �of Faith Unchangeable. 0.7 case, the words, from a Roman Catholic layman point of view, can only read, in a.d. 1876, as follows : “But though the pastors of the Church of Rome, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you, besides that which these same pastors teach as that which we have preached to you—let him be anathema.” That this transposition of the text is a just and absolutely necessary one, and that its sense and inter­ pretation is not left to the private judgment of the Catholic layman, is made fully evident by testimony which he has himself elsewhere evoked and recorded, though in a connection altogether different. Giving “ the true sense and interpretation of Scrip­ ture ” with that supreme and binding authority, with which the Roman Catholic Layman has himself accredited him, Archbishop Hughes declares as follows : “ The pastors of the Church are the witnesses of truth, and they are warranted, by a sacred authority, to reject even an angel from heaven, if that angel attempt to preach another doctrine besides that they have received. They all preach the same doctrine!” With the astounding doctrinal contradictions before us, which are published and verified in this pamphlet, the bold effrontery and assurance of this latter teach­ ing—which is printed in italics in the original, and which the Catholic mind evidently accepts gratefully, under penalty of damnation—would seem almost sufficient to incapacitate the ordinary and non-Catholic mind from further Catholic investigation altogether. It is necessary to remember, however, that with the Roman Catholic Layman, “ the wisest economy is to have no management,” and that <l that other doctrine,” which Archbishop Hughes is brought into court to reject and curse as one he had not then received, is the very doctrine and new gospel of Papal infallibility, the reasons for the “ utter rejection,” of which we are now beholding in progress of justification and establish­ ment by “ overwhelming evidence.” �28 The Advantages As one of the main supports of this establishment, Archbishop Hughes has, in fact, just previously been brought to declare, that although “ every definition of doctrine and morals by a general council is infallible, a man may be a very good Catholic without enquiring whether the Pope is officially infallible or not, and may even hold it as an opinion that he is not infallible, and neither Priest, nor Bishop, nor Pope, will frown upon him for his opinion.” This testimony being exactly in accordance with the Roman Catholic Layman’s argumen­ tative necessities of the moment, he naturally accepts it gladly, under penalty of damnation for rejection. The danger, however, of reasoning according to will, instead of willing according to reason, is great; and the ulterior consequences of this acceptance of the illogical and the convenient, closely combined together, is as usual fraught with consequences, both lamentable and embarrassing. Passing—by grotesque transition—from the divinely authorised teaching of Archbishop Hughes to the decree of a council of the Church, confirmed by the vicar of Christ himself in presence of five hundred bishops, we find the doctrine, which the Roman Catholic Layman “ cannot accept,” simply and unmistakably summed up and defined as follows : “Therefore we, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith to the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Chris­ tian religion, and the salvation of Christian people— the sacred council approving—teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when discharging the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter—is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed �of Faith Unchangeable. 29 that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that, there­ fore, the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are, of them­ selves, irreformable, and not dependent upon the con­ sent of the Church. But if anyone presume to contra­ dict this, our definition-—which, may God avert—let him be accursed.” To realise fully the position of the Roman Catholic Layman under the shadow of this clearly marked Papal and Episcopal “ frown”—from which Archbishop Hughes has just guaranteed him entire immunity—it must be remembered that he has solemnly vowed “ most steadfastly to admit and embrace ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the Church, and to undoubtedly receive and profess all things delivered, defined, and declared by her general councils, as well as to condemn, reject, and anathematise all heresies which the Church has con­ demned, rejected, and anathematised.” It is in the teeth of this, his own free confession of Catholic faith, “ without which no one can be saved,” that he claims to justify his “ utter rejection ” of the inconvenient teachings of “ecclesiastical tradition,” which have been so recently defined, delivered, and declared by the General Council of the Vatican. To establish this justification, he appeals to the “ Pastors of the Church ; ” and on their own published testimony, he shows that they have taught him the following points. 1. lhat he is bound to believe their teaching under penalty -of Anathema. 2. That Catholic doctrine is that only which has been believed everywhere at all times and by all—and ; 3. That the doctrine of Papal Infallibility has not �3° The Advantages been thus believed; is consequently not a doctrine of the Church ; and can never be made so by any definition of a council what­ ever. Now, that the Pastors of the Church have so taught him is a fact altogether incontrovertible. Their evi­ dence, duly verified and recorded, has set the matter at rest beyond all possibility of doubt. Between proving, however, that he has been taught these propositions, and proving that the propositions themselves are true, there is a world-wide difference ; and it is just here that a consideration of the testimony rendered by Arch­ bishop Hughes is so important. This Pastor of the Church has declared, as we have seen, 11 that General Councils are Infallible; that men may hold as an opinion that the Pope is not infallible -without thus calling down upon themselves ecclesiastical censure ; and that all the Pastors of the Church teach the same doctrine.” Nothing assuredly can, to the ordinary and non-Catholic mind at least, be clearer than that the Archbishop is here, not only in entire contradiction with himself, but in complete antagonism with existing facts. For, if General Councils are Infallible, it is an inevitable consequence that the Infallibility of the Pope must be believed as a doctrine of the Church. It cannot therefore be disbelieved as an opinion. Further, the ecclesiastical frown is clearly threatened, in the form of anathema against all who shall maintain an opinion on papal infallibility contrary to the decree of the Vatican Council—and lastly, instead of all the pastors of the Church teaching the same doctrine, very many of them—as the Roman Catholic Layman himself clearly demonstrates-—teach doctrines, not only alto­ gether different, but clearly contradictory. Upon the credibility of his witnesses, the stability of his position manifestly depends, and to re-establish that of the most important witness he has yet produced, there �of Faith Unchangeable. 31 would appear to be but one way open to him. This method, however, although it has been urged upon him by those who would apparently have him save his Catholicity at any price, he indignantly rejects. “ But, say my infallibilist friends,” he remarks, “ when the authors you have quoted wrote, the doctrine was not defined to be a dogma, and consequently there was no heresy even if it were approximate heresy to deny it.” To this specious explanation which would shield both Archbishop Hughes and himself from the unpleasant consequences embodied in the anathema of a General Council—as well as rehabilitate his most important witnesses, the Boman Catholic Layman replies, in the fullest spirit of all the maxims of his adoption: “ Of all the novel and strange doctrines I have heard of, this is the strangest, and it is as false in fact as the doctrine it is intended to support. To suppose that the doctrines of Christianity were not of equal force before as well as after a Council, is a most unheard of novelty. They were defined to be dogmas because they were of obligation; they did not become of obligation because they were defined. “ This would be putting the cart before the horse. It would be as correct to say that a man was guilty of murder because he was hung, instead of saying that he was hung because he was guilty of murder. “ It would be as correct to say that a law became of force only when a conviction was obtained under its clauses. It would be as correct to say that a spoon became silver when it received the goldsmith’s hall mark. In each of these cases the authentication does not make it what it isj it is authenticated because it is what it is. Those who maintain the contrary are alike ignorant of the nature of theology, Church history, law, and silver spoons.” Having thus, with “ the wise economy of no management,” clearly succeeded in stultifying be­ yond all possibility of recovery his own main witness �32 The Advantages to the all important point at issue, he proceeds, in similar trenchant fashion, to impeach the credibility of the “ main body ” of those very “ pastors of the Church ” whose teaching he is bound to receive, accord­ ing to their own interpretation of the scriptures, under penalty of damnation. “ Infallibilists show a double front,” he immediately adds, “for they tell us with one breath that the Vatican Council has made a dogma of what was before only a doctrine, in order to avoid charging with heresy so many distinguished Archbishops and Bishops now dead, but whose works contain the most unmistakable denials of the doctrine. In the next breath they tell us that no change has been made, but that the doctrine has always been believed and taught. I can only say that this latter statement presents itself to my mind as the most astounding violation of veracity that this earth has been witness of since the serpent said to Eve, ‘ No, thou slialt not die the death.' ” That the “ Infallibilists ” who make this mendacious statement are identical with those whose teaching the Roman Catholic Layman is bound to receive under pain of damnation, viz., the pastors of the Church,—is evident from abundant testimony throughout his pamphlet. This fact may also be clearly and satisfactorily determined by reference to recent words of Cardinal Manning, whereby he has publicly testified : 1st. “ That the Infallibility of the Pope was a doctrine of divine faith before the Vatican Council was held. 2nd. That the Vatican Council simply declared an old truth, and made no new dogma.” It is manifest therefore that the Roman Catholic Layman has now convicted the very identical teaching body, to whom he has himself specially appealed from the decree of a General Council of the Church—of a “ violation of veracity ” unequalled in the history of the world since the fall. All things considered, the impeachment is suffi­ �of Faith Unchangeable. 