1
10
11
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/25694c3645abf7e827c5d02f2cc4b099.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ZAaw%7E%7Ef0cAeWub0K-jdwT5DIWzJvaoigh7HSHh--l7zd%7E4yG7bR9aEWmu9aboINULhRIGGTx4cmevHFFjth0ZjQ8TmNzkg%7EEXS5wiOM0YLLpUxnlHLZD8OR%7EcpfGMVH9pTyVYAKnEKdXoiJPwwUtq0O0V91NDb-BunnHPXvVy3EHfWNvS2VS0b3TSWUrkOJg8y1zEHAO4-Io0AuIE0k6GKIM0dOQqpbeqMoegHCPN7kj16tqUfyHmQarq6RQVuwuDYPxIjGv0Wb50X7R1mDiaoCDplYkQmaq5k0iPjmvSZxrP2YzX2MPVXG7BubUIbTPaF34axMi0eV78HXeb6JZ1w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a0f7cba0cdf5dff3905ded837bf4c02e
PDF Text
Text
�Margate.
Dear Gertrude,—
As you press me so earnestly, to tell you my thoughts
on religious and social questions, and as I think that some
of my ideas may console you in your deep, deep sorrow, and
even prove to you, perhaps, the source of returning joy and
strength, I will endeavour, as I best can, to comply with
your request. The task you have set me will be a delightful
one, I assure you, probably not only enabling me to see
more clearly what is at present but dim and shadowy, but,
perchance, opening the way to more light beyond; for the
logical expression of our ideas conducts ever to new ideas, as
the Seen is ever suggestive of the Unseen.
First among your inquiries is, what do I think of Mar
riage ? Do I believe it to be a great spiritual and eternal
reality, or merely a conventional contract, which death puts
an end to and the civil law can annul ?
t
“ Who would not see bridal rose
In the angel gardens ope ?
Who would not love deathlessly ?
Love is long,
Love is strong,
Heaven is Love’s eternity;
Love is wise,
Walks the skies,
Beautiful immortally.”
Dearest Gertrude, from my earliest girlhood I have ever
clung to the belief—wild, shadowy, and incomprehensible as
�6
it long appeared to me—that marriage is a spiritual reality,
a joy and a blessedness for ever.
But before proceeding further on this point, let me tell
you my thoughts of God, of the human soul, and of the
relationship which exists between them.
To borrow the expressions of Swedenborg, I conceive the
soul to consist of, as it were, two organs—“ the will ” and
“ the understanding ”—organs constantly in reception of
sentiments and ideas : of selfish sentiments and their corre
sponding erroneous ideas, arising upwards out of our animal
nature; and of disinterested sentiments and their corre
sponding true ideas, flowing in upon us from above, even
from the infinite love and the infinite intelligence of the
motherhood and the fatherhood of God.
God is the only being ; the soul is but a form, receptive
of divinity, and capable, through virtuous action, of rising
upwards, and ever upwards, through beatitude, towards the
eternally Unapproachable and Inexhaustible. God is the only
being. All spiritual creatures may be wise and loving, but
God alone is love and wisdom; all spiritual creatures may
be beautiful, but God alone is beauty. Oh I what is beauty?
Is it an existence or but a name ? It is the harmony of love
and wisdom. It is the marriage of God. It is the veil
before the Holy of Holies. It is the blissful medium of
Divinity for evolving love and light to angel and to man.
“ Such harmony is in immortal souls;
But whilst this muddy vesture of decay
Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it,”
I have often spoken to you, dear Gertrude, of what I con
ceived to be the triune nature of God ; but a deeper study
of the subject has illumed and rearranged my views. Let
�7
me, therefore, explain, that although I am conscious, as for
merly, of three distinct yet inseparable sentiments and ideas
—the sentiment and idea of the good, the sentiment and idea
of the beautiful, and the sentiment and idea of the true—I
now perceive the sentiment and idea of the good, and the
sentiment and idea of the true, to be sentiments and ideas of
two divine elements or first principles of the one existence—
God; while the sentiment and idea of the beautiful I
perceive to be a sentiment and idea, not of a third divine
element or first principle, but of the Divine Marriage, or
eternal inseparability of divine goodness and divine truth;
as effect to cause, as ideal to real, so is beauty to love and
wisdom, even “ the only begotten of the Father, full of grace
and truth.”
As to my ideas respecting Society—the relationship of man
to man—I find it most reasonable to believe there was but
one primal pair, as in this case the whole human race is indis
solubly linked together by the adamantine chains of consan
guinity and spiritual affinity, whose omnipotent influences
in the glorious future which, by the grace of Heaven, we
will win, will be most loyally asserted.
And as regards marriage, by which I would express the
spiritual union of one to one, and of one to one only and for
ever, conceiving it, as I do, to be a fact in God, I hold it to
be a fact also in every human soul. But, apart from argu
ments educed from the conception of marriage as a divine
feet, if God created but one man and one woman, does it not
follow indisputably that not only is one husband or wife at
a time of divine appointment, but that one husband or wife
ever is of divine appointment also ? For in case of the death
of either of our first parents, with whom could either of them
have been conjugally united, no one being in existence but
�their own children ? And, further, if God created hut one
man and one woman, does it seem at all unreasonable to
believe that for each man and each woman throughout
the world there is one divinely-ordained marriage, which true
love should seek after, and having once found should cherish
inviolate for ever ?
a No one is so accursed by fate,
No one so utterly desolate,
But some heart, though unknown,
Responds unto his own.
Responds as if, with unseen wings,
An angel touched its quivering strings;
And whispers, in its song,
‘Where hast thou stayed so long
As regards the spirituality, the divine guarantee of the
eternity of marriage, I believe woman to be the primal reci
pient of divine love, man of divine intelligence, and that the
celestial and eternal marriage which all should aspire after,
and which, when universal, will banish sorrow and suffering
from the earth for ever, consists in the ceaseless blending
and reciprocating between man and woman of these constant
inundations from on high.
I believe divine love and divine intelligence to be indis
soluble—that where one is not the other cannot be; so that
only in the degree that each woman opens her heart, or, in
other words, subdues hei’ will, to the celestial influences of
divine love, or to the holy spirit of disinterestedness, can an
irradiance of divine intelligence penetrate and illuminate the
understanding of him who is spiritually and eternally her
divinely-affianced husband, and through whose error-enfran
chised intellect is to emanate that supernal “ knowledge
�9
which is the wing on which together they shall soar
to God!”
Swayed by the scriptural assertion that “ in heaven there
is neither marriage nor giving in marriage,” there are those
who deny emphatically the sex of soul.
But imagine the recognition of two sexless souls beyond
the grave, who on this side had been man and woman. To
the soul who had been man how contemptible for past effemi
nacy must appear the soul who had been woman ; and to the
soul who had been woman how revolting for past masculinity
must appear the soul who had been man. But admit the
spirituality, and consequently the immortality, of sex, and,
lo ! where contempt would be, there is love ; where revolt,
worship!
Oh! who would relinquish for immortality the charming
contrast of sex ? Who would barter for heaven the bliss it
inspires ? Hear Milton sing a song of Eve’s in Paradise :—
‘ Sweet is the breath of Morn, her rising sweet,
With charm of earliest birds ; pleasant the sun,
When first on this delightful land he spreads
His orient beams on herb, tree, fruit, and flower
Glistening with dew; fragrant the fertile earth
After soft showers; and sweet the coming on
Of grateful evening mild; then silent night,
With this her solemn bird, and this fair moon,
And those the gems of Heaven, her starry train :
But neither breath of morn, when she ascends
With charm of earliest birds; nor rising sun
On this delightful land; nor herb, fruit, flower
Glistening with dew; nor fragrance after showers;
Nor grateful evening mild; nor silent night,
With this her solemn bird ; nor walk by moon
Or glittering starlight, without Thee, is sweet.”
�10
Oh! no; it cannot be that sex is carnal only; it is of the
soul; not only is it human, but divine. And before its spi
rituality its carnality must wane, until divine love and divine
intelligence, its eternal prototypes, in harmonic affiance
throughout the spiritualised humanity of our sphere, shall
be its only sign “ on earth, as it is in heavenor, in the
language of the poet,—
“ ’Till oft converse with heavenly habitants,
Begin to cast a beam on the outward shape,
The unpolluted temple of the mind,
And turn it by degrees to the soul’s essence,
Till all be made immortal. If this fail,
The pillared firmament is rottenness,
And earth’s base built on stubble.”
Thus, you see, my dear Gertrude, how fully I must sym
pathise with all the deep affection of your true, womanly
nature; and how unwavering must be my faith, that yom'
mourning will ultimately be turned into joy. But even whilst
sorrow weighs upon you it is not altogether uncompensated,
filling a heart so true and pure as yours, for what says one
of our favourite poets ?—
“ Would’st thou see through the riddle of being
Further than others can ?
Sorrow shall give thine eyes new lustre
To simplify the plan.
And love of God and thy kind shall aid thee
To end what it began.
To Love and Sorrow all Nature speaketh ;
If the riddle be read,
They the best can see through darkness
Each divergent thread
Of its mazy texture, and discover
Whence the ravel spread.
�11
Love and sorrow are sympathetic
With the earth and skies;
Their touch from the harp of Nature hringeth
The hidden melodies.
To them the eternal cords for ever
Vibrate in harmonies! ”
But to return to my theme.
It. is still considered anopen question,I believe,concerning
free will and necessity. Now, according to my views, as you
may have perceived, all that can be said for free will is true
as regards woman, and all that can be said for necessity is
true as regards man. So there may be more allegorical truth
than Theists have been inclined to admit in the tale about
Eve and the apple. And does it not account altogether for
the seeming injustice current in the world of allowing the
immorality of man to pass with less censure than that of
woman ?
Unless admitting the pre-eminence of woman to man in
the matter of freedom of volition, she must be acknowledged
Becidedly his inferior, for he is undoubtedly her equal in
affection, and in intellect how incomparably her superior I
To all those women who know what it is really to love
there is nothing dissonant to their nature in admitting their
inferiority to those they love ; for, spiritually, their attitude
is one of worship and total abnegation of self. But in the
light of reason God is just, and He would not have created a
being physically and mentally so helpless as is woman in the
presence of man, without having endowed her with an inward
strength, a power which, in the presence of her consort, should
be her safeguard when in the right, and which would only
abandon her to his oppression or to his righteous displeasure
when in the wrong.
�12
All this being true, as I feel so very sure it is, what a
responsibility rests upon our sex—a responsibility which is at
once our glory and our shame I
In deepest sorrow and humiliation for all the evil our
unworthiness has wrought, may we evermore ceaselessly
aspire after those celestial influences whose immaculate pre
sence within our hearts will cause the dayspring of divine
truth to arise upon our race, kindling it into angelic loveliness,
and making earth scintillate with more than Eden’s beauty,
making it resonant of more than Eden’s ecstatic joy 1
“ Order is Heaven’s first law.”
I hold the order of humanity to be dual, in correspondence
with divine love and divine wisdom, the two first principles
or elements of Deity.