33 ciently grave. Not content, however, with the extent of it, he proceeds to attaint in fashion no less grave the morality of the entire body, hy whom, according to his own statement, he has been somehow “ taught,” that as a Catholic he is obliged by Jesus Christ himself to believe what “ the pastors of the Church of Rome ” teach, under penalty of damnation. This he accom­ plishes in the following fashion :— In the course of his arguments directly against the decree of infallibility, he quotes from a Catechism of the Church — permissu superiorum — question and answer, as follows— Question—“ Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible ? ” Answer-—“ This is a Protestant invention. It is no article of the Catholic faith ; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body—that is, by the bishops of the Church.” On this he immediately remarks : “This last question and answer have been surrepti­ tiously removed in the last edition without a word of explanation. Charges of corrupting the writings of the dead have often been made against the Church of Rome. We have now an instance before our very eyes !” Having then, already charged the main body of the pastors, under the title of infallibilists, with “ an as­ tounding violation of veracity,” he has now clearly accomplished nothing less than the moral impeachment of “ the congregation of all the faithful throughout the whole world under one head,” and that on a point of the very deepest and gravest importance which it is possible to imagine. The object at issue not being to determine and pronounce merely whether it is Saint Antoninus of Florence, Saint Vincent of Lerins, Bellarmin, Arch­ �34 The Advantages bishop Hughes, Mastai Perretti, or a Roman Catholic Layman who is gifted with powers of infallible discern­ ment and power of definition, but to sum up and esti­ mate the advantages, moral and mental, of belonging to the Church of Rome, in search of the complete and the unchangeable, it is unnecessary to follow the pamphlet throughout. When a man is busily intent upon cutting through the very branch of a tree upon which he is himself astride, the ordinary mind scarcely requires to witness the entire operation in order to realise the consequences which must finally result. The latter portion of the Roman Catholic Layman’s argument is sufficiently interesting, however, to make it worth while following him somewhat further. Having given the “ clear definition ” of the Church according to his own conviction, it will be well to record also his opinion as to who really constitute the pastors of the Church, whom he is bound to believe under pain of damnation. Quoting, then, St Ignatius to Poly carp, he identifies, first of all, as “the pastors of the Church,” the bishops, priests, and deacons : he who obeys them obeys Christ, by whom they were established.” Appealing, on the other hand, to a Catechism of the Church, it is stated, in answer to the question, Who are the lawful judges of Christian doctrine 1 “ Only the bishops of the true Church who have been appointed by Christ for that purpose. The bishops are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to rule and govern the Church ; this they could not do unless they were qualified with the utmost certainty to distinguish good from bad doctrine.” Again, referring to the catechism of the Council of Trent, he proves that it is “ the ministers of the church whom the Saviour has authorised to be invested with such authority that he says to them, ‘He that hears you hears me.’ ” Against this general application of these important words, however, it has to be borne in mind that Archbishop Hughes has already laid down �Of Faith Unchangeable. 35 that, according to Catholic interpretation, “it was of the definitions of a general council that Christ said, ‘ He that hears you hears me.’ ” Finally, appealing again to this latter authority, the following remarkable teaching is recorded :—“ The church is spread through the world, and you have but to apply to the nearest of her priests or bishops to learn from him what is her doctrine. He will not, in his reply, give you his opinion, but he will give you the attestation of his belief as received from Christ and His apostles, and as held during eighteen hundred years. You may consult other priests and other bishops, and on these points you will find, no doubt, no discrepancy, but all will speak as with the same voice and give you the same reply ; so that in the attestations of the individual Catholic pastor you have the universal attestation of the whole Catholic Church, the same as if its two hundred millions of witnesses stood by saying, ‘Yes; that is the faith which we have all received, which we believe and teach !’ ” Whatever may be the clear definition of Priests and Bishops, “ Pastors of the Church,” in his own imagina­ tion, which enables the Roman Catholic Layman to turn this startling statement to account as he subse­ quently does, it is evident from his pamphlet in general, and from one page in particular, that he divides that body into two distinct portions, viz., those from whom he individually has received the faith, and those from whom he has not. It is a very remarkable and sug­ gestive fact that he quotes with special approbation from the teaching of the former, the curious argument in support of the church of his selection and adoption, that “ nothing but an over-ruling providence could keep such multitudes united in religion who so widely differ in everything else / ” c �36 The Advantages Yet more remarkable and suggestive, however, is the single application which he proceeds triumphantly to claim for the testimony just quoted, of the very pastor of the church who already so erringly promised him immunity from the ecclesiastical frown for holding an opinion in antagonism with Vatican decrees. “ From the above,” he remarks, “ I naturally infer that when a Catholic Pastor teaches me that Papal In­ fallibility is not an article of our faith; is ‘ no part of our creed;’ is a ‘Protestant invention,’ and a ‘Protest­ ant forgery;’ I have the universal attestation of the whole Catholic Church the same as if its two hundred millions of witnesses stood by saying, ‘ Yes, Papal In­ fallibility is not the faith which we have all received, which we believe and teach 1” ’ Intent as the Roman Catholic Layman is here—as upon a similar occasion—upon attack only, and not upon defence, it still seems impossible to account for his astounding blindness as to the inevitable conse­ quences of this one-sided inference and its recoil upon himself, except indeed upon the not un-natural sup­ position that twenty years of disuse of private opinion and of utter dependence upon “ a Church,” has so atrophied and weakened the faculty, as to render it, when called upon, incapable of healthy or vigorous action altogether. That pastors of the church have taught him that Papal Infallibility is not an article of the Catholic Faith and is no part of the Catholic creed, is unquestionably true beyond all possibility of honest doubt. His own substantiated references and quotations prove the fact to demonstration. The application, however, which he has made, while thinking solely of his own defence, cannot manifestly be confined within the narrow limits of his own discern­ ment. It is, unfortunately for himself, in no degree �Of Faith Unchangeable. $7 less true that it is a “Catholic Pastor,”* who also teaches him as follows :—“ Events which have un­ happily become notorious induce us to make known to the faithful, that whosoever does not in his heart receive and believe the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Vicar of Jesus Christ “ as they have been defined by the supreme authority of the Church, does by that very fact cease to be a Catholic.” It is only necessary now to push the Roman Catholic Layman’s argument one step further than he has brought it himself, in order to discern that he must, in his own words, here also “ naturally infer ” that when a Catholic Pastor teaches him thus—“ He has the uni­ versal attestation of the whole Catholic Church the same as if its two hundred million of witnesses stood by saying : ‘ Yes, Papal Infallibility is the faith which we have all received, which we believe and teach, and whosoever does not in his heart accept it, is no Catholic.’ ” Prom this it follows clearly enough that he is, by his own showing, now absolutely obliged to “reject utterly ” not only the Infallibility of the Pope as defined by himself, but also the Infallibility of the Pastors of the Church, as defined by ^Aemselves—each under penalty of damnation. Having in short, twenty years ago, in his dalliance with “ the certain, the complete, and the unchangeable,” allowed himself to be shorn of the faculty of private judgment with which nature had endowed him, he appears before us now, making use of such new growth of it as time has furnished him with, in dragging down upon himself and all about him, the two main pillars of the universal structure in which his captivity has been paraded. In seeking an appropriate simile for the “astounding violation of veracity,” which he has now in point of * Cardinal Manning. �38 The Advantages fact made the two hundred million of witnesses consti­ tuting “the congregation of all the faithful” responsible for—the Roman Catholic Layman went back as we have seen, in his earlier efforts to “ shame the devil,” to the narrative of Eve and the Serpent. It may well be called to mind that ancient history furnishes no less suitable comparison for other astounding manifestations also; and that the modern historian of the strange events which are supposed to have “ brought death into the world and all our woe,” has also depicted for us the scene of “ universal ” ruin which is most aptly illus­ trative of the Roman Catholic Layman’s own present position : “ He tugg’d, he shook, till down they came, and drew The whole roof after them, with burst of thunder Upon the heads of all who sat beneath ; Lords, ladies, captains, counsellors, and priests, - Their choice nobility and flower. With these immix’t inevitably, The edifice where all were met to see him, Upon their heads, and on his own he pull’d. The vulgar only ’scap'd who stood without.” Clearly as the moral points, it is doubtful whether those whom it most concerns will discover in it any application to themselves. The tree of supernatural knowledge is still “pleasant to the eyes, and much to be desired to make one wise,” but it now grows within the precincts of “ the Church ; ” and those who have set their affections upon its “ certain and unchangeable ” fruit, are just as likely to be persuaded in the direction they want to follow, in the present age, as Eve was when the serpent said, “ Thou shalt not die the death.” The wisdom of not listening to serpents no doubt is now fully established, but it is unfortunately no longer “ the subtlest beast of the field ” which captivates humanity with “ astounding violations of veracity.” For all practical purposes of instruction and edifica­ tion the main purport of the Roman Catholic Layman’s reasonings may be gathered and. determined here. �Of Faith Unchangeable. 