I, therefore, believe our First Mother to have given birth
to two sons and two daughters, and, as the incontrovertible
fact, that, through a necessity caused by God, brother
wedded sister, in the family of our first parents, proves
beyond the shadow of a doubt, that such marriage was
the holy one, the immaculate, and the true: I further
believe the immaculate marriage relationship to have been
marked by the divinely affianced wife and husband having
been twins.
Ilad man not fallen, these divinely-ordainedi
relationships would have been enduring, each pair at
divinely-appointed seasons giving existence to two pairs, in
immaculate and symmetrical succession.
What harmonic families, communities, and nationalities
unfurling everlastingly, individually, and collectively, and
generation after generation bearing aloft the immortal
banner of the divine duality in unity—the God-given symbol ■
of the beautiful, eternally emerging from and evolving the
�13
good and the true ! But man did fall; spirituality waned ;
the fabled serpent, sensuality, gained the ascendant, and
the divine marriage was violated—its laws desecrated and
forgotten—-until eventually all trace of it was lost amid the
discord, confusion, and chaos that ensued, and which
remains, alas! until this day.
But, dear, dear Gertrude, though desecrated, violated,
and forgotten, this marriage spiritually exists ; though pro
faned, it may become reconsecrated ; though lost, it may be
found ! Priests cannot make it; the law cannot annul it;
God alone is its author, and on His eternity doth it rest.
Must not Bessie Raynor Parkes have had a deep though
transient feeling of much of this when she wrote the
following lines, in her beautiful poem of “ Gabriel ”?
aDeep within my heart it slumbers,
All my verse will ne’er reveal;
I shall never sing in numbers
Half the passion that I feel.
Hidden in far founts of being,
The keen fire which thrills me lies,
Hidden, save for thy sweet seeing,
In the calmness of my eyes.
But it flows in subtle thrilling
Through my voice, and smile, and touch,
Gives a potence to my willing—
Wilt thou not confess as much ?
Eye to eye a moment linking
Drew thy nature into mine,
Lip to lip a moment drinking
Measures of ethereal wine ;
�14
Voice with voice in untranslated
Music sweeter than a rhyme,
Heart with heart a moment mated,
Crown’d a love unborn of time.
Did I truly live, my dearest,
Ere I saw thee—truly live ?
Yes, for thou no less wert nearest;
Time to us could only give
Outer tangible revealing
Of that love whereby we are;
So strikes light, the first faint feeling
Of a long-created star,
Shining with a silent beauty
Far in its appointed spot;
Swaying by inherent duty,
Us, although we knew it not.
Lo ! thou wert in every shadow
Cast at noon upon the sea;
Each green sunlight of the meadow
Trembled from thy heart to me;
Every pain was some dim shiver
Of thy spirit caught by mine—
Thou no less the sharer, giver,
Of my love and life divine;
Double-wing’d my prayer ascended,.
Double-thoughted strove my brain,
Soul to soul for ever tended—
Tell me if this kiss be gain!
If the deep heart’s inmost passion,
Leaping from my lip to thee,
Hath no subtler sign to fashion
Each apart and silently.”
�15
To the question, “ How shall I my true-love know from
many another one?” I reply, “Seek, and ye shall find.”
“ The eye, by long poring, comes to see even in the darkest
corner.” This I hold to be absolutely certain, that every
divinely-affianced wife and husband must bo of an exactly
equal age (for how can one exist without the other ?), and that
they must bear precisely the same individual characteristics
and mould of mind. “As each note in music echoes its
diapason,” so must each wife echo her husband’s thought—
each husband echo his wife’s feeling.
If each woman is virtually heart to her husband’s cor
responding mind, each man virtually mind to his wife’s
corresponding heart, each must indissolubly inhere within
the other; the seemingly two must be really one—one being,
one individual, one indivisible and inseparable soul.
As no two particles of matter, however near their
neighbourhood, ever touch, so no two human souls, however
close their relationship, ever mingle. In the conjugal
relationship alone is spiritual contact; for it is a relationship
within the soul, whilst all others are relationships with
out it.
To the end that each man may rationally and unmistak
ably recognise his wife, each woman hei' husband, it is of
first importance that all women as well as men should be
earnest and unfettered thinkers; for if, in the case of any
particular man, his divinely-affianced wife must be she
whose thoughts always exactly echo his thoughts; and in
the case of any particular woman, her divinely-affianced
husband must be he whose thoughts always prove themselves
to be the prototypes of her thoughts; how, in cases where
a woman’s thoughts are not her own, but the blindly ac
cepted thoughts of others, by this test can she recognise her
husband, or by him be recognised ?
$
�16
The feelings, as tests of conjugal relationship, can be only
infallible guides to the perfectly unselfish; for the disin
terested will always love the disinterested; but do the
selfish affect the selfish? Do they not rather seek, for selfish
purposes, alliance with those less selfish than themselves ?
But in a divinely-affianced pair the husband must necessarily
reflect the feelings of his wife—must be selfish or unselfish in
measure and manner as she.
Therefore, not only is disinterestedness a sine qua non
of conjugal recognition through the test of the affections,
but only in the degree in which we are disinterested will
alliance with the divinely-affianced one, when attained,
become to us the heaven we dream, whether here or in
the world beyond the grave.
Thus much, at present, towards the solution of this
momentous question. But I believe all physical science
to be overflowing with counties s beautiful analogies, which
wait but the glance of mind, fresh from the baptism of a
diviner chastity, humility, and love, to become divinely
eloquent of the science of humanity, and to resolve their
hieroglyphics into moral revelations from the Most High.
And it could not, surely, be very difficult, through the
combined efforts of the historian, the antiquary, and the
man of science, to classify all mankind dually in
families, and families of families, &c., &c., according to
relative predominant developments of the good and the
true; until, at length, the divine marriage relationship
should be, in every case, incontrovertibly proved, and the
laws that should govern it ascertained, through obedience to
which—lo 1 “ the Desire of all Nations ” would be universally
born into the world; and the emancipated earth, henceforth,
for evermore, from pole to pole, should reverberate with the
�17
angelic chant, “ Glory, glory to God in the highest, and
on earth peace and good will towards men!”
It remains for Reason to verify what the Heart has felt;
for Fact to confirm on earth what Fancy has dreamed in
heaven. Therefore, in the stirring words of our favourite,
Charles Mackay, I would exclaim—
“ Men of thought, be up and stirring
Night and day!
Sow the seed—withdraw the curtain—
Clear the way!
Men of action, aid and cheer them,
As ye may!
There’s a fount about to stream,
There’s a light about to beam,
There’s a warmth about to glow,
There’s a flower about to blow,
There’s a midnight blackness changing
Into grey.
Men of thought and men of action,
Clear the way!
u Once the welcome light has broken,
Who shall say
What the unimagined glories
Of the day ?
What the evil that shall perish
In its ray ?
Aid the dawning tongue and pen;
Aid it, hopes of honest men ;
Aid it, paper; aid it, type—
Aid it, for the hour is ripe,
And our earnest must not slacken
Into play.
Men of thought and men of action,
Clear the way!
�18
.
“ Lo! a cloud’s about to vanish
From the day;
And a brazen wrong to crumble
Into clay.
Lo ! the Right’s about to conquer—
Clear the way!
With the Right shall maDy more
Enter smiling at the door ;
With the giant Wrong shall fall
Many others, great and small,
That for ages long have held us
For their prey.
Men of thought and men of action,
Clear the way! ”
<
Now, dearest Gertrude, feeling sure I must have given
you quite enough to think about for the present, let me
conclude this my first letter on the subjects you have so
urged me to write upon. If what I have said should make
you wishful for a second letter on the same subjects, you
have only to let me know; but in any case, that “the wilder
ness and the solitary place may be glad for you, and that
the desert may l’ejoice and blossom as the rose,” will be ever
the wish, the prayer, and the effort of
Yours ever affectionately,
gauffer of giongsius.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[Dear Gertrude...]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Daughter of Dionysius
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Margate
Collation: 18 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5622
Subject
The topic of the resource
Women's rights
Marriage
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 ([Dear Gertrude...]), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Marriage
Women
Women's Rights
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a5dd1ea4c480278c21257177bb292ef0.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=HgXq63WbMEMuZy50YiKPVrUEVKUUSyosFqgKwvW3v4Xy4jo3LLlKpEHHu5t1MgPuRPZmyRmCuhTlfRBi%7EcyTAjmNYRb-MnoZcYhB5ascseKYWJXvH59X8zYrRO8pzXSviVZNRSlqv5GJJuECOw62o98KmuUn6Libplshf36cZM03o3T634JG426oxcE%7EpUuKrzKAq5wsXjZLsnUDxK5%7EVPrtseyMlXLH2BKXVcaTqRZs8LnodC6XsYpwOqxmKWqanV4BQYIzeaV70UwEqf0iZv3QHbKSsdmj%7EIHWiEOPZai5iuWhL5yJ4iVQJb64I2sXQgjHXmmqhOLhqejh9r2flQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
feb2de07ea0be6b64e195b2cc4672666
PDF Text
Text
A SHORT HISTORY OF
MARRIAGE.
•* Let observation with extensive view
Survey mankind from China to Peru.”
—Dr. Johnson.
So much of the happiness and prosperity of
mankind depends upon the right relations of the
sexes, that it is desirable that all should have
a clear perception of the origin and nature of
marriage, and of the conditions which it requires.
We live in an age in which social questions are
becoming of vital importance, and of these
marriage must occupy a front place. Old pre
judices are dying out, ancient barriers are visibly
decaying, stubborn ignorance is yielding to multi
plied knowledge, floods of benevolent and
intellectual light are thrown upon every dark spot
in our social system, and, therefore, it is not
possible that the unjust and one-sided views of
sex-unions still prevailing, can for long remain
unchanged.
Bishop Taylor said: “ The first blessing God
gave to man was society, and that society was a
marriage, and that marriage was confederate by
God Himself, and hallowed by a blessing.” But
McLellan says : “Marriage laws, agnatic relation
ship, and kingly government, belong, in the order
of development, to recent times.”
All divines agree with Taylor, all men of
science with McLellan.
Unfortunately, our
present marriage laws were instituted by the
divines. It remains for us to bring them into
harmony with the scientific. For all these human
laws, which the theologians audaciously call
sacred because of their ecclesiastical origin, were,
from their suppostitious character, intended to
become stationary; whereas, marriage is by its
very nature progressive. It advances as minds
�4
Lady Cook’s Essays.
advance, and the ideals of the past can never
be satisfactory nor suitable in the wiser future.
Thus every endeavour to hinder its development
is a crime against humanity.
In our brief remarks upon the subject we shall
mainly rely for our facts upon those agreements
exhibited by a number of original and independent
investigators of unquestioned abilities and veracity.
Nor shall we forget that “ the concealment of
truth is the only indecorum known to science, and
that, to keep anything secret within its cold and
passionless expanses, would be the same as to
throw a cloth round a naked statue.”