39 The mass of duly authenticated testimony which he has put forward, in all the “ wise economy of no-manage­ ment,” is by no means easy to follow. The non-Catholic mind finds itself bewildered by the semi-transparency of the cloud of mystification which is spread around it; while the Catholic mind, intent upon the shifting light which lures it on for the moment, and accustomed to obscurity, vanishes complacently in the dim confusion of ideas which it has itself created. If the main body of the Roman Catholic Layman’s arguments have not been touched upon here, it is not that they are unworthy of full study and attention. They throw, however, no new light upon what has been already referred to. One point most worthy of remark is, that whatever may be the relative value of the teaching of the Pope, and of the Pastors of the Church, and however flagrantly they contradict each other—as incontestably demon­ strated in the pamphlet itself—the writer is under the full impression to the last, that he is himself at least— in truth and honesty—a Roman Catholic Layman. That he even imagines the possibility of his sitting alone, a Catholic, among the ruins of Catholicism he has made, appears from his own confessions. Appealing once again to Saint Antoninus of Florence he establishes approvingly that “ it is quite possible the entire faith should be preserved in one single 'indi­ vidual—in which case it might be truly affirmed that the Faith has not failed the Church ! ” That the Roman Catholic Layman, however, really differs essentially from the main lay-element of the nominal two hundred millions, who speak with so strangely identical a voice,—few who have studied Catholicity in lands called Catholic, and have duly noted the revelations evoked by recent V Protestant expostulation ”—are likely to imagine. Ou this point his own original testimony, if not con­ clusive, is at least both interesting and useful. �40 The Advantages 11 As far as my experience goes,” he tells us, “ I find that while a few accept the new doctrine without any hesitation, a large number doubt or altogether refuse to accept it; the great majority, however, neither know nor care much about it, believing, as they say, that it is not their business to inquire into the doctrines of the Church, but simply to believe and do as they are told? As regards this ‘‘great majority,” it may no doubt he said, that if they could only supply that topmost link, which the Roman Catholic Layman has so com­ pletely ignored, and could account for the supreme exercise of that initial “private opinion” by which they became aware in the first instance of the divine obliga­ tion of believing the teaching of the pastors of the Church of Rome under penalty of damnation—their assertion would be worthy of all attention and respect. In the absence of this momentous explanation, however, our interest lies entirely with the first two classes he has described. And here, the existence of his pamphlet makes one thing at least clear and certain which is in no way affected by the doubtful question of his own claim to Catholicity, viz., that whether men “ accept the new doctrine without hesitation,’’ or whether, on the other hand, they “ altogether refuse to accept it,” both have alike to face the inexorable logic of existing facts therein recorded, which not only bars their passage every way across the threshold of the Church of Rome, but proves beyond a doubt that the dearly purchased consolation of “ the complete, the certain, and the unchangeable ” which she seems to offer, is but a false security after all, and one which in time of trial “melts away under the feet like ice exposed to the burning rays of a July sun.” To those, therefore, who, loving peace of mind and certainty, love truth and reason also, the matter of paramount interest, into which the Roman Catholic Layman’s reasonings resolve themselves, must evidently �Of Faith Unchangeable. 41 be the consideration of—how he came to cross this threshold in the first instance, and on what possibly sufficient mental and moral grounds he joined “ the Church of Rome.'” It is just here, however, that he gives us no direct information whatever. He has put it on record nevertheless, in his own words, as follows: “By the creed of Pius the Fourth I am bound to declare, and have actually declared, that I also admit the Scriptures, neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” (Sic.) Of the obligations consequent on his own arbitrary act, he has here at least conveniently made full con­ fession; but, at the same time, of the grounds on which he came to make this most momentous declaration twenty years ago, he tells us further, not one syllable. And yet nothing can be more remarkable than the results of his own researches into the “ unanimous con­ sent ” of these same so-called “ Fathers.” It is in repudiating the particular Catholic doctrine which happens to be utterly repugnant to his tastes, that he has found himself driven, in self-defence, to the assistance of this time-honoured and adopted testimony. In the process, however, he discovers, he tells us, among other startling facts, that as to the very nature and consequent stability of the vaunted rock upon which the Mother and Mistress of all Churches claims to have laid her unassailable foundations, the Fathers themselves are by no means agreed ! Asking himself, apparently by a sudden and tardy inspiration : “ What then is the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the passage, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church ? ’ ” he finds, he de­ clares, on authority duly verified, that: “ Forty-four Fathers understand the passage as a declaration that Christ has founded this Church (f.e., the Church of �42 The Advantages Rome) on the fundamental doctrine of His divinity, which St Peter so gloriously professed,—while seven­ teen fathers only, understood Christ’s words to the effect that he had founded the Church on St Peter.” The point of interest is here quite apart from the delicate question of original translation and Roman interpretation, upon which the very existence of the Church has been so long supposed to depend. Whatever may be the value of the distinction be­ tween the two interpretations quoted, it is quite evident that to the Roman Catholic Layman at least, this divergence of opinion, in a fundamental matter, and in a quarter where he has solemnly bound himself to judge alone by “ unanimity,” is of the very deepest moment and importance. What “ the vulgar who yet stand without,” then, will naturally at once demand to know is :—“ How does it happen that this enquiry into the nature of ‘ unanimity ’ among the fathers of the Church was not made before instead of after its existence was as­ sumed,—before instead of after the abjuration of ‘ the Uncertain,’ and tlie adoption of the ‘ Certain and Un­ changeable,’ by virtue of which, full responsibility was undertaken for the doctrines of the creed of Pius the Fourth, with all their necessary and legitimate results and consequences 1 ” This question is all the more natural, and at the same time more pressing, because the Roman Catholic Layman declares it to have been “ well said ” by an Italian priest “ that the main body of the Church have now reduced the Bible to one text : ‘ Thou art Peter,’ and the creed to one article : ‘I believe in the Pope.’ ” Also, because we have before us the testimony of many existing pastors of the Church of to-day, who differ probably from the Fathers of the Church of bygone ages, only in not yet being regarded through the enchantment of distance, and whom he has directly �Of Faith Unchangeable. 43 accused of inconsistencies and contradictions of un­ doubted gravity and importance. Notable among these “fathers” of our Catholics-to-be, are the names of “ Cardinal Manning,” “ Doctor New­ man,” and “Monsignor Capel.” Of the former, having proved against him, by refer­ ence to his own writings, a “ most disingenuous suppression ” of important facts as to the Vatican Council, he adds : “ He has a genuine horror of scientific history, and he undoubtedly practises what he preaches.” Against the mentor of his special adoption, who has assured him that “ Catholic doctrines are those only which have never and nowhere not been maintained,” and that “ the most damaging folly is to be found out shuffling,” his accusation is no less grave. Quoting a letter from Doctor Newman to Doctor Pusey, he shows clearly enough that in the opinion and teaching of the former, the doctrine of the Vatican Council, then at least was not maintained ; for the writer says : “ You consider my principle may be the means of introducing into our creed as portions of the necessary Catholic faith—the infallibility of the Pope. I hope to remove your anxiety as to these consequences before I bring my observations to a close.” Subsequently, Doctor Newman’s recorded declaration appears as follows : “ Nothing shall make me say that a mere majority in a council, as opposed to a moral unanimity, in itself creates an obligation to receive its dogmatic decrees.” The existence of this “ mere majority,” which Cardinal Manning has been already convicted of ignoring, by a “most disingenuous suppression of facts,” Doctor Newman has duly attested by admitting, that when the decree was actually passed, “ more than eighty ‘fathers ’ absented themselves from the Council, and would have nothing to do with its acts.” Having considerably strengthened this latter assertion, by �/ 44 Advantages quoting from the existing protest signed by nearly “ one hundred fathers who refused to be present at the final session,” their solemn declaration that “nothing but filial reverence forbade their saying non placet in the Pope’s presence, and in a matter directly concerning his person,” the Roman Catholic Layman proceeds to show that by some strange mental process, to the ordinary and non-Catholic mind probably suggestive of “ damaging folly,” the author of the “ Apologia ” subsequently acknowledges, that the obnoxious doctrine has been “ introduced as a portion of the necessary Catholic faith,” and not only so, but that he himself “ adheres to the introduction.” Viewed in connection with his own maxims and principles of action, this most contradictory outspoken­ ness of a father of the Church is sufficiently remarkable. It certainly seems strangely indicative of that universal immutability and unanimity which were among the desirable things upon which the Roman Catholic Lay­ man set his heart when he abandoned uncertainty for the Church of Rome. Equally grave, and more important to the matter in hand, for reasons subsequently noted, is the suspicion which is cast upon the principles and mode of action of “ Monsignor Capel.” This suspicion is effectually imparted to the ordinary mind by simple reference to two existing letters, some time back made public property. In the first of these, alluding to one of the “ Apostate Triumvirate ” of quondam Catholics of old prestige already referred to, who dared not only to hold but to publish reasons for not being able to accept Vatican decrees, “Monsignor Capel” writes as follows: “If Lord Camoys seriously and obstinately refuses to accept ‘ the doctrine of the personal infallibility of the Pope,’ then does he make shipwreck of the faith.” Being subsequently brought to task in a matter of phraseology, for which nevertheless he had the full �Of Faith Unchangeable. 45 authority and countenance of Cardinal Manning,* he at once seeks to escape the responsibility of his adopted words—the significance and bearing of which can be in no way affected by any defect of originality—by writing: “ I shall feel much obliged if you will allow me to say that the words, ‘ the doctrine of the personal infalli­ bility of the Pope,’ are not mine. They were cited from the last sentence of Lord Camoys’ own letter, and were duly printed in inverted commas.” In this attempted refuge, under the shelter of “ in­ verted commas,” from the consequences of a public declaration made by one gifted with divine authority to teach, under penalty of damnation, the ordinary mind will now again hardly fail to discover palpable traces not only of “ damaging folly,” but also of that failure in “prudence,” and “lack of true expediency,” which the maxims of the . Roman Catholic Layman’s adoption have so clearly defined, and at the same time so unmistakeably connected with certain other aberra­ tions, mental or moral. It is these curious illustrations of “unanimity” in a triumvirate of English “fathers” of the Church of Rome, to whose utterances distance may some day lend an enchantment they seem to lack at present, which render the following teaching of yet another well-known “ Father of the Church,” so apropos and interesting. Writing in a language which must suffer somewhat by translation, “ Monsieur le Pere Huguet ” has recently published the following information to the world. + “The progress of Protestant abjuration is increasing and becoming more marked every day. Whenever Monsignor Capel, the apostle of the Anglicans, appears in the pulpit, the largest church becomes at once too small to contain an audience which is com­ posed almost entirely of Protestant ritualists. The * “The privilege of Infallibility is personal.’’—Pastoral of Cardinal Manning. + “ Almanach des fideles amis de Pie IX.” 1876. �46 The Advantages illustrious preacher would seem to have a special vocation for this kind of conversion, for he receives numbers of abjurations himself; and these are for the most part among the upper and well-educated classes. “ Ladies of rank, men of fashion, the bar, and the bench, have alike contributed and contribute every day a crowd of converts to the faith; but as it has been thought advisable not to publish names in the Catholic journals, except in striking instances, the world at large little dreams of the increase of Catholicism which is taking place in England, and especially in London, at the present time?’ As if in order that nothing should here fall short of the description of those upon whose heads destruction came—“Lords, ladies, captains, counsellors, and priests”—this father of the Church goes on to note that “ in spite of Mr Gladstone’s campaign,” the Church makes “ glorious conquests,” not alone among the laity, but also among the pastors of the Church of England, and in proof of this he adduces what he terms “ an eloquent list ” of twenty-five. It is in the face of revelations such as this that the “ reasons ” why a Roman Catholic Layman cannot accept the doctrines defined by a general council of his church, becomes a document of unusual interest, and one too valuable in the present day to be allowed to pass away without an effort being made to increase its influence and circulation. In publishing his pamphlet, the Roman Catholic Layman has simply enough explained its raison d'etre. “ My object is,” he states, “ that if the difficulties I and many others feel, in reference to the teaching of the Vatican council, be mere illusions or misconceptions, some one will be induced by solid arguments and sound reasons, to dispel or remove them.” If the object went no further than this, then much time and evident labour would indeed have been thrown away. �Of Faith Unchangeable. To prevent a moth from burning his wings, when obstinately and unaccountably bent upon exchanging obscurity for the celestial radiance of a flaring gas-light, is not easy. To remove the difficulties of a man laboriously “straining at gnats,” who has already without difficulty “ swallowed a camel,” is almost an impossibility. What “ solid arguments ” and “ sound reasons ” can by any possibility affect the man who has exchanged his birthright of uncertain reason for such a certain catholic compound of unreason, as he has here himself served up for public note and edification ? Never, surely,—since the days when Esau asked himself, “ what profit shall this birthright do me? ” and exchanged it for a certain, fleeting, satisfaction—have the inevitable consequences of false, faint-hearted, and unnatural action been more surely incurred, and more graphically described. It is in enabling us to observe and estimate these consequences, that the Roman Catholic Layman has attained an object far beyond his own original intent and purpose. Confused as may be the argument—to the ordinary mind—by which he claims to have propped up and justified his present position in the Church of Rome, he has at least fully enabled us to discover what it is he has actually gained by laying violent hands upon “ the Certain and Unchangeable” within her bosom. The result of that very definition of a Council of the Church of his adoption, which he has been forbidden to contra­ dict under penalty of anathema, “ will be,” he tells us, “that in the course of a few years we may be required to believe as many doctrines under pain of damnation, as there are stars in the firmament or grains of sand on the sea-shore ; and, as a consequence, myriads will be driven into infidelity from the sheer impossibility of ever knowing what they are required to believe.” “ In a word, I feel no certainty that any or every �48 The Advantages doctrine of the Church may not he radically changed by future definitions ; and I therefore feel justified in declaring that the effect of the Vatican decree is to raise a doubt whether there is any infallible authority in this world except the Word of God. “ I had imagined that in submitting to the Catholic Church I had exchanged the uncertainty of private opinion for the certainty of a faith complete and unchangeable, and now I am compelled to choose again ! ” Such is the gain, after twenty years of mental and moral “ submission ” to the Church of Rome 1 In the plaintive acknowledgement of human falli­ bility and weakness which has here been made, there is surely a world of teaching—not only for the “ vulgar who still stand without ”—but also for the crowds who have already crossed the forbidden threshold of the socalled “universal” edifice, in search of peace and certainty within. Who can doubt that if the Roman Catholic Layman had vigorously used the talent which has lain decaying in church keeping during twenty years, he would have secured ere now a brighter outlook, and a far different and more firmly founded standpoint, than he evidently holds at present. For, in recording the doubt whether there is any infallible authority on earth save one, he has forgotten that in the process of justifying his absolute rejection of the Infallibility of the Vicar of Christ, he has himself confessed, not only that it is the Church itself which teaches him where- alone the Word of God is infallibly to be discovered— but also that “ the dead letter of the printed word can never answer as a rule by which men can come to a knowledge of the truth, if it is left to every private reason to interpret in accordance with its fancy.” He has forgotten, too, that this same churchdetermined “Word of God’' has been for centuries of darkness in the hands of those whom he has himself �Of Faith Unchangeable. 49 convicted of “ corrupting the writings of the dead; ” and further, that one of his own strongest arguments is founded on the accepted reasoning that : “ If Christ had intended that all mankind should learn their religion from a book, He Himself would have written that book, and would have laid down as the first and fundamental principle of His religion the obligation of learning to read it.” If therefore the testimony of recorded facts here proves it to be unquestionably true, that “ the effect of the Vatican Council is to raise a doubt in the Catholic mind whether there is any infallible authority in the world except the “ Word of God,” it would seem assuredly not one particle less true, that the effect of the “ overwhelming argument ” by which this natural conclusion has been established, must be—in the Catholic mind no less than in the non-Catholic—to raise a similar doubt whether there does indeed exist any infallible authority on earth, whatever. In overcoming the slavish fear, which high sounding and authoritative denunciations of supernatural and eternal punishments, for lack of faith in history or tradition, causes,—it has in truth been made apparent that, as in other less important matters, it is the first step alone which costs. The Roman Catholic Layman has found “himself commanded under penalty of anathema to believe the doctrine set forth by the Vatican Council.” He “utterly rejects it! ” He has been told by the main body of the pastors of the Church whose teaching he is, according to their own account, obliged by Christ himself to accept under penalty of damnation, that if he does not in his heart receive and believe this same doctrine of the Vatican, he ceases to belong to the Church outside of which there is no salvation. This double condemnation he rejects as utterly as the other. �50 The Advantages It is not, however, in the Roman branch of Christi­ anity that the thunderings of anathema against unbelief alone are to be heard. It is on a Protestant tombstone and not in Roman Catholic definitions only, that the "warning may be read : “Oh that men would know the multitude of those that will be damned ! ” It is in the printed record of that one Infallible authority to which the Roman Catholic Layman now turns in order to exchange afresh, uncertainty for cer­ tainty complete and changeless—that he reads the sweeping condemnation: “Whosoever believeth not, he shall be damned.” Having then, as we have seen, already braved, and left behind him, the tremendous ecclesiastical denunciations which this more ancient ana­ thema resembles so strikingly in style, it is difficult to see how he fails to realize the fact that he is forced by all his arguments to push aside, and search for truth behind, this scaring terror also. For if there be one thing which he has himself made clearer than another, it is the simple truth that the entire comfort and advan­ tage of possessing an infallible authority on earth, must depend completely upon the absolute and unerring certainty of the private discernment by which this out­ ward manifestation of “the Certain and Unchangeable” can be seized upon and apprehended in the first instance. It is, however, unfortunately, just this initial cer­ tainty which was manifestly absent when he made his first exchange, in search of peace and safety; and now, when he turns in similar fashion “ to choose again else­ where,” it is this same initial certainty which is most clearly absent still. For now, in addition to the insuper­ able obstacles which render impossible all human recog­ nition of Infallible authority in the record of historical facts which Anathema brings under cognizance of saving “ Faith,” the awkward difficulty remains to be confronted, that the writings which comprise this record �Of Faith Unchangeable. 