There can be little doubt that the earliest
connections between our sexes were periodical,
as in the case of other Mammals, and were
equally as fugitive as theirs. Traces of periodicity
still exist in civilized races. Among the semi
civilized they are more pronounced ; while, with a
few savage tribes, the original habit remains in
great force.
The wild Indians of California
belong to the lowest of the human family, and
Johnston says : “They have their rutting seasons
as regularly as have the deer, the elk, the antelope,
or any other animals.” Powers also says, that
spring “is a literal St. Valentine’s Day with them,
as with the natural beasts and birds of the forest.”
The Watch-an-dies of West Australia resemble
them.
Mr. Oldfield,Jin his “Aborigines of Australia,”
tells us: “ Like the beast of the field, the savage
has but one time for copulation in the year.
About the middle of spring, when yams are in
perfection, when the young of all animals are
abundant, and when eggs and other nutritious
food are to be had, the Watch-an-dies begin to
think of holding th'eir grand semi-religious festival
of^Caa-ro, preparatory to the performance of the
important duty of procreation.” The Tasmanians
had a similar feast. Annual Saturnalia of a quasi
religious character have existed in every part of
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
5
the world, and still obtain in many districts of
Asia, Africa, and America, when all indulge in
unbridled licentiousness. At Rome the festival
of Venus occurred in April. It appears that the
season of periodicity of the sexual passion is
largely determined by the season for the food
on which the species lives. If we turn to the
Anthropoid Apes, Winwood Reade informs us
that the male gorillas fight for the females at
the rutting season, and others say the same of
the Orang-utan. There can be little doubt that
our extremely savage ancestors did this also, and
that those with the strongest canines and greatest
muscular development, obtained .the choicest
females and the largest number.
The next stage towards marriage was the com
paratively peaceable and promiscuous intercourse
between those of the same family, or group of
families.j Even in each tribe every woman was
common, and none knew the father of her' own
child. Thus the children were the property of the
tribe, and not of the parents, and for ages derived
their descent from their mothers. Display, in the
forms of ornamental dress, dancing, and boating,
began to take the place of prowess. Thus vanity
had its rise in the male breast before it was com
municated by heredity to the female. Sir John
Lubbock dignifies this promiscuous breeding by
the name of Communal. Marriage, but with alii
deference to so high an authority, we consider that:
it was not until extra-tribal women were captured:
that marriage had a beginning. For these became:
the peculiar property-of their captors, and gave:
rise to both monogamy and polygamy, as a mam
might have as many as he could capture and keep..
Without defining at present our idea of what true;
marriage is, or should be, we cannot concede that
any vagrant amour deserves the name, even though,
it be a tribal one.
The union must at least have some degree of
permanence. In a general way, however we
*
�6
Lady Coex’s Essays.
agree with the mediaeval proverb : “ Boire manger,
coucher ensemble est mariage, ce me semble.”
It should be clearly understood at the outset
that love, as we understand it in its highest sense,
is altogether the product of modern times. It had
its inception in the age of chivalry. Sacred and
profane poets sang of love, but it was a sensual
passion only that inspired their song. No Greek
or Roman could so much as have imagined the
feeling which a high-minded and cultured European
entertains for the maiden whom he woos and
weds. Their love was coarse, voluptuous, las
civious, and when most relined, as in Plato’s
“ Banquet,” was infinitely beneath the spiritualized
sensuousness which we are here and there able to
acquire.
The so-called communal marriage was attended
by curious circumstances. One was that when
men were allowed to select women for wives from
their own tribe, the others had still their common
rights in her. When this was abandoned, “ a
temporary recognition of the pre-existing com
munal rights ” had to be made; or, as in much
later times, every woman was obliged, once in her
life, to submit herself indiscriminately to the
worshippers of some Phallic divinity, or to strangers
at a great periodic festival, as in the primaeval
custom. It may be, too, that the jus primes noctis,
claimed sometimes by the chief or noble, and at
others by the priest, was a survival of communal
right, these officers representing the community.
With numerous tribes unmarried girls were free to
practise promiscuity, when married women were
jealously guarded, and a man often disdained to
marry a woman unless she had previously had
many lovers. Thus, too, when civilization appeared,
the “ social evil ” was regarded with a tolerance
amounting to approbation. The Hetairse of Greece
were long held in much esteem, and were publicly
known by their coloured or flowered garments.
The women of the fornices at Rome used to stand
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
7
openly at the doors of their cells in loose and light
attire, with their bosoms exposed and the nipples
gilt. And thus, too, did Messalina, the infamous
wife of Claudius Caesar, dare to offer herself at the
doors of the lupinaria, with her breast coloured in
the same curious manner. Torsions of ancient
human thought and taste caused many other
singular customs.
All male savages are much given to jealousy of
their property.
Daughters were their father’s
slaves, and they and their mothers—also slaves—
did all the hard work required for the family. Thus
difficulties in obtaining wives by tribal or inter
tribal arrangement, coupled with female infanticide
or the love of war, partly led to the practice of
capture. This custom prevailed in various parts
of the world, and has now almost perished, but the
form has survived as a mere ceremony. Even
with us the bridegroom’s best man represents the
faithful friend who formerly helped to steal a wife,
and whose reward afterwards was the jus primes,
noctis. In the beginning of the present century
capture de facto was in full force among the South
Slavonians. One of the .eight legal forms of the
marriage ceremony in the “ Laws of Manu ” was
the Rakshasa rite: “the forcible abduction of a
maiden from her home, while she cries out and
weeps, after her kinsmen have been slain or
wounded and their houses broken open.” The
use of the symbol has been found among all except
the Chinese and a few others, and perhaps these
formed no real exception. The most brutal form
of capture was that of the Australians. A man
stalked a woman as he would a kangaroo, stole
behind her and with his nulla-nulla, a heavy club,
struck her senseless. In this state he carried her
off, and, when revived, her marriage was at once
consummated.
*
j Capture, however, gave way to purchase. Bar
tering women between two tribes was a favourite
method at first. A man gave a daughter or some
�8
Lady Cook’s Essays.
other female relative for a wife. The bought wife
was his absolute property and slave, over whom he
had the power of life and death, but in process of
time more merciful ideas modified her condition.
The system of purchase did much to abolish the
horrible practice of female infanticide.
It is
thought that as sons strengthened the fighting
power of a tribe, and daughters weakened it,
exogamous peoples destroyed their female infants
except the first-born, preserved for menial pur
poses, and thus capture and infanticide were
almost universally established, and regarded as
social duties. Marriage was prohibited between
members of the same tribe so long as the tribes
were undivided, but when clans were formed mem
bers of the same clan were prohibited, although
persons of one clan might marry with those of
others.
Next, members of the same stock or
family name might not intermarry, then divisions
of the same tribe might marry with some and not
with others, until finally caste was developed. On
the contrary, with endogamous tribes marriage
outside the tribe, was forbidden and punished.
When by fusion of primitive groups the tribal
system was less distinct, marriage was forbidden
except between persons of the same family or
stock name. Next it was restricted to members
of particular families; and, lastly, old tribal divi
sions were disregarded or forgotten, and those
having by custom the right of connubium, became
a caste. And thus, by two opposite processes,
caste came about. It is not, of course, to be
supposed that those methods were invariably
followed with mathematical precision. They were
frequently modified, just as promiscuity was
modified by polyandry, in which one woman had
several husbands who were sometimes brothers
and at others not. Polyandry still exists over large
areas in the East, and was formerly practised in
Germany and in this country. Sometimes it arises
from a desire to prevent undue increase of family ;
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
9
at others from sheer poverty. A few club together
and obtain a wife between them. As soon as pur
chase became the fashion, daughters were valuable
property to their fathers and female infanticide
ceased. The price depends, as it has always done,
upon the rank, condition, and accomplishments of
the bride, and the extent of the demand.
Virgins generally fetch more than others, and
many strange customs have been adopted to pre
serve their purity, especially in those cases where
a general warranty is understood, and a fraudulent
sale would entitle the husband to return the lady
and claim back the price paid/or her. . With.some
a platform is built by her parents’ hut immediately
after an early betrothal, and there she is fed and
kept high up out of harm’s way without once leav
ing it until delivered to her husband. In parts of
Africa she is shut up at six or seven years of age
in a bamboo cage, and constantly watched and
attended to by old women, who fatten her for the
Mohammedan mart. But a more general and a
surer method is infibulation. Many other plans
are adopted to the same purpose, and when mar
ried her virginity was sometimes proved coram
*
populo or the evidences were preserved by her
parents—as among the Jews—in case of repudia
tion by the husband. The first form of inheritance
was through the female line. This originated from
the uncertainty of male parentage. Polyandry was
a fertile cause of both methods. A Nair woman,
under some restrictions as to rank and caste, might
have twelve husbands. In Ceylon, when a woman
lives in a house and village, of her husband’s, the
marriage is Deega, but when the husband or hus
bands go to live with her, it is Beena ; “and among
the Kandyans the rights of inheritance of the
woman and her children depend upon whether she
is a beena or a deega wife.”
Chief Justice
Starke, of Ceylon, said that “ sometimes a deega
married girl returned to her parents’ house and
was there provided with a beena husband.” Deega
�IO
Lady Cook’s Essays.
marriages, where the husbands were brothers, pro
moted male kinship; beena marriages, female
inheritance and kinship, to the exclusion of the
males. In the first, the eldest brother was the
head of the house and the father of the family, to
whom the others succeeded in turn on his decease,
and continued to “ raise up seed to their brother.”
Where exogamy was the rule, the mothers were
necessarily foreigners, and, by the system of kin
ship, their children were foreigners also. McLellan
shows that thus, “ so far as the system of infanti
cide allowed, their young men and women
accounted of different stocks might intermarry
consistently with exogamy.
Hence grew up a
system of "betrothals, and of marriage by sale and
purchase.” But when civilization advanced, and
paternity became recognized, and conjugal fidelity
and family property commenced, kinship through
the males superseded that through the females.
The whole subject is a very large and complex
one—far too large for a short article. It can
easily be proved, however, that all the social and
moral virtues have arisen from the circumstances
attending the right of family and individual pro
perty.
Honour,
chastity, modesty, fidelity,
in their first feeble birth, date from the time
when the right to individual property made its
appearance, and when this occurred “ barbarism
was already far in the rear.” Before this every
thing was common, and enjoyed promiscuously.
Now men begin to feel the delights of family and
home. Every personal acquisition was thereby
invested with a new charm. And the love of one’s
own developed into the larger love of one’s country,
and at length into sympathy for the whole human
family. And, probably, the germ of all these
elevating sentiments was t'he humble right of abso
lute ownership to a wife by capture. If this be so,
then marriage was the foundation of all civil rights
and moral virtues.
We owe to the Jews that‘theory of a primitive
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
xi
state which has been the cause of so many errors
and failures during the last eighteen centuries.