51 were originally chosen and determined, and for centuries of darkness, guarded, by the very body corporate against which the damning accusation has been proved—by Catholic arguments—not only of “Corrupting the writ­ ings of the dead before our very eyes,” but also of “Astounding violation of veracity, almost unequalled in the history of the World.” That many among the crowds who seek for consolation and security under the spacious shelter offered especially by the self-styled Mother and Mistress of all Churches, are impelled to cross the threshold by terror lest the doubt which the Roman Catholic Layman has expressed should be but one step upon a path they have neither wish nor courage to pursue, seems more than probable. To those who cannot face “Uncertainty” there may no doubt be present peace of mind and consolation in the self-deceptions of imagined “ Certainty.” For these the simple course consists in reasoning according to their will, instead of willing in accordance with their reason. By simply ignoring or avoiding all lines of thought which seem to lead them towards conclusions inconvenient or unpalatable, they reach at last the cer­ tain and unchangeable mental resting-place of all their wishes. To such as these, however, the Roman Catho­ lic Layman’s “Apologia pro Vita Sua” is full of warning and suggestion. It seems to be the honestly recorded testimony of one who by this very process of will-reasoning, has for twenty years imagined himself to be firmly standing upon solid rock. Oblivious of the fact that he selected it in the first instance for himself upon his’ private judgment, and took no adequate pains to examine its composition and foundations—he is astonished and alarmed to-day to find the solid mass of his fond imagination shifting from its place, and melting at the same time beneath �52 * The Ad-vantages his feet, “like ice in. the burning rays of a July sun.” Assuredly to all those who love “ to make a silence and call it ‘ Peace] ” this Catholic Confession is full of teaching and significance; and, being Catholic, it may be truly said of it: Ex uno disce omnes. If there are many, however, who find temporary peace and comfort in the self-deception of imaginary certainty, there are also many who can search out the truth without any fearful side-glance as to the conse­ quences which such investigation may have upon their blindly cherished hopes and wishes. Should these— taking their departure from the point at which the Roman Catholic Layman has only now arrived after twenty years of disuse of private reason,—come to the firm conclusion that it is at least quite as uncertain that there really exists any one infallible authority upon earth, among many claiming to be such, as that there can exist no other—then, to these also, a careful study of this history of utter rejection of ecclesiastical Ana­ thema may bring much comfort and assurance. For, however painful it must be to question the character of the household idols of our own first and fondest veneration and respect, the Roman Catholic Layman’s pages go to furnish the very strongest addi­ tional proof that it cannot be at least “ a sin to doubt opinions that were instilled in childhood, before they have been examined; nor yet a virtue to hold them with unreasoning and unwavering credulity.” Whatever may be the loss of fancied certainty hereby resulting as to revelations of eternal recompense, it must not be forgotten that hand in hand with these go reve­ lations of eternal torture also. If, therefore, the con­ viction should gradually dawn upon the world, that Uncertainty and Ignorance in matters supernatural are fixed by nature as the Universal layman’s lot,—it will �Of Faith Unchangeable. 53 at least be found by careful study of these copious “ Reasons ” why a Roman Catholic Christian cannot accept the natural consequences of his own free act, that after all, such simple knowledge is not without its great and lasting gains and compensations. TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH, � 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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The advantages, mental and moral of a faith unchangeable, certain, and complete, in A.D. 1876 Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 53 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. 'by W.H.K.'. [Title page]. 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 1876 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT196 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource W.H.K. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The advantages, mental and moral of a faith unchangeable, certain, and complete, in A.D. 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 Subject The topic of the resource Catholic Church Faith Catholic Church-Controversial Literature Conway Tracts Faith https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f832f6774712a4c4a7f099eaf0834e09.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=q2PUWZwrHzQaSMBla4EvnCZYeBJXBgbIdWCrXuwUJR13sJVQlTYXi5W%7EnwjEYEm4FAo3NZONR-TCQbZtxNF%7EIxpK-SRC2%7EBbulam7yQ37as8rFk6b1Wy8d352MInVmI6jeXGs8xjd3nj6aBAPOg46CMax-80NYm2RlbPoddU6YR7Q2p5QTqr6z4LQlcPDdBtR9rqCK3Azb9C-5g2xg45EU3XEYMasZHhrtVUVjWpcrvAETv12XqBR1tyFmYPGbW4h4e06eBKbN0Exhwi9dw3yOBfU3bmKtJW5bs-YI8b3q63wN0XK8RM3xJKMnwTf6aClIeOCUWQqNQwmZkfzwblmw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c9fb4a209f04381e49efaecd6927ee58 PDF Text Text SIGNS OF THE TIMES. MARCH, 1875. R. FRASER, the Bisbop of Manchester, is a prelate who talks a great deal, but who is, nevertheless, generally worth listening to. Some short time since he discussed the subject, “Is Chris­ tianity living or dead,” and he drew a very remark­ able picture of the present state of the Church. The candour with which the Bishop faced the facts of practical life was something extraordinary. He avowed that some people thought it wiser to pass over in discreet silence questions which asked, if Christianity be a passing system or an eternal truth, but he—the Bishop—deemed that “ it was necessary to face these issues, and to give them a distinct and clear answer.” He noted that intelligent laymen were in the habit of treating Church questions with indifference, and he acknowledged that “religion amongst us was becoming bitter, persecuting, in­ tolerant, sectarian.” He urged Christians not to think that it was enough to say : “ God will protect his own cause.” “ What historical instance was there” he asked, “ of God’s maintaining a cause which man had deserted and despaired of?” If Bishops are going to model their faith on history, we fear us that Chris­ tianity is indeed dying very rapidly. Does Dr. Fraser really want historical proofs of Christian dogma ? Does he ask for historical instances of prayer being answered ? If a Bishop thus seeks for guidance from experience, there will soon be an episcopal reinforcement to the ranks of Free Thought. Bitterly does Dr. Fraser speak of “ Archbishops and Monsignors and Canons ” wrangling “ about theo­ logical terms, which they themselves could not ex­ D �2 plain consistently” (fie, Dr. Fraser !), while men and women were sinning and dying around them. This man has caught somewhat of his master’s “ enthu­ siasm of humanity,” and the ring of his eloquence is true and strong. He wound up with a stern warn­ ing, more fit for the lips of a Free Thinker than for those of a Christian Bishop: “ If the Church ceased to have a hold upon the consciences and the under­ standing of intelligent people, Churchmen might be able to maintain for a little time the skeleton of her organisation; they might still go on pattering her creeds (sic), and subscribing to her articles ; butthose would simply be so many swathing bands round a corpse.” Verily, Dr. Fraser, you are a notable “ sign of the timesmanly, outspoken, brave: a very phenomenon among Bishops. After this, we can scarcely be surprised to hear that the Bishop puts a very high value on sound secular education, and boldly says, that rather than keep a Church of England school in a state of inefficiency, he would hand it over to the School Board; ‘‘ it was of supreme importance that our young people should be intelli­ gently and thoroughly trained, in order that they might face the religious problems of the future.” But, as Dr. Fraser likes history, we would point out to him that educated and intelligent people have hitherto had a way of solving religious problems which does not suit orthodox Christianity. Mr. W. R. Greg has lately solemnly warned us that the intellect of the country is becoming divorced from religion; if this is the case—and we very sincerely believe that it is so if, by religion, be meant ortho­ dox Christianity—how will religion fare when solid secular education has spread abroad among the many the knowledge which is now the privilege of the few ? Will the sharp lad believe in Dr. Colenso’s arithmetic when applied to ordinary busi­ ness, and doubt its accuracy when it shatters the history of the Pentateuch ?—will he read of Cristna and Maia in India, and never connect them with �3 Christ and Mary in Palestine ?—will he see the black virgin and child of “heathen mythology,” and not trace to them the black virgin and child of Christian relics ?—will the cross remain in his mind as the symbol of his redemption, when he has met it again and again in the oldest religion of the world ? In a word, will history unfold to him her secrets, and lay open to him her lore, and yet leave him simple and childish, the toy of superstition, and the dupe of a priest ? Knowledge and orthodox Christianity ? Yes, perhaps, when you can persuade mid-day and midnight to exist at the same moment side by side. The National Society are, on the other hand, fully at one with us as to the dangerous tendency to orthodox Christianity—of Secular Education: they have issued and circulated a pressing appeal to good Church folk to come forward and help them, for “ our poorer schools in all parts of the country are in great danger of being lost to the Church.” The National Society sees the rock ahead, and recognises the fact that their craft is in danger, like that of the silver­ smiths of Diana of old, if children are to be taught to use their brains, without having their intellectual faculties trained to run in Church harness. The Bishop of Peterborough wisely denounces “the serpent intellect,” for he, too, is wise in his generation, and knows that even “ a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” to his creed. True to the traditions of his order, he would “ take away the key of knowledge,” and those who would enter in he would hinder. The Church Defence Association have also been put­ ting their house in order, seeing that their enemies are closing in on every side. Every speaker had the same tale to tell, a moan over the danger which menaced, and a shriek against the impending doom. Oddly enough, the hopes of the Churchmen clustered round Mr. Forster; surely never was a quainter sight than these valiant devotees finding a champion in a Nonconformist leader. It may be that, having found him “ squeezable ” in the Education Bill, they �4 hope by gentle pressure to persuade him to defend the Establishment; at any rate, they build on him their hopes. “ Every true lover of the Church ” is summoned to aid her in keeping the national pro­ perty she has so long usurped, and strange to say, for a kingdom which is not of this world, a keen eager­ ness is shown to “ keep tight hold of the money.” We are surprised also to hear, from the lips of a Church dignitary, that “if ever the Church