.Human history opens with Eden, a perfect mar
riage and a happy family. But it was not in this
way that man commenced his career. Whatever
is good in him had to be groped for, fought for
with blood and tears, and held through infinite
and severe struggles. Many races perished, and
those that survived had, and have, to work out
their own salvation. Neither can any tribe or
nation trace its descent to an individual. Many
peoples have professed to do so, but in all cases
their genealogies are spurious and their common
ancestor fictitious. Besides, it can be demonstra
ted that the family appeared last in the order of
social development. Indeed this has now almost
become an ethnographical axiom, and the law of
progression, as against the debasing theory of
retrogression, has been amply vindicated.
In the earliest times of purchase, a woman was
bartered for useful goods or for services rendered
to her father. In this latter way, Jacob purchased
Rachel and her sister Leah. This was a Beenah
marriage where a man, as in Genesis, leaves his
father and his mother, and cleaves unto his wife,
and they become one flesh or kin—the woman’s.
The price for a bride in British Columbia and
Vancouver Island, varies from ^20 to £40 worth of
articles.
In Oregon, an Indian gives for her,
horses, blankets, or buffalo robes ; in California,
shell-money or horses ; in Africa, cattle. A poor
Damara will sell a daughter for a cow; a richer
Kafir expects from three to thirty. With the
Banyai, if nothing be given her family claim her
,
*
children. In Uganda, where no marriage recently
existed, she may be obtained for half-a-dozen
needles, or a coat, or a pair of shoes. An ordi
nary price is a box of percussion caps. In other
parts, a goat or a couple of buckskins will buy a
girl. Passing to Asia, we find her price is some
times five to fifty roubles, or at others, a cartload
�12
Lady Cook’s Essays.
of wood or hay. A princess may be purchased
for three thousand roubles. In Tartary, a woman
can be obtained for a few pounds of butter, or
where a rich man gives twenty small oxen, a poor
man may succeed with a pig. In Fiji, her equiva
lent is a whale’s tooth or a musket. These, and
similar prices elsewhere, are eloquent testimony to
the little value a savage sets on his wife. Her
charms vanish with her girlhood. She is usually
married while a child, and through her cruel
slavery and bitter life, she often becomes old and
repulsive at twenty-five.
When Augustine converted the Anglo-Saxons
to Christianity, marriage by capture was dying out
with them, and purchase had become general.
Nevertheless, capture was not extinguished in
England until centuries later, for Ethelbert, while
enforcing the new law, also ratified the old one, so
that they ran concurrently. He recognized the
right of ? raptor to carry off a woman by force on
his afterwards paying fifty shillings to her owner as
a fine, and then buying her from him at a reasonable
price. If she were a maid, the fine went to her
father; if a wife, then to the husband; but the
raptor had to buy the defrauded husband another
wife, and, in each case, he retained by law the
woman whom he had stolen. It will be seen that
the transition from capture to purchase in this
country was very gradual, and that both methods
existed, for a time, together. Even our princesses
were bought by kings with cattle and costly articles,
just as the poor creatures we have noticed were
obtained by humbler purchase. We learn that the
covetous Anglo-Saxon fathers drove extortionate
bargains, and cheated simple buyers like modern
horse-dealers at a fair. Ethelbert provided against
this by enacting: “ If there be any deceit, let him
bring her home again, and let the man give him
back his money.” This privilege, in its turn,
became obsolete when “morning gifts” were
general. These were presents, made to the bride
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
13
by her husband on the morning after the marriage
night, to show his satisfaction with his bargain, and
she who received a morning gift could not be
afterwards returned. In process of time, when the
brutality of selling one’s own offspring dawned
upon the coarse minds of our ancestors, a
euphemism was invented to conceal its baseness
and satisfy public conscience. Contracts for future
marriages had been called 11 espousals.”
The
bride-price was paid at the time of espousal, and
was now called “ foster lean,” or a supposed repay
ment to the parent of the daughter’s cost for
nurture and training. Greedy fathers made a trade
of this by accepting “foster lean” from many
suitors, and cheating all but one; but at length
this fraudulent practice was checked by the public
sentiment demanding that foster lean should be
paid on the mariage day instead of the day of es
pousal. In those times the wedding day was only
the day of betrothal, when the suitor gave a
“wed,” or pledge for the due performance of his
contract. Our present law of damage for seduc
tion originated in the law of Ethelbert, and was
strengthened by Alfred, who enacted that the be
trayer of an unbetrothed woman should pay her
father for the damage done to her. “ Breach of
promise ” by the maiden incurred the forfeiture of
presents and the foster lean, and another third of
the latter by way of penalty. The man who re
fused to marry his spouse, or delayed more than
two years when she was of marriageable age, for
feited all further right to her and to the foster lean
which he had paid.
Subsequently, when the
Church controlled marriage, she dealt more se
verely with flirts and dishonest fathers, and com
pelled the latter, in the event of breach on the
woman’s part, to pay back four times the amount
of the foster lean. Later it was reduced to twice
the sum.
Among civilizations far older than ours the
system of purchase had ceased before we were a
�14
Lady Cook’s Essays.
people. * he Indian lawgiver, Manu, strictly forT
, bade it, and said: “A man who through avarice
takes a gratuity is a seller of his offspring.” In
the historical times of the Greeks they no longer
bought wives.
In Rome coemptio was only a
symbol of the ancient custom. In the Jewish
Talmud the purchase is also symbolic, as is fre
quently the Mohammedan “ mahr.” With all, the
bride-price, foster-leans, and marriage gifts, when
returned, were converted into dowry, and became
at first the bride’s property. Thus marriage por
tions chiefly derived their origin from the habit of
purchase, and dowry often became, as with the
Hebrews, a religious duty. Not less than the tenth
of a father’s property was considered a just dower.
In Aristotle’s time nearly two-fifths of all Sparta
belonged from this cause to the women. Sir Henry
Maine considers that the amazing thrift of the
French is also owing to this custom, which pro
bably descended to them from the marriage law of
Augustus Caesar. It was only by an anachronism
that Euripides made Medea lament that women
were obliged lo purchase husbands at a great price.
And it is often as true to-day as when the Latin
poet sang:
“ Pars minima est ipsa puella sui.”
As we have seen, there were at first no marriage
ceremonies, and this is the mode still with many
uncivilized tribes. When they did arise it was by
degrees and in many ways; and in all, customs
such as capture, when superseded, became by
symbolism a part of the succeeding legal form of
contract. Sometimes the ceremony symbolizes
sexual intercourse, but more frequently companion
ship or the wife’s subjection. To eat maize pudding
from the same plate, or to eat in any way together,
is a idely
w
*
distributed marriage ceremony. In
Brazil a couple may be married by drinking brandy
together; in Japan, by as many cups of wine; in
Russia and Scandinavia it used to be one cup for
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
i5
both. The joining of hands among the Romans
and Hindoos is common to many parts of the
world. In Scotland it is called “ hand-fasting,”
and couples live together after. To sit together
on a seat while receiving friends, or to have the
hands of each tied together with grass, or to smear
with each other’s blood, or for the woman to tie a
cord of her own twisting around the naked waist of
the man, constitutes marriage in one part or
another. In Australia a woman carries fire to her
lover’s hut, and makes a fire for him. In America
she lays a bundle of rods at the door of his tent.
A Loango negress cooks two dishes for him in his
own hut. In Croatia the bridegroom boxes the
bride’s ears, and in Russia the father formerly
struck his daughter gently with a new whip—for
the last time—and then gave the weapon to her
husband. Down to the present, it is a custom in
Hungary for the groom to give the bride a kick
after the marriage ceremony, to make her feel her
subjection. Even with all civilized peoples the
servitude of the bride is clearly indicated.
The religious ceremonies, where they exist, are
as numerous and various as human whims and ca
prices can make them. Rossbach says that the
farther we go back the stricter they become. But
as Paganism perished in Europe, marriage was
deprived of religious rites, and became a purely
civil institution. Christianity restored its religious
. character, and by a much too free translation from
the Greek to the Latin Vulgate of the word
“ mysterion,” used by St. Paul, the dogma of sa, cramental marriage had its rise.
By the 12th
century it was gradually developed, and in 1563
the Council of Trent made the religious ceremony
the essential part of marriage, without which it
was rendered invalid. In this way a dangerous
blow was struck at social and civil liberty, and
Christendom still suffers from its pernicious effects.
From that day concubinage, illegitimacy, and
prostitution flourished. These were greatly accen
*
�16
Lady Cook’s Essays.
tuated by another evil law of the Church—the
celibacy of the priests and the “ religious.”
Asceticism is a very ancient Pagan custom, and
has found followers in all civilized times and coun
tries. Even savages often expected celibacy, but
not chastity, from their medicine men and priests.
With some of the cultured it has been assumed
from misanthropy, or as a protest against profli
gacy; with others, from a hollow assumption of
superior virtue.
It never occurs under natural
conditions. Neither animals nor savages are ever
celibates from choice unless infirm or diseased.
The Jewish proverb “ He who has no wife is no
man,” was a universal sentiment, and always put
into practice. With uncivilized men, if one re
mained single he was thoroughly despised as un
natural, and classed with thieves and^witches.
Neither did he rank as a man in his tribe. Among the
savage and partially civilized, celibacy is unknown
among women, and the enforced celibacy of a few
men is owing to a scarcity caused by polygamy or
to extreme poverty.
In Sparta celibates were
criminally prosecuted; [at Rome, bachelors were
taxed. Exception to marriage was only made
in the case of a few priestesses devoted to
special work, as in Peru, Persia, Rome, Greece,
and Gaul. Religious asceticism, however, comes
from the East. Buddhism is its centre. Buddh
was the only son of ‘his mother, the best and
purest of women, whose conception was super
natural, so that she still remained a virgin.
Christianity reproduced this original idea.
In
India, where polygamy is the rule, celibacy is
permitted only to men, who must devote their
lives to contemplation; but in Tibet, where poly
andry is the rule, women are encouraged to
become nuns.
Both monks and nuns are as
unchaste as were those of Europe before the
Reformation. “ Lust and ignorance,” it is said,
« are the chief causes of misery; we should, there
fore, suppress lust and remove ignorance.” The
�Lady Book’s Essays.
17
Dhammika-Sutta tells the faithful, “ A wise man
should avoid marriage as if it were a burning pit
of live coals.” Sexual intercourse was sinful in
itself, and the first indulgence by a monk entailed
expulsion from the fraternity, and he was no
longer a monk.
These Eastern ideas probably spread to Syria,
and made a few converts there, known as Essenes.
Josephus, who was born at Jerusalem three years
after the Crucifixion, knew them well. They
rejected pleasures, and, from their esteem of
continence, neglected wedlock. It is not quite
certain whether Christ Himself favoured their
views to any degree, for although He put religious
duty first, He did not reprobate marriage, but He
commanded desertion of wife and family for the
kingdom of Heaven’s sake. St. Paul, however,
held celibacy to be preferable, although he admitted
“ it was better to marry than to burn.” * Marriage
was for the incontinent, as the lesser of two evils.
It does not seem that Christianity at first forbade
polygamy, for Paul held that a bishop (or pastor)
should be satisfied with one wife, and many
learned theologians held polygamy lawful to a
Christian. St. John saw the celestial band of a
hundred and forty-four thousand around the
throne of God, all virgins who had never known
man.