were disconnected from the State, it would necessarily fall.” We had always imagined that Churchmen be­ lieved that their Church was an independent organisa­ tion, founded on a rock, against which the gates of Hell should never prevail. Surely, then, it would not fall, even though not buttressed by the State F What­ ever the Church people may think, we are very sure of one thing—that when the Church is disestablished, she must also be disendowed, or else, like Frankenstein, we shall have created a monster who will spread de­ struction throughout the State. We, like Hr. Fraser, have studied history, and we have drawn therefrom some serious ideas about the danger to the Common­ wealth of an independent and a wealthy Church in her midst. In regard to this question Mr. Bright’s speech at Birmingham is interesting, even though it lack the old incisiveness and the old fire of eloquence. His satirical reference to the clergy who boast them­ selves gentlemen and sons of gentlemen, and are yet so lawless as to require special legislation to curb them, like the less respectable classes of publicans and marine store-keepers, will scarcely be favourably received in clerical circles ; yet it was answered by the laity with thunders of applause. The drift of the speech was to the disestablishment, or, as Mr. Bright apparently preferred to phrase it, the enfranchise­ ment of the Church, and it was throughout marked with strong religious feeling of the earnest noncon­ formist type. Although, on this point, we can have no sympathy with Mr. Bright, yet it is well that the thousands who are influenced by his voice should �5 be so plainly urged io work steadily and quietly to bring about this great change. The Bishop of Carlisle has bitterly attacked Mr. Bright for his speech, and essayed, somewhat lamely, to defend the Church, and hoped God would bless her ; if He does, disendowment must be close at hand, for we are dis­ tinctly told, “ Blessed are ye poor.” A large meeting assembled at Spurgeon’s tabernacle to hear a very excellent lecture on the same subject from Mr. Vin­ cent, and a meeting at the Free Trade Hall, Man­ chester, echoed the same cry. Everywhere this ques­ tion is coming to the front, and “ the signs of the times ” point to a speedy destruction of the supre­ macy of the State Church. The question about the disposal of our dead, drags its slow length along without exciting any very strong feeling on either side. A suggestion has been made which is a kind of compromise between burial and cremation; it is proposed that the corpse should be wrapped in a shroud and placed in a slight wicker frame of open basket work, and then buried in the ground. Advocates of this plan contend that the sanitary objections to burial will be thus obviated, for the slow decay which makes churchyards so injurious to the living is principally the result of the enclosure of the body in a solid coffin; earth has powerful deodorising qualities, and some consider that the present dangers would not exist if coffins were no longer used. We may suggest that, even supposing this theory to be correct in some cases, it would not answer in clay, and would be of very doubtful advantage in sandy soils. On the other hand, cremation gives an absolute security against injury to the living, and, in cases of contagious disease, it would be an invaluable protection. A little patient work in spreading information as to the injurious results of burial, and in combating the childish prejudices fostered by persons like the Bishop of Lincoln, would soon bring about this important sanitary reform. �6 The United Presbyterian Church of Scotland is trying to put together a hymn-book which shall pour old wine into new bottles, i.e., pour old dogmas into modern rhythm. The task appears to be a most exhilarating one, and the traditional ideas of the sobriety and sternness of the true Calvinist were ruthlessly ignored by the Scotch hymn-makers. When a hymn containing a line about “Angels bending low before Him ” was under discussion, a presbyter remarked that “angels have not got back­ bones as we have.” We are curious to know whence this gentleman derived his anatomical knowledge; according to his Bible angels have arms, wings, and feet, and a creature with these limbs who was devoid of a backbone to support those to which they are articulated, would be a curious natural phenomenon ; besides, the Bible speaks of angels as “young men,” and however devoid many young men may be of backbone to their character, they yet possess the physical property. One hymn was too “ churchy,” another too “ stuffy,” another too “jingling ; ” on the whole the sitting was very lively, and jokes flew about freely. Scotchmen joking over hymns is truly, as Dominie Sampson would have said, “ prode-gious.” A curious little squabble is reported from the dio­ cese of Exeter, ruled over, as our readers know, by Dr. Temple, erst of Rugby. A clergyman who was presented to a vacant cure was refused induction by the Bishop; the clergyman was of blameless life, and was beloved and revered by the people to whom he had for some time ministered as curate ; “ why was he refused ?” the public are asking. Was it that his views were not quite those of his lordship of Exeter ? It would be interesting to know, by the way, what Dr. Temple’s “ views” are. Are they the views of the liberal Editor of ‘ Essays and Reviews,’ who ad­ mitted to that much-talked-of volume the essay of the Rev. Baden Powell; or is the withdrawal of the first essay—the Editor’s contribution—to be regarded as �7 a mark of true repentance, whereby “ he publicly re­ tracts, that, his wicked error ? ” Is the clever erst head­ master of Rugby a believer in the bodily resurrection, in the bodily ascension, in the return of the Son of Man, in the miracles of the Bible, in any of the manifold absurdities of orthodox Christianity ? And if he is not, how much does he believe ?—does he believe just enough to wear the mitre and live in the palace, without conscience smiting him too hardly ? The public would be deeply interested in hearing a con­ fession of faith from the Bishop of Exeter. Once he bade fair to be a leader in the army of Free Thought, but, alas! “Just for a handful of silver he left us, Just for a ribbon to stick in his coat.” With how many the good seed of Free Thought springs up for a time, and is then choked by what Jesus sadly termed, “ the love of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches.” The controversy between Monsignor Capel and Canon Liddon must have left the Ritualists with very uneasy feelings. The Canon, however skilfully he may have striven to Parry the blows of his antagonist, had emphatically the worst of the fight, and was thoroughly beaten out of his very untenable posi­ tion :—■ “ What’s in a name ? ” When Capel tries, by subtle blows, The Canon’s faith to harry; He foils each deadly thrust, and shows, His name is rightly “Parry.” In any controversy, the man who knows what he means is sure to have the advantage over the man whose meaning is hazy, even to himself, and when the Roman Catholic defends Transubstantiation against the Anglican who believes in a Real Presence, somehow the Roman Catholic is sure to win. Then how distressed the Ritualists must have felt when all meaning of any kind was spirited out of their warm eucharistic hymns. Canon Liddon is an adept at �4 : A ' . 8 * ** juggling with words; but> for the sake of that sin­ cerity which is wont to be called an English virtue, we do very earnestly hope that Englishmen—if they must be superstitious—will at least have the manliness < to put their superstition into intelligible words, and not to cheat themselves by using phrases which have only one meaning on the face of them, and that a meaning which common-sense folk are ashamed of on week-days, even if they employ it on Sundays. It is painful to look across the water to Spain, and to see priestcraft once more raising its evil head in that unhappy country, the “ privileges of which the Church was unjustly deprived, are to be restored,” and Rome is jubilant over the piety of the new boyking. There is, of course, no real Free Thought possible- in Spain at present, among a people whose education, is that burlesque of education, given grudg­ ingly by a priesthood, and who have neither manli­ ness of mind nor purity of heart. Still we had hoped that the destruction of the fatal supremacy of the Church would slowly have paved the way for a sterner education, and would thus have brought the people into a more enlightened condition, in which they would have been fit to receive the light of Free Thought. An ignorant people will always be super­ stitious, and will degrade any truth that is offered to them until it is narrowed to the capabilities of their faculties ; and Spain is not yet able even to conceive Free Thought. But she will sink yet lower under a king, who is being incessantly blessed by archbishops, and who chooses the Virgin as one of his CaptainGenerals. PRINTED BY C. W. BEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; 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 Signs of the times. March, 1875 Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [S.l.] Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Presented in Memory of Dr. Moncure D. Conway by his children, July 1908 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [S.n.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1875 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT142 Subject The topic of the resource Catholic Church Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource [Unknown] Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Signs of the times. March, 1875), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Catholic Church-Controversial Literature Conway Tracts https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/193de8c0b14d81090533b72a693ea213.