The Fathers soon strengthened these
notions. Tertullian, who died in 216, held that
celibacy ought to be chosen though mankind
should perish. Origen, born in 185, taught that
marriage was profane and impure. Taking Christ’s
words literally, he emasculated himself. Yet he
lived to a.d. 254. St. Jerome, born 88 years
after, tolerated marriage only for the sake of
producing monks and nuns. He said that, though
marriage fills the earth, virginity peoples heaven,
and twenty years before he died, a Roman-Synod
insisted on the celibacy of the superior clergy. In
fact, all the Fathers agreed with those named,
but human nature was too strong for the general
�IS
Lady Cook’s Essays.
acceptance of their views. Chastity, however,
became, in theory, the cardinal virtue of the
Church, whatever it may have been in practice,
and divorces were freely granted sine causa sontica,
and from no other reason than to promote celi
bacy. When the Church sanctified marriages, she
desired that they might be as platonic as possible.
Thus the Emperor Henry II.; Edward the Con
fessor, and Alphonso II. of Spain, were husbands
only in name. All human beings produced through
sexual union were “ born in sin and conceived in
iniquity.” “To have children under any circum
stances was a sin,” but to have them without the
sanction and blessing of the Church, was a deadly
sin. “ Woman was an instrument of Satan,” and
a Gallican Bishop declared that she was not
human. At the Council of Macon the Bishops
debated whether she had a soul. The fanatics
who taught these unnatural and abominable
doctrines, forgot that marriage was the oldest
human institution, and therefore immeasurably
older than the Church; that, by their own
Bible, the first law given to man by his Maker,
unqualified by any restriction, was to “increase
and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.”
Thus the immortality of the race depended
upon its power of reproduction, and the first
duty of man was to ensure the continuance
of his species. Procreation was the sovereign
law of being. Yet, as Huth says, “there is no
doubt that if the clergy had had their own way,
they would have forbidden all mankind, as they
forbade themselves, ever to enter the bonds of
matrimony.”
In the Council of Rome, 1074, all ministers
already married, were ordered to divorce their
wives. In England, however, this could not be
enforced, and at the Council of Winchester, held
two years after, the secular clergy were permitted
to retain their wives. The edict of Gregory the
Great produced terrible results, so that laws were
�lady
ig
Cooks Essays
repeatedly made forbidding priests to have their
sisters or even their mothers as their house
keepers. Formerly they had been permitted to
keep concubines, and were generally taxed for this
license. Early in the fifth century the Council of
Toledo legalized these unions, but Henry III. of
Castile ordered the concubines of priests to wear
a piece of scarlet cloth in their head-dress. The
Puritans of New England compelled the unwedded
mother to wear a scarlet A on her breast, and this
custom gave rise to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s
beautiful story, “ The Scarlet Letter.” In France
the priests often, practised polygamy. Everywhere,
bigamy was especially common.
Their com
pulsory celibacy, therefore, led to every possible
immorality and to the most infamous crimes, until
at length the Papal throne itself became polluted.
Speaking of Pope John XXIII., Gibbon says,
“ The most scandalous charges were suppressed ;
the Vicar of Christ was only accused of piracy,
murder, rape, sodomy, and incest.” D’Israeli, in
his “ Curiosities of Literature,” quotes the lines
written on a lady’s tomb by way of a pasquinade
on Pope Alexander VI., to whom she had been
too well known
“ Hoc tumulo dormit Lucretia nomine, sed re
Thais : Alexandri Alia, sponsa, nurus.”
The hostility of the Church to sexual union
even in the form of marriage, caused her to devise
innumerable inpediments. Married women were
forbidden to approach the altar or to touch the
Eucharist, and were commended for refusing the
embraces of their husbands. If a woman wished
to become a nun, she could leave her husband
without hi-s consent, nor could he take a wife in
her stead. The Rev. S. Baring-Gould in his
u Lives of the Saints,” tells the following anecdote
of St. Dominic, which at once illustrates the
childish superstition of devotees and the argu
ments ; for encouraging celibacy: “A- lady of
C 2
�20
Lady Cook’s Essays
extreme beauty wished to leave her monastery,
and resisted all the preacher’s arguments. She
blew her nose, and it came off in her handker
chief. Horror-stricken, she implored the prayers of
Dominic. He put her nose on again ; and the
lady consented to remain in the convent.”
Widows promising to remain single were excom
municated on marrying again, which was then
called bigamy. Abstention was demanded of
married people for three days before communion
and forty days after Easter; next, it became as
great a sin for them to cohabit during Lent as it
was to eat flesh; then, marriage was prohibited
during Lent and at no other specified seasons, so
that, as an old writer said, “ there were but few
weeks or days in the year in which people could
get married at all.” And in the Confessional even
the youngest and fairest wives were compelled to
lay bare the most secret acts of their wedded
lives. Marriage was forbidden within the seventh
canonical degree (or to sixth cousins), equal to
the fourteenth civil degree of blood relationship,
and spiritual affinity had been invented, and made
equal to that of blood, to increase the prohibitions.
Thus godfathers and godmothers were held as
related to the child and its relations and to each
other.
Bridesmaids, groomsmen, bride, bride
groom, and officiating priest were similarly related
to each other and to all the relations of all. No
one, therefore, could tell to whom he was not
related. Repudiation after marriage, fraud and
trickery, were made easy for the unprincipled, and
the authority of the Church was appealed to from
a thousand directions. Pope Zachary had said
that marriage must be denied when any relation
ship could be traced, and this was confirmed by
two Councils. But by Luther’s time the pro
hibition extended only as far as to third cousins.
Hallam points out that these “affinities” rendered
it necessary for the Royal houses of Europe to
keep on good terms with the Court of Rome,
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
•
h
because it was scarcely possible for them to
intermarry without transgressing the Canonical
limits. Hence arose constant requests for Papal
dispensations. “ History/ he says, “ is full of
dissolutions of marriage, obtained by fickle passion
or cold-hearted ambition, to which the Church did
not scruple to pander on some suggestion of
relationship.” Nor is this to be wondered at,
seeing the Council of Trent, held in 1545, re
affirmed the spiritual affinities declared by the
Nicene Council in 325.
All this systematic opposition reduced mar
riage, but did not prevent indulgence. We have
already noticed two out of the many Popes
who led scandalous lives. The irregularities of
the ecclesiastics would be almost too astounding
for belief were it not that the authorities are un
questionable. One Abbot, for instance, had
seventy concubines, and a Bishop was deposed for
having sixty-five illegitimate children. Many a
congregation having an unmarried priest stipulated,
for the protection of their wives and daughters,
that he should keep a concubine. For it was not
until Peter the Lombard had discovered the seven
fold operation of the Spirit of God in the seven
sacraments that the Church in the 12th century
included marriage a,s one, and by the middle of
the 13th every wife of a priest had been driven
from her home. Since the 16th century the
Roman canons have remained unchanged.
We have the authority of the pious and learned
Bellarmine, a Roman Catholic, that “ For some
years before the Lutheran and Calvinist heresies
broke forth, there was no justice in ecclesiastical
courts, no discipline in morals, no knowledge of
sacred literature, no reverence for sacred things :
there was almost no religion remaining.” The
Roman Curia published a book containing a tariff
of fees for pardons. A deacon could commit a
murder for twenty crowns ; a bishop or abbot, for
three hundred livres ; and any ecclesiastic might
�22
Lady Cook’s Essays.
violate his vows of chastity with the most aggravat
ing circumstances for one hundred livres, or
eight pounds of our money. The l®athsome
condition of the Church caused two of her most
earnest monks to become distinguished reformers.
St. Cajetan and Luther were born within three
years of each other. The one effected a schism
which we call the Reformation. The other gave
his life and genius for her internal purification.
Cajetan remained a rabid celibate. The monk
Luther married a nun. But the early Protestants
—so strong is custom—looked with a timid eye on
the marriage of their priests. Queen Elizabeth,
when leaving the episcopal palace, insulted Arch
bishop Parker’s wife, by saying that she did not
know how to address her, implying that Mrs.
Parker was only a concubine. And even to-day,
from some cause or other, an unmarried clergyman
caeteris paribus, finds more favour with his con
gregation than a married one.
Monogamy was instituted long before Chris
tianity—long before even the Mosaic law. It was
established in Egypt, for instance, ages prior to
Joseph’s captivity. Potiphar’s amorous wife was
evidently his only one. We know that in Egypt
polygamy was legal, and yet monogamy was the
*
more general practice.
It has been the same
in other countries; and owing to the numerical
equality of the sexes, where men can afford to
marry, monogamy is a natural necessity. We
may take it, therefore, that with or without a Divine
revelation, monogamy would become the final and
most perfect form of marriage.
The “ communal marriage” was the gratifica
tion of a periodical sexual passion—a mere brutal
instinct. The marriage by capture secured a like
purpose, with the addition of personal possession
and the services of a household slave. Marriage
by purchase procured the same advantages with
out the danger of retaliation from injured relatives.
Women now were a sort of cattle, bought and
�i
Lady Cook’s Essays.
23
sold, exchanged and lent, just like any other chat
tels. Excessive lust was indulged in by child
marriages and polygamy.
A woman was worn as
one wears a glove, and then cast aside. Next
dower supplanted purchase, and she began to pos
sess legal rights, sometimes to obtain the mastery
over the husband. Her jubilant freedom made
her audacious. Her superior subtlety gave her
the pre-eminence in the home. When her social
and legal equality were well nigh assured, the emis
saries of Christianity brought a message from God
and imposed it on the people, whereby her
humanity was questioned, her possession of a soul
doubted, her inferiority divinely affirmed, her
perpetual guardianship legalized, her civil rights
merged in her husband, and her subordination to
him laid down by ecclesiastical laws. In childhood
she was denied her share of mental education; in
womanhood her civil and political rights. If, in
exceptional instances, she led armies or ruled
states, or legislated, or otherwise distinguished
herself, these were regarded as exceptions to a
general rule, and her inferiority to man was still
determined. And now, when women in large
numbers have shown their capacity in every
permitted profession and occupation, when every
office that has been opened to them has been
worthily filled, there are still heads and hearts so
obtuse that old conditions are re-asserted, old
prejudices revived, old customs invoked by all the
aids of ridicule and religion.
An ignorant and
corrupt Church enslaved her body and starved her
mind, defiled her morals, and denied her even the
right to read the Scriptures. We are not ignorant
of the history of that .corporation. We know by
what sinister and unholy methods it attained its
power. And relying on the ultimate triumph of
truth and justice, we offer it and all other enemies
of our sex open and honourable opposition. We
invite discussion, but refuse suppression of facts,
and our opponents must either treat or fight.
�24
Lady Cook’s Essays.