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=l1yLoqKSuU1aI7pJJlCIZyu6ShyFAs1p1Iy70y8Zv5o0%7E5VIGGv6iqJF6bD21dKmkOgHqhew2C%7E%7EnxRscMesejUgFZSOCfYAYfvs7jqlEeB13KC44vYMFkpv7GfXwFnffEIDIHEGWCS4BgfDqMCHNS-yD0oDRuBM-5BHtrXh%7E4PPDGymsDEU2s2C3gH0heasqgzcyxZBr51tOucCMqZ15TyxASqJNe8YNPR9FYKuhTq25t6UA5%7EcpgeaDDrYaiMQyDFd3ZVX6hOepEkd%7EQQaiYrnXcciIx3jOWwW8xBeHXDdIeLLyyIYx2O3zzFN6ReiDeNrar0dbB30OmZqmHKLkA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM df3532dd851d8abeaa1c8b42435f07ef PDF Text Text SIGNS OF THE TIMES. JANUARY, 1875. HOSE who are in the habit of reading this little monthly record of ecclesiastical events will remember the appeal made by the Indian Bishops to the Church at home for men and money to re-invigorate the feeble Indian offshoot. The docu­ ment was one of the most curious confessions of failure which could well have been made, and we ventured to suggest at the time that its publication was the result of some careless oversight. The S.P.Gr. is, however, circulating an appeal among the clergy, in which these “ dear Brethren in Christ ” are reminded of this “loud call,” and are asked to “read again the stirring and pressing appeal of India’s chief Pastors,” and to make it “ a special subject of intercession and exhortation on the appointed Day of Prayer.” Great results, it appears, followed on last year’s “ day of intercession ; ” some soldiers turned missionaries, and some home clergymen also took up the foreign work; this is, really, a very likely and legitimate result of a day of intercession, and very well exemplifies the reflex action of prayer. A man, or a number of men, pray earnestly for a given object; their hearts are set on it, their minds dwell on it, and, as a natural consequence, they devote their energies to furthering the cause for which they have been praying. When the object prayed for is one which is attainable through human effort, prayer, for those who believe in it, may seriously influence T �2 the result, by turning the energies of the mind in the direction of the wished-for prize ; what a man prays for earnestly, he wishes for earnestly, and his faculties will be on the stretch to seize every oppor­ tunity of furthering the object in view. Hence we have no doubt that the “ Day of Intercession ” brought both men and money into the Mission field, although we do not ascribe the result to supernatural means. It reads oddly nowadays to see a Chris­ tian Society asking for missionaries in order that help may be given to “ the Lord against the mighty.” One wonders somewhat confusedly who these “ mighty ” may be, who are sufficiently strong to be too much for the Omnipotent single-handed, but apparently only just overweight him, as a few Englishmen on his side will, it is hoped, be sufficient to turn the balance in his favour. However, as “ India has yet to be converted ” it is very evident that “ the Lord ” alone has not been equal to the task, and it is therefore quite reasonable that the “ cry has gone forth to the Church for men who will come to ‘ his ’ help.” When wicked rationalists hint doubts about Almightiness, they are promptly rebuked and are accused of blasphemy; it is, we suppose, all right and proper when the “blasphemy” comes from the S.P.G. The vigorous ritualistic party are having a little mission of their own to India, which shows far more appreciation of the character of the people with whom they have to deal than is common among English missionaries. In fact, they follow the wise Roman Catholic plan of making the new religion resemble the old one as much as possible. The Ritualists have noticed thatthe Hindoo reverences a priesthood, and admires asceticism, and that he des­ pises a “ religious organism which does not profess to have a priesthood ; ” hence it comes to pass that “ our conversions are confined to the very lowest class.” They argue, therefore, that to do battle with the “ false religions ” on equal terms, they must recognise �3 the “two great principles which are rooted in the Asiatic mind,” and they accordingly send out from S. John’s, Cowley, some “ Evangelist Fathers ”—• celibate priests who lead ascetic lives. This move really shows some acuteness, but it must be rather distressing to read in a Calcutta native paper that the arrival of these Fathers causes a hope in native circles that the English mind is at last moving up to the higher mysticism of the Asiatic faith ! This amiable approval does not sound very encouraging. We would suggest to the Evangelist Fathers that if they really wish to impress the Hindoo mind with their asceticism, they should try and rival some of the well-known austerities practised by Indian devo­ tees. A Father swinging calmly from a hook would surely be a proof of the English progress in asceti­ cism, and would, perhaps, enable them to meet on an equal footing the priests of the rival faith. The excitement caused by Mr. Gladstone’s pamphlet on the 4 ‘ Vatican Decrees’’has naturally spread far and wide, and the glove he threw down at the feet of the English Catholics has been caught up by a score of eager combatants. Archbishop Manning was the first to accept the challenge, and talked in his subtle and evasive way about 1‘ conscience ” and “ duty to God,” trying to make it appear that the limitations of civil obedience which were acknowledged by the Roman. Catholic were also binding on all those who had a conscience at all. The plea was ingenious, but transparently sophistical. Bishop Ullathorne had his say, and Monsignor Capel had his. The latter boldly owned that the “ ecclesiastical power was superior to the civil,” and his honest, but over-zealous, avowal has been met, by members of his own Church, with considerable disapproval. A leading Roman Catholic newspaper, however, lays down that, “ the Pope, in virtue of his ecclesiastical office, has the power of deposing any Sovereign whose government he may consider injurious to the spiritual welfare of that �4 country.” This, at least, is fairly plain speaking, though we acknowledge that we cannot help remem­ bering a boast once made—“ I can call spirits from the vasty deep,” and the common sense reply :— “ Well, so can I, and so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them V’ We fancy that Pius IX., deposing a king, would find that, however well his thunder-bolt was launched, it would fall short of its mark, and it would be well for him if it did not recoil on his own throne. The poor successor of Peter is, however, comforted and sus­ tained by the offerings of the faithful, and the 2,600Z., lately forwarded to him from Ireland as “ Peter’s pence,” must go far to console him for the attack on S. Peter by the viperish ex-Prime Minister, which so deeply vexed the Apostolic heart, although, while denouncing it, the critic mildly remarked that he had not read it. To us, in England, the main practical interest of this pamphlet is, that it seems to show a final break between the Liberal leader and the Roman Catholic Church, and we cannot but watch with interest for the next step forward on Mr. Gladstone’s part. Is his quarrel with Rome a sign that he is shaking off some of his ecclesiastical fetters ? If it is, it would indeed be a notable “sign of the times.” Archbishop Manning, it seems, has no intention of tolerating any rebellion within the Church, and he has caused a letter to be read publicly in the London Churches to the effect that any so-called Catholic who denies Papal Infallibility is, ipso facto, excommunicate ; and that if such persons continue to go to confession and to communion they are only committing an act of sacrilege, and are increasing thereby their final condemnation. An ex-Roman Catholic priest, the Rev. R. R. Suffield, now a Unitarian minister at Croydon, has contributed to this controversy an able letter, pointing out how OldandNeo-Catholicism are, practically, two different religions, and laying stress �5 on the degrading effects of the subservience now necessarily paid to an Italian Bishop. Mr. Suffield takes up the true position that orthodox Romanists are now really in the position of foreigners, as owning allegiance primarily to a foreign potentate. He suggests that the Church of England should “ perform the happy dispatch,” as the Japanese say, by setting an example of self-sacrifice, and declining, from henceforth, all State favours. But surely Mr. Suffield does not expect the Church to do this voluntarily ? Poverty has long since ceased to be reckoned among the Beatitudes. The Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered a new science. When we heard that the ecclesiastical head of the English Church had publicly stated that we were offered “ scientific proof of the truth of the Chris­ tian religion,” all free thinkers naturally pricked up their ears, and “ doubted whereunto this would grow.” But disappointment awaited the enemies of the Church. An archbishop does not use language, like common people, in the vulgar sense of the words : he speaks an archiepiscopal tongue, which is, however unin­ tentionally on his part, very misleading to the public. The archiepiscopal science is not what lav-people call science at all; all that we know as “ science” is contemptuously set aside, as “ science that deals with matterand it is some mysterious entity which deals with man,—but is not anthropology; which speaks of his life here,—but is not physiology; of his hopes hereafter, of God who made him, and his relation to his maker, but appears not to be theology, which is the science par excellence of Archbishop Tait. “ The name of science belongs as truly, or more truly, to this subject than to the subjects to which the word is now so commonly applied.” Unluckily, we are not told the name of this new science; it ought to be theology, but the Archbishop can scarcely have an­ nounced with all this flourish of trumpets, that he was going to give a “ theological proof of the truth of �6 the Christian religionbesides, theology does not include man and his life here. So we are quite in the dark as to this newly-discovered queen of sciences, to whom alone apparently the name of science ought to belong. This queer thing, however, is what affords scientific proof to Christianity. So, after all, the scientific proof is only archiepiscopal proof, with anew name. The reverend champion of the faith did, how­ ever, try to borrow a few scientific fig-leaves wherewith to make aprons for the shivering creation of his brain, but he failed in utilising them as sorrily as did poor Adam and Eve. He dressed up Butler’s argu­ ment about the living powers being independent of the bodily faculties, in nineteenth century garb, and suggested that as atoms were indestructible perhaps the immortal soul resided in the atoms. So we have “ every reason to believe, as a matter of science, that death is not the end.” Bishop Eraser lately dis­ covered in the theory of evolution a proof of the hereafter of the individual man, and now Archbishop Tait proves the immortality of the soul from the indestructibility of atoms. Truly, drowning men catch at straws. Nevertheless, it is a cheering “sign” to see the dignitaries of the Church clutching at the robe of Science to avoid being swept away. “Manhas a free will,” says his Grace, deciding off-hand a serious controversy, and, therefore, “ he must have a connection with a will something like his own above and beyond him,” Why ? Supposing that man is free—a very large supposition, but which this is not the place to contest—why does that fact imply a “ higher ” will ? Also we “ must ” come to the con­ clusion that our abstract notions of beauty and right are embodied in a being who is the “ concrete of all ” these. Again why ? Are all abstractions to be found in a concrete form somewhere ? Cruelty, wickedness, ugliness, for instance ? These unsupported “ musts ” of the Archbishop, these unproved assumptions which beg the whole question, are the “ scientific proofs ’* �7 which we were promised. “Pat not your trust in archbishops, for there is no help in them.” By twist­ ing Professor Tyndall’s words in a way which—in a layman—would be a dishonourable perversion, the Archbishop makes him say, that in his best hours he had “ forced on his mind the distinct belief that there was some mind greater than any human mind.” If the Professor said this, it must have been in some private conversation with His Grace, or else the reporters entered into a conspiracy to misrepresent Dr. Tyndall in the papers. His remark that “ atheism does not offer a satisfactory solution to the problems of the universe,” is scarcely an assertion that theism does ; and it is well known that the Professor regards the “ unknown mystery ” as at present unsolved, if not for ever insoluble, and that he therefore refuses either to assert or to deny the existence of God. The final