In England this battle for the equal privileges
of women commenced more than 150 years ago,
when, in 1739, “ Sophia, a woman of quality,”
wrote an able work entitled “ Woman not Inferior
to Man.” She said “ There is no science or public
office in a State which Jwomen are not as much
qualified for by nature aS the ablest of men.” In
1792, Mary Wolstonecraft, in her “ Vindication of
the Rights of Women,” demanded that the medical
profession, which had been wrested from women,
should be thrown open to them again, and that
they should be allowed to vote for Members of
Parliament. She pointed out that “ meek wives
are in general foolish mothers,” and that business
and professional education of various kinds for
women “ might save many from common and legal
prostitution.” And for this she was denounced
“ as an infidel and monster of immorality.” But
now in all countries, the flower of our sex for
purity and intelligence are beginning to spread
the same wholesome teachings throughout the
world.
Marriage is usually either misunderstood or the
ideal is set too low. People marry from a variety
of reasons: for a living, for convenience, from
vanity or lust, or for companionship or a family.
With Mary Wolstonecraft, we denounce the first
four as “legal prostitution,” and assert that nothing
but true companionship and desire for children can
ever justify marriage.
We doubt whether the
mere desire of a family could alone justify it
unaccompanied by mutual love. But we regard
love as all-sufficient in itself, and the true touch
stone by which marriage may be proved. And by
love wre mean that intelligent and mutual, respect
and sympathy, that unity of thought and aim, that
blending of two in one, which makes each ready for
any sacrifice, or even to die for the other,—a union
which neither time nor accident can destroy. This
alone is marriage, and is able to transform the
peasant’s cot and patch into a veritable Paradise,
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
2§
while without it a palace may be hell. _We have
heard of men, rough, commonplace beings, who
could brave Arctic or torrid wastes in severest cold
or heat, in hunger and thirst, so long as they were
cheered by the companionship of their fellows.
Our first real hunger is heart hunger. Prisoners
denied human companionship have sought comfort
in the affection of a bird, a mouse, or even a
spider. All true natures must have some one or
something to love.
And although the love of
youth is charming and picturesque, the love of old
age is radiant with beauty. To see two human
creatures who have weathered together in closest
communion all the storms and ills of life, battered
and deformed by time, yet able to look into each
other’s eyes with a love surpassing that of their
first affection, is a sight grander than any other
the world can show. For it reveals to us the depth
and purity of marriage as it should be. What are
rites and priestly formulas to such as these ? And
what dignity or value can any ceremony add to the
union of true minds ?
We r$ad of Gretna Green and Fleet marriages,
and the outcry with which their abolition .was met
by younger sons, and even statesmen like Fox.
The Marriage Act, as they well knew, was passed
for the protection of heiresses and ambitious
fathers. It was a rich man’s Act, and opposed to
the interests of the poor, for whom marriage and
divorce should be as inexpensive, easy,, and
expeditious as of old. We know that love will not
fill the larder, but a man who loves will work for
his wife, and the wife who loves will work for her
husband. Love sets in motion a two-fold energy
which is able to conquer many difficulties.
We must not omit to point out as briefly as
possible that to secure the happiness and welfare
of the married and their offspring, the fitness of
candidates is of the highest importance. •* The
sexual side of our being has been so stigmatized
that our other natural appetites have shared in its
|
�26
Lady Cook’s Essays.
degradation. We boast of our love of art, of
literature, or of science, but never of our love of
eating or sleeping. We are ashamed of our bodily
organs and functions, and shun the knowledge
of our own physiology. -These beautiful structures,
which it should be our pride to improve and pre
serve untainted, are accounted vile and not to be
discussed; consequently, those most unfit are
united in marriage, and those subject to personal
or hereditary disease increase and multiply, filling
the earth with sin and sorrow. The nauseous
“purity” which produces all this should be scouted
as criminally filthy, and recklessly foolish. We
should then see how necessary it is to enquire into
character, habits, and family antecedents; how
wicked it is to permit those who can produce none
but diseased or defective offspring ever to
marry ; and that no iniquity of parents can equal
that of giving a pure maiden to an impure man.
Physical beauty alone should never be allowed to
outweigh moral beauty, nor mental excellency be
i
*nferior
held
to wealth. Great authorities, like
Mobius, Charcot, Fere, and others, group together
as brain and nerve diseases : insanity, eccentricity,
violent temper, paralysis, epilepsy, hysteria, neu
ralgia, scrofula, gout, diabetes, consumption, asth
ma, dipsomania, deformities, and mal-formations.
“ All these may alternate with each other in a
given family, one member suffering from one and
another from another.” All arise from imperfect
brain nutrition, which is always transmitted from
parent to child.
Our social vices entail the widespread scourge
called syphilis.
This is so common among a
certain class of men that they affect to treat it as
of Jittle moment. Often men of rank and education
are not ashamed to give their daughters to those
who^have suffered from it. Yet every eminent
physician knows that up to two or three years after
the last signs of the ‘ secondary symptoms * have
disappeared “ the infected person will transmit the
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
27
disease itself to any child born or begotten,” and,
in neglected cases, even after twelve years or more.
In some instances the power of continuing the
species is destroyed. “ Kissing is a common form
of conveying the infection.” Healthy wet nurses
receive it from infected infants. This insidious and
loathsome disease is not hereditary as syphilis be
yond three generations,—seldom beyond two, but
it is none the less deadly. It affects the whole
system. No tissue or organ is safe from it. It pro
duces degenerate conditions. It devitalizes and
deteriorates the family stock. Its virus is never
expelled from the system, and may occasion other
diseases years after health has been apparently re
stored. And for many generations it induces any of
the neurotic complaints we have enumerated. The
experience of Dr. Tarnowsky, a distinguished ob
server, shows that 71 per cent, of women suffering
from syphilis, give birth to dead children, who die in
their first year. Professor Fournie found it fatal to
offspring to the extent of 28 per cent, through the
father, and 60 through the mother, but 68^ per
cent, when both suffered from it. Mr. Lecky de*
scribes it as/‘ an epidemic which is one of the most
dreadful among mankind, which communicates
itself from the guilty husband to the innocent wife,
and even transmits its taint to the offspring”; and
he adds that no other feature of English life
appears so infamous to continental physicians and
writers, as the fact that it should be suffered to
rage unchecked. Yet, when marriage is contem
plated, no questions are asked, no investigation is
made. The men who are careful—extremely care
ful—in the breeding of their domestic animals,
ignore the same necessity for their children.
Hence the Royal Houses of Europe are profoundly
tainted with insanity, and the aristocracies with
epilepsy and other neurotic diseases. Benoiston
de Chatea^neauf proved the average life of a
French noble family to be about three hundred
years. And, at the beginning of the last century,
�<8
Lady Cook’s Essays.
the haute noblesse at the French Court looked like
une societe de malades.
We have only touched the fringe of our subject,
but we must stop. We commend our readers to
search further for themselves. Possibly the day
is not far distant when education will be directed
on better lines, when the teaching of physiology
will be compulsory, -and soundness of mind and
body will be the chief desiderata. And when sex
distinctions and privileges are swept away, physical,
moral, and mental improvement will grow apace.
This beautiful world will be the home of beauty.
Ignorance and crime, like unclean beasts, will flee
to its remote recesses. Men will live for them
selves and for each other, and not for arbitrary
laws that harass, injure, and destroy. The foul
brood engendered by ages of superstition will dis
appear, and all will see that only through a new
and wiser system of marriage can the regeneration
and perfection of mankind be brought about.
•
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
29
TRUE LOVE.
“True love’s the gift which God has given
To man alone beneath the Heaven.—
It is the secret sympathy,
The silver link, the silken tie
Which heart to heart and mind to mind
In body and in soul can bind.”
Scott {Lay of the Last Minstrel).
Ambition and love appear to be the two master passions
of mankind. But few ambitions are worthy, and com
paratively few loves are true. Vulgar love, like vulgar
ambition, may degrade its possessor and ruin others, but
true love ennobles him who feels it, and exalts its object
beyond all else. Lately our contention that true love is
the product of later times, and was unknown to the
ancients, has been called in question by one or two super
ficial critics. The Bible and Horace have been quoted
to disprove our statement. In regard to the Scriptures,
the conditions of life were such in Biblical times that its
existence was impossible. Women were either slaves or
semi-slaves, constantly in subjection from their birth to
their death to one man or another. Solomon’s song is
very beautiful as the production of an ancient Eastern
poet. But the royal lover, whose harem contained a
thousand women obtained by power, could never have
known the sentiment in its purity, however much he may
have fancied a new beauty, or however impassioned may
have been his lay. Much has been made of Jacob’s
serving seven years for Rachel, but that was a common
mode in those days of obtaining a wife when a man was
too poor to buy one, and it is still done in many parts of
the world. Jacob’s affection, which came nearer to
modern love than any of which we have read, did not
prevent him from taking as many other women as were
offered him, although he preferred Rachel to her sore
eyed sister, and to the female slaves who were his concu
bines. Seeing that she was quick-witted, “ beautiful, and
well-favoured,” his preference is not surprising, nor that
the seven years “ seemed to him but a few days for the
love he had to her,” for these were years of courtship
between a patient shepherd and a pretty shepherdess. In
the pastoral age they took no note of time. Jacob’s
grandfather had just completed a century, and his wife
and half-sister was nearly as old when Isaac was born to
them. We sober Westerns must not take the tales of the
�30
Lady Cook’s Essays.
East too literally. The whole account is deeply tinged
with the exaggerations and marvels of the Arabian Nights.
Sarah is the Jewish Helen with whom all who see her are
smitten. By collusion she passed as Abraham’s sister.
The King of Egypt takes this very matured beauty into
his harem, and “ the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house
with great plagues because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife.”
Twenty-four years later, when she was extremely old and
at least forty years past the period of child-bearing, her
husband was informed that she would become a mother.
She is very sarcastic over it, regarding it as a physical
impossibility; nevertheless, it came to pass within a year.
But, in the meantime, her beauty attracts the notice of
the King of Gerar, who also seizes her, and takes the
venerable princess into his harem. God visits him in a
dream and tells him all about his mistake. Besides which,
the fertile ladies of the court were suddenly afflicted with
barrenness, but as soon as Abimelech restored her,/things
went on as usual. If the purity of love is to be proved
in Scriptural times, it must be on more coherent testi
mony than all this. The course of Nature proceeds
irrespective of human morality or immorality, but the
sacred writers had very confused notions of moral and
physical causes and sequences, and often mixed them
incongruously.
The Odes of Horace are'next cited to refute us. Well,
all who have really read Horace know that he followed
the filthy and degrading custom of the Romans of his
day, just as they copied the Greeks, and that it was
a matter of indifference to him whether the'object of
his affection were a girl or a boy. The moderns with
all their progress are se_n to be bad enough, but the
ancients must not be quoted as knowing anything of
love. The men were too sensual, and the women too
servile, to comprehend the pure passion of to-day, and
the prettiest phrases that ever were penned cannot con
ceal the vile immoralities and unnatural lusts which they
have enshrined. When our objectors next do us the
honour to criticize, we trust that they vyill first prepare
themselves by some elementary acquaintance with the
subject.