insinuation, that Professor Tyndall rather envies Christians their “ faith,” can only be met with a smile of derision. We are cheered by being told, in con­ clusion, that Christians must write in order to oppose the spread of scepticism, and we note with satisfac­ tion that the trumpet-call is ringing through the Christian camp, to sound the alarm, and warn the soldiers of the powerful foe in their front. The Dean of Westminster has written a remarkable preface to a volume of letters and discourses by Father Hyacinthe (M. Loyson), which have been translated into English by Mme. Loyson, and are now offered to the public by Messrs. Macmillan and Co., under the title of “ Catholic Reform.” In this preface, which is, practically, rather an independent essay, Dean Stanley defends the position of Liberals within the various Christian Churches ; he maintains that men who disagree with the dominant party in any Church are morally entitled to remain within it, and “to strive, openly and honourably, to realise within it their own ideal of Christianity.” He points out how every Church has had its Nonconformists, and he �8 considers that those act wisely who do not form a new sect, but endeavour rather to widen the limits of the Church within which they find themselves. The “ English Latitudinarians,” he says, proudly adopting as an honourable title a term of popular reproach, have not thought it worth while to become a sect, but have preferred to remain within the Church. However much many of us may disagree with the views, on this head, of such men as Dean Stanley or as Dr. Colenso, Bishop of Natal, the position they take up is a very comprehensible one, and no one has a right to accuse them of bad faith because they elect to abide in the Church. Besides, such men as these do free thought a service, which no one outside the Church could render “ the causethey reach men and women whom more advanced teachers could not touch, and although they do not fight in the vanguard, they yet are brave soldiers against illiberalism and superstition, and they take their share of vituperation and persecution. Many a one of our leading thinkers owes his first awakening to the teaching of these Broad Church Christians. On the Day of Inter­ cession, November 30th, Dr. Caird, the great Scotch Presbyterian, preached in Westminster Abbey, at Dean Stanley’s invitation, taking the place occupied last year by Professor Max Muller. Some day, we may hope, Church pulpits will be readily opened to all great teachers, and the way to that desirable con­ summation will be greatly smoothed if the Church dignitaries, so far as they can do so without incurring legal penalties, will, as opportunity occurs, invite worthy laymen and ministers of other denominations to speak to their people. The intercommunication will be a mutual benefit. Bishop Colenso’s visit to England has been the signal for an exhibition of petty religious bigotry. The Bishop was visiting at Oxford, and had arranged to preach in one of the local churches ; the sermon was duly advertised, but when the report of the intended �9 profanation reached the ears of his lordship of Oxford, that prelate donned war harness, rushed forward against his brother Bishop, and forbade the clergyman of the church in question to open his pulpit to the dreaded heretic. Of course the clergyman has no option but to comply, and notice of the inhibition was conse­ quently given : the ingenious parson, however, evaded the episcopal injunction, by quietly delivering, himself, the sermon which was to have been preached by the Bishop. Meanwhile, Bishop Colenso preached in the chapel of Balliol College, while his deputy represented him at Carfax, and thus delivered two sermons instead of one. We feel grateful to the Bishop of Oxford for thus drawing public opinion to Dr. Colenso s heresy : partly because it is encouraging to see that a bishop heretical enough to be considered dangerous, yet re­ mains legally a bishop, and so helps to encourage other free-thinking ministers in their heresy in the Church of England, and partly because sensible people will feel themselves alienated from a church, whose dignitaries show so much narrow-mindedness, and so much fear of the very moderate heresy of the Bishop of Natal. The Bishop of Lincoln makes himself prominent in inhibiting the Bishop of Natal from preaching in any of the churches in his diocese, in consequence of the sentence of deposition pronounced against him by Bishop Gray, of Cape Town. As counsel for the Bishop of Natal, Mr. J. Westlake thus.warns the Bishop of Lincoln in his letter to the Editor of the Times, dated December 6th:—“Upon.this, let me suggest to the Bishop of Lincoln a view which .1 am willing to believe has not occurred to him.. It is for the purpose of legal order that he holds bis power of inhibition, and when he uses that power in support of a condemnation pronounced in flagrant and avowed defiance of law, he commits a breach of trust, and his conduct is not morally distinguishable from that of a magistrate who should abuse his powers for the pur- �10 poses of political faction. A magistrate against whom such an offence was proved would be removed from the Commission of the Peace, and when the Esta­ blishment is defended on the ground of the libertysecured to the Church by law, those who care to maintain it should inquire whether there is not some public mark of censure with which the Queen might be advised to visit open disobedience, in the exercise of legal powers, to Her Majesty’s order in Council, by which the pretended Cape Town sentence was set aside, and all authorities were required to govern themselves accordingly.” A controversy has arisen in the Western Morning News in consequence of the London correspondent of that paper having expressed a guarded approval of Euthanasia. One of those clear-sighted folk who spy heresy in everything, hotly demanded an apology to the readers of the paper, for laying before them such wicked “ atheism ”1 The correspondent makes a most clever and spirited reply to his assailant, and has, so far, all the laurels of the contest. We shall probably soon have the Bishop of Lincoln declaring that as Cremation destroys the resurrection of the body, so does Euthanasia imply the non-immortality of the soul. The Bishop of Peterborough has given us a new rule for the selection of our creed—a new criterion by which to test the value of various and conflicting opinions as they are urged upon our acceptance. This fresh light on a difficult subject may well arrest the attention alike of orthodox and unorthodox, simplifying as it does, to one narrow point, considera­ tions which have hitherto presented an aspect of bewildering complexity ; although whether the results when reached will be precisely those to which the worthy Bishop was endeavouring to lead his hearers is a matter, to say the least, of considerable doubt. Contrasting the Gospel of Christianity with what he designates “the Gospel of Science,” he earnestly recommends his listeners to reject the latter, not on �11 the grounds of its weakness or falsity, but because he affirms it not to be a Gospel of good news. Here is a change of position—a shifting of ground with a vengeance! We have been hitherto instructed to look at the truth or probability of all statements presenting themselves for our acceptance, and with the more care when weighty consequences hang on the issue ; but, according to the Bishop, we may be spared this elaborate sifting of questions, and ask ourselves, not what is proved or provable, but what is most pleasant and agreeable to our feelings—'most pro­ pitious to our wishes. Tried impartially on this ground which of these two Gospels will gain the greatest number of adhe­ rents ; in other words, which can be truly held to be “ good tidings of great joy ” for the large majority of mankind ? Not, surely, that of Christianity, which consigns to eternal punishment ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole human race, leaving a doubtful salvation to be wrought out in fear and trembling for the remaining few; not, surely, that religion which says of the way to life “ few there be that find it,” while, for the many, it points out the broad and well-trodden road to destruction. Is it not rather the Gospel of Science, which, if it speaks of no paradise of bliss for the elect, has no hell of eternal torment even for the weakest and lowest of mankind, and which, if it cannot lift the veil from the unknown future, at least lends to it no ghastly terrors engendered by folly and superstition. Dr. Magee appears to be the victim of as great a delusion about Tyndall and Science, as the member for Peterborough entertains with respect to “ Tichborne ” and the Jesuits. Italy has no enthusiast to circulate free thought publications among her people, and the cradle of liberty is very behind-hand in theological reform. ' �12 As no native-born innovator appeared, an English gentleman has been bold enough to try the experi­ ment of importing heresy. Some of Mr. Thomas Scott’s most effective publications have been selected by him, and translated into Italian; he has also translated two of Mr. Voysey’s sermons, which read very effectively in their new tongue. These tracts are published in Milan, and are widely circulated there and at Florence, the people buying them readily. We can scarcely imagine that the priests look favourably upon this new heresy, and the vigorous attack made on sacerdotalism in an original essay of Captain Dyas—the publication in question—entitled ‘ Lettere di un Libero Pensatore Inglese’ will not make that gentlemen a very welcome guest in priestly circles. It is more than pleasant to hear that so noble-spirited a work is being crowned with the success that it deserves. At a sitting of the German Parliament, on December 6th, Herr von Varnbueler stated that “ the Vatican was of opinion that, the less educated a priest, the more fitted he was for his vocation in life.” PRINTED BY C. W. BEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENBY 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 &amp; 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 Signs of the times. January 1875 Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm. Notes:From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [s.n.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1875 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT131 Subject The topic of the resource Catholic Church Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource [Unknown] Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Signs of the times. January 1875), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Catholic Church-Controversial Literature Conway Tracts https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c79ef029d4d886277e4bca1ffc3eee2f.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=vfwVBGf48S5tWrrReqtfz8kRqGoJkgefOv-PceOYtU8gwhGLNS5SdaFIpu%7EN9EbXHU151CnS9hTZN2NVJL9-wO%7E-BzfUe586dHEsRd44LWR2aLY2ePN77g-8SyIqUbsbabku0ObApMN8QWsAQb-va47I0WRwz-s%7EHSmPCysLFBhDVtO52BG2U%7EcYySx4xX%7EJJkdoxYr3KTSn3bdoeMnVdw2BHOTpVFDbGlNx-t3FVwlRfojUycxlv00gEwF5wG2L11pRqxLX%7EEU9L294z5EYlmnrXYCtmgJafwDlm0b8efnLooNZJaUAIuRNHgJA1eBB8jfSDJI6woIVYWKQNDa%7EvA__&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 &amp; 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