Chaucer, in the Clerk’s Tale, gives the story of the
patient “Grisildis,” who suffered every cruel indignity at
her husband’s hands and never once complained nor
resented it. This was much esteemed. Abject sub
mission, however, is not love. No woman could really
love a man who treated her so foully. Yet many poets
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
3i
have held up this Griselda as a pattern of wifely virtue
and conjugal love. The Patient Countess, in Percy’s
Reliques, is a somewhat similar but better example.
The first stanza anticipates its moral: „
“ Impatience chaungeth smoke to flame,
But jelousie is hell;
Some wives by patience have reduc’d
Ill husbands to live well;
As did the ladie of an earle,
Of whom I now shall tell.”
The ancient ballad of Sir Cauline who loved “ faire
Christabelle, that lady bright,” the daughter of a “ bonnye
kinge in Ireland ferr over the sea,” is a beautiful tale of
unhappy love with a tragic ending. Yet we see from the
first that it was chiefly “ the lust of the eye.” They had
no other reason to love, for they knew little of each other.
The ballad of “The Nut-brown Maid,” gives us a
nearer glimpse of the true passion. Yet even she seems
to have been a relation of the Patient Griselda. Men,
however, like women to learn that the most esteemed
among them were those who would flatter and pet them
notwithstanding their infidelities, their coarseness of mind
and manners, their neglect, and general bad conduct.
Thus pretty fools without much sensibility have always
been admired, while women of sense and learning and
self-respect have been sometimes shunned. Both sides,
however, are becoming wiser. Men are not so ready to
marry a doll-face as they were, and women begin to look
for men with brains and sound hearts. Increase of
caution will produce increase of domestic happiness, and
will make less work for the Divorce Courts. For it is
not possible for two to run together unless well suited to
each other. They cannot even pull comfortably through
life in harness together unless they are unanimous.
There are so many tendencies to friction in married life
that it is certain to prove unhappy unless misery be in
sured against beforehand. Nothing but mutual love can
preserve them from this, a love based on profound know
ledge of each other, profound respect, mutual admiration,
and general agreement, which altogether produce an irre
sistible attraction. Physical beauty may play a part, but
mental and moral beauty will always prove more powerful
and more enduring, for while the first is fading the others
are ripening into fuller perfection. True love can'only
be experienced by the highest natures, because the moral
qualities required for it are indispensable. They must be
true, chaste, full of honour and fidelity, tender, generous,
�32
Lady Cook’s Essays.
and firm as adamant. The false, the sensual, the dis
honourable and faithless, the hard, the mean, and the
fickle, can never acquire the happiness of possessing it.
Its heavenly delights are for reverent dispositions. If
love is heaven and heaven is love,” then to love truly
is the most perfect moral and spiritual education. Selfish
ness has no place in it. Self-abnegation is its flower and
root. In order to obtain this supreme felicity of life, we
must avoid all that will lower our moral tone, and must
cherish whatever will advance it. They are fools and
egoists who despise love. Love is the highest form of
altruism, and is, therefore, the most perfect goodness.
Whosoever lives for or to serve another without looking
for fee or reward, lives a life of love. Nature is love : by
her laws each lives for others; “ all the flowers kiss one
another.” Heaven is love. God is love. And a-true
union might, and should be, the most perfect means of
human happiness could we only purify and etherealize it
with the spirit of true love. The noblest and &wisest
minds have already obtained it, and when true nobility
and true honesty become less rare, true love will be more
general. But while marriage continues to be based upon
unworthy considerations, inspired by recklessness, ignor
ance, lust, selfishness, or weak ambition, instead of true
love, it will be like that house which was built upon the
sands : “ And the rains descended, and the floods came,
and the winds blew, and beat upon that h-ouse; and it
fell: and great was the fall of it.”
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
33
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
WHO SHOULD PROPOSE?
M Where found you confidence your suit to move ? ”
—Dryden.
“ Beshrew me, but ’twere pity of his heart,
That could refuse a boon to such a suitress.”
—Rowe.
Marriage is like a voyage by sea—it reveals character.
It shows others what manner of men and women we are.
So Corydon may be the gentlest of swains, and Phyllis
the sweetest shepherdess that ever carried a crook, so long
as they meet to woo and to be wooed; but when they
exchange their pastoral pursuits for homely housekeeping,
the defects of each are for the first time exposed to the
other. It is all very well to sit on a mossy bank beneath
some ancient tree in the leafy month of June, surrounded
by flowers and frisking lambs, and to babble of love and
eternal fidelity; but to sit by a smoky fire in winter, when
the larder is empty and the purse is low, and flowers and
lambs and June are dead, and love itself fast dying, will
test the strongest vows and unloose the most latent dis
cords. Each is surprised to find that the character of the
other was misunderstood. Each’ feels deceived and ag
grieved, and reproaches and tears take the place of billings
and cooings.
But the glittering mansion is not exempt from the evils
of the thatched cottage. There may be wealth and rank,
and a full measure of worldly prosperity, yet discord will
enter in. Lady Clara Vere de Vere is as frail and un
stable as her humbler sisters. Her lordly spouse is in his
way as selfish and as exacting as simple Corydon. Ennui
and friction are as fatal to the happiness of the great as
cold and want are to the poor. Discontent is the cause
with both. And why ? Because neither really knew the
other. Because both masked their feelings and displayed
their most agreeable qualities and abilities. Because with
each the role of the man was to win, and of the woman
to be won. It was his to pursue boldly, and hers to coyly
retreat. Thus he displayed a fictitious courage, and she an
artificial modesty, with two wrecked lives as a result.
These methods may have been suitable for a barbarous
age when men wooed like the birds and beasts of the field,
and lived scarcely better lives than they. But at this
D
�34
Lady Cook’s Essays.
period of human evolution, we require more rational pro
cesses of mating, processes which will promote truth and
honesty between the sexes prior to marriage, and thus
prevent unpleasant after developments. And in order to
accomplish this we must first sweep away the cobwebs of
superstition, particularly those which render it immodest
for awoman to make the first advances in affection. Women
are far shrewder than men in the matter of sexual choice,
and are less governed by blind passion. If they had the
same freedom to propose as men have, there would be
fewer unhappy marriages. It is true a woman has many
ways of letting a man know that he is pleasing to her
without saying so in so many words. But men have the
same. And any such indication on her part would, as
things are, be liable to serious misconstruction. She
might be accused of levity, or even of wantonness, unless
she could be permitted to make her intentions clear by a
definite proposal. It might sound a little strange at first
for a modest and pretty girl to say, “ Dear Mr. Smith, I
have had the pleasure of knowing you for some time, and
have, the highest esteem for your character. I am sure
you would make a good and affectionate husband to a
suitable wife. Our views and feelings have often been
mutually exchanged in the most friendly and unreserved
manner, and I have learnt to entertain a tender regard for
you. If you, as I flatter myself you do, feel similarly
towards me, and think I could make you a wife after your
own heart, I should feel myself the happiest woman alive
by your accepting me. Should you consent to my pro
posal, I shall be delighted to mention it at once to your
Mother.” This, we say, might seem strange at first, but
not stranger than now, when at a tenants’ ball the ladies
of the great house invite the men to dance with them;
and after a few courageous maidens had essayed and
succeeded, it would quickly become the fashion. Young
men, we hear, are shy of proposing now-a-day, and so
cultivate bachelorhood. This is not only an evil to the
commonwealth, but it is also a wrong to its fairer mem
bers, and a tacit reproach to their character. As men are
not generally given to excessive modesty as to their own
qualifications, it cannot be supposed that they think
themselves not good enough for the women. It would be
a great slur on our marriageable young women, however,
to suppose that they are not good enough for the men,
and still worse if it could be said that neither are4, fit for
marriage. If the young men will not do as their fathers
before them, and what has hitherto been considered thely
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
35
duty, let our girls inaugurate a better state of things by
proposing on their own account. After the first novelty
has worn off, no one will accuse them of impropriety or
forwardness.
As things are now, men only are allowed to propose.
We have not desired this custom, but to make it inter
changeable and common to both sexes. That it is not
immodest for a woman to propose, Desdemona herself
proved; she was unquestionably modest, “a maiden never
bold,” said her father. Her husband, when charged with
bewitching her, explained to his judges that she had re
quested him when they were alone to tell over again the
story of his adventures. With manly frankness he con
cluded :—
“ My story being done,
She gave me for my pains a world of sighs;
She swore ; in faith, ’twas strange, ’twas passing strange,
’Twas pitiful, ’twas wondrous pitiful;
She wished she had not heard it, yet she wished
That heaven had made her such a man ; she thanked me;
And bade me if I had a friend that loved her,
I should but teach him how to tell my story,
And that would woo her. Upon this hint I spake.
She lov’d me for the dangers I nad pass’d,
And I lov’d her that she did pity them.”
Notwithstanding their disparity of years, of colour,
and race, this natural union was an inexpressibly happy
one until the noble nature of Othello was betrayed by the
villainy of an arch-rogue and the fatuousness of a fool.
Surely their misfortune is no argument against love matches
or maidenly proposals. Desdemona knew a hero when
she met him, because her judgment was sound and her
education sufficient for discrimination. But if girls are
imperfectly educated, and therefore deficient in judg
ment, they will undoubtedly mistake shams for realities,
and tinsel for sterling gold.
In truth it seems most fitting, if there should be any
preference in proposing, that women should possess it.
At present marriage is of more importance to her than to
a man. Our opponents are never tired of telling us that
it is her avocation. We will take them at their word. A
good woman’s happiness centres in her home. There
she is mistress, mother, and queen. It is her delight to
make all within its influence the happier and better fo.r
her rule, and to convert it into an earthly Paradise. But
to do this she must have the man whom she can love
most truly, and must, therefore, have the right of choos
ing. One of the most accomplished and beautiful Engda
�•
Lady Cook’s Essays.
lishwomen of her day, Lady Mary Wortley Montague,
daughter of a duke and wife of an ambassador, and an
associate of the most intellectual men in Europe, an un
romantic, clear-headed, fashionable lady who saw more
of life, perhaps, than any other woman, wrote in reply to
Rochefoucault’s cynical maxim, “ That marriage is some
times convenient, but never delightful,” and said: “It is
impossible to taste the delights of love in perfection, but
in a well-assorted marriage.................... A fond couple
attached to each other by mutual affection, are two lovers
who live happily together. Though the priest pronounces
certain words, though the lawyers draw up certain instru
ments ; yet I look on these preparatives in the same light
as a lover considers a rope-ladder which he fastens to his
mistress’s window: If they can but live together, what
does it signify by what means the union is accomplished.
. . . . Two married lovers lead very different lives :
they have the pleasure to pass their time in a successive
intercourse of mutual obligations and marks of benevo
lence, and they have the delight to find that each forms
the entire happiness of the beloved object. Herein con
sists perfect felicity. The most trivial concerns of
economy become noble and elegant when they are
exalted by sentiments of affection : to furnish an apart
ment is not barely to furnish an apartment; it is a place
where I expect my lover; to prepare a supper is noC
merely giving orders to my cook ; it is an amusement to
regale the object I dote on. In this light a woman con
siders these necessary occupations as more lively and
affecting pleasures than those gaudy sights which amuse
the greater part of the sex, who are incapable of true
enjoyment.” The husband’s feelings in his duties corre
spond to the wife’s : he works for her, and both are pre
pared, by calm reflection, for mutual infirmities and the
ravages of time. “When a pair,” she adds, ‘‘who enter
tain such rational sentiments, are united by indissoluble
bonds, all nature smiles upon them, and the most common
appear delightful. In my opinion,, such a life is infinitely
more happy and more voluptuous than the most ravish
ing and best regulated gallantry.”
Another reason why a woman should have the privi
lege of proposing is, that it is she who will bear the fruits
of marriage. Hers will be the pain, the years of weari
ness, the intense anxiety and affection for her offspring.
If she endure the cross, should she not also wear the
crown ? If in suffering and sorrow she bring forth
children, should she not have the selection of her partner.
�Ladv Cook’s Essays.
so that she may be indemnified for all by the joy of
knowing that they spring from one whom she is proud to
call their father ? Women are growing wiser, and if free
to propose would elect the worthiest they could obtain.
The wiser they prove the more select will be their choice.
Rakes and profligates of all descriptions they will reject.
They will refuse to join themselves to any unless sound in
body, mind, and morals. Maternity will be revered as a
sacred function demanding every just precaution; as an
obligation to reproduce man as in the Biblical beginning
—in the likeness and image of God.
�gg
Lady Cook’s Essays.
WHICH IS TO BLAME?
Man
or
Woman?
[Reprinted from the “ Woodhull & Claflin Weekly,” 1871.]
“ Ignorance is not innocence, but vulgarity.”
In my first series of Essays, I defined “ Virtue ” and
M Modesty.” I will now venture on a definition of
*
■ Seduction.”*
With the world generally, the assumption is that
women and women only, are liable to seduction, and
that men are entirely free from any such weakness.
Now what is the implication in all this ? Why, simply
that women are weaklings and ninnies, and that they
have no opinion, no character, no power of self-defence,
but simply the liability to be influenced to their
ruin by men. And women consent to and strengthen
this implication by conceding the truth of this false
notion, by joining in the clamour about seduction, pre
cisely as they concur in the false and insulting discrimi
nation between the virtue of man and the virtue of
woman. Now, the fact is that seduction is,' and ought to
be, mutual. No love is without seduction in its highest
sense. But love is not the only attribute of either man
or woman. There should also be wisdom, character,
purpose, and power of self-regulation and defence on the
part of each. If there is any difference, woman is, of
the two, the grand seductive force, whether the seduction
be legitimate charm or its counter-part. She is, by
nature and organisation, if the poets speak the truth,
ai a magazine of enticement and influence and power ”
over the imagination and conduct of the opposite sex.
But even if that were not so, if she stood on the same
level of capacity in this respect with the man, the con
dition into which society has thrust her compels her to
make a profession of seduction. It is considered a
* This article on " Seduction” was written by Lady Cook twenty-five
years ago. It has still, and especially at the present time, sa raison d'etre,
although some passages may, in some respects, be out of date ; but even
those passages referring to the conditions of the position of woman which
conditions have now happily almost ceased to exist—will have in them
selves their purpose in reminding the reader of the vast progress made
in the cause of woman since that period, and in giving the opportunity to
do homage to the valiant efforts of the many of its noble workers.—N<mes
wPwmik
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
reproach for a woman to be an “ old maid.” She must#
therefore, by all possible means, lure some man into
marriage; and not succeeding in that directly, she is
tempted to beguile him into some act which will compro
mise him and compel marriage subsequently. She has
the strongest possible motive, therefore, from this point
of view, to be herself the tempter ; and if the roofs were
lifted off the tops of the houses, if the facts were simply
known of what is every day occurring, I believe it would
be found that a majority of women exert an undue
influence over men.
But it is not merely that the female sex is pre
eminently interested in the whole matter of love, and is,
by nature and organisation, representative of that half
of human concerns, nor the fact, which I have alluded
to, that she is humiliated and despised by society if she
fails to secure a husband; there are still stronger im
pulses and motives and necessities operating on her. As
things are in the world at present, women have not equal
chances with men of earning and winning anything ; men
hold the purse and women are dependents and candidates
for election to place. They must entice and seduce and
entrap men, either in the legitimate or in the illegitimate
way, in order to secure their portion of the spoil. It is
no fault of theirs if they have to do this. Society con
demns them to a condition in which they have no other
resource. I am not arguing the rectitude or otherwise of
that point now. I am merely adverting to the fact as a
reason why many women make a business—the great
pursuit in fact of their lives—of the seduction of men;
while with men the betrayal of women is an incident,
mostly a sudden temptation perhaps thrown in their way,
without suspicion on their part, by the very women who
then raise a hubbub of excitement about having been
ruined. When people had slaves, they expected that
their pigs, chickens, corn, and everything lying loose
about the plantation would be stolen. But the planters
began by stealing the liberty of their slaves, by stealing
their labour, by stealing, in fact, all they had; and the
natural result was that the slaves stole back all they
could. So in the case of women. Reduced to the condi
tion of dependency, and with no other avenue for acquire
ment or success than the one which lies through their
mastery or influence over the opposite sex, their natural
powers to charm and seduce are, of course, reinforced by
astuteness and trickery, and they not only have the cun
*
ning to beguile the men, in the majority of cases, but the
astuteness also to throw the blame on the men for betray
�4©
Lady Cook’s Essays.
ing them. This is sharp practice; but they are taught in
a school of sharp practice which the men have instituted
for them; and the result is a natural and necessary one
from the present organization of society. The very
foundation of our existing social order is mutual decep
tion and all-prevalent hypocrisy; and this will always be
the case until we have freedom ; until we recognise the
rights of nature, until we provide in a normal and proper
way for every passion of the human soul.
There are two policies, or theories, of action in the
world. One is the policy of “ repression ” ; the other
is the policy of “ enfranchisement,” or enlargement. The
policy of repression has its whole legion of legitimate
consequences, which are in the main what we know as
the vices of society. The slave was taught to be tricky
and wily and wise after his method, to circumvent the
wrong which was inflicted on him. The depressed and
oppressed woman is made to be hypocritical and frivo
lous and in every way false to the higher nature of
Womanhood, false to her duties in life, and false to the
true relations which she should hold to men. By enslav
ing her the male sex is doing the greatest possible injus
tice to itself. It is only by enfranchising her, by. helping
her by every possible method to security of condition, to
the opportunity for development, to the means of being
true and noble, that men will have in the world a being
whom he can truly love and whom he will be proud in
all ways to aid and protect. The policy of repression
is therefore suicidal or self-defeating; and as the world
grows wiser, it will be, in all the spheres of life, replaced
by the nobler, more natural, and beneficent policy of free
dom, with order of a higher and better kind, which will
spontaneously follow.
'
I have spoken of seduction in a somewhat. more
general sense than the definitions to be found in the
dictionary, as applicable to all the attractions. which
exist between the sexes, or to that which is exercised by
the one over the other; but it is generally confined to,
and defined in, its bad sense, as the exertion of this charm
unduly and adversely to the real wish and the true in
terests of the party affected by it. In this sense it is
mutual, or as likely to occur on the one side as on the
other, even if it were not stimulated on the part of the
woman by the considerations which I have suggested.
What J have said will perhaps enable my readers to
apportion for themselves the degree of criminality. ® The
immediate criminality is more likely to be with the
woman than with the man; but the remote criminality of
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
instituting and maintaining conditions in society which
force the woman into hypocrisy is more that of the man;
and yet it is hardly worth while to talk of criminality in
either case. The great fact is one of ignorance. What
the world wants is more knowledge of how to do right.
The human passions have been found to be terrible forces,
like steam or fire, and instead of studying them in order
to regulate them in accordance with their own true laws
and their adaptation to the world’s well-being, they have
been feared merely, fought down and repressed.
It may be asked “ ought a woman to risk her happiness
for a lifetime on a promise of marriage? ” In my profession
of a physician, and in a practice of more than a dozen
years, I was consulted by women, and especially by those
in the higher rank in society, for the reason that they bad
more leisure, means, and opportunity to investigate. I
have been consulted by thousands of such women, and I
can truly say that, in a very large proportion of cases,
they have confessed or confided to me that they had
placed the fullest confidence in their husbands prior to
marriage, and that no subsequent advantage was taken of
that fact by the men. In other words, the so-called
“ seduction ” in these numerous instances was not followed
by desertion. It never became known, therefore, as
“ seduction.” It is a very prevalent opinion that the
prompting motive to marriage on the part of men is the
mere gratification of the one passion. The truth is, I
believe, very much the opposite; and that men seek
instinctively, and hope to find, in that relation a true,
rational, and spiritual companionship, as well as material
charm ; but, alas I how often are they sadly disappointed!
The woman proves to be a mere doll, a characterless and
insipid person. The ideality which had enshrined her
before marriage is dispersed after a few days or weeks of
acquaintance and familiarity. Instead of rising in the
esteem of her husband by the development of new and
grand characteristics, she sinks under his contempt, or
palls upon his interest, and he is driven elsewhere in the
hope of meeting that companionship in women which the
higher instinct of the manly soul constantly, whether
consciously or unconsciously, craves. The popular
assumption that when a woman has surrendered her
greatest treasure she is threatened to be despised and
abandoned for that, is not true. For if she is a woman of
a great and noble soul, of commanding character of
intellect, spirituality, and womanly worth, the true man
from that time begins to know how to live. He is initia
ted by her generosity into the true knowledge of his own
�42.
Lady Cook’s Essays.
nature, and elevated to the moral and aesthetic plane of a
woman’s soul.
On the other hand, her silly pretence of ignorance, her
lack of true sentiment and dignity, her childishness, grow
ing in some of its many shapes out of the false education
and no education which surround this whole subject, are
precisely what disgust and repel men and ruin them. It
is another blunder to suppose that it is only women who
get ruined. Women who allow themselves to think that
sexuality and prettiness are the only charms they are
expected to have, and that it is a disgrace for them to be
strong-minded, are sure to wreck their own happiness
and that of the man whom they ought to love.
I may here answer more than one correspondent by
saying that I do not advocate the abrogation or the
amendment of the Marriage Laws as long as they are
needed, as long as there is nothing better, as long as
people’s ideas are not elevated above the plane of such
laws. What I advocate is freedom of thought and speech
on the subject, freedom to devise better methods; but I
mean all this a great deal more with reference to opinion
than with reference to law. What I want are higher
development, better knowledge, and of course, better laws
and better institutions to grow out of these. There are,
undoubtedly, women who are weak and silly and simple,
and who are taken advantage of by designing men. Until
we have such systems of education as will tend to prevent
women from being weak, simple, and silly, it is undoubtedly
right to have laws punishing seduction with the utmost
severity; but we have also, as I think I have shown,
ninnies among men, and ought we not therefore to have
laws for their protection ? An Act of the Legislature
entitled “An Act for the Protection of Ninnies against
Designing Women ” would be refreshing, and perhaps
logically based upon the reason of the laws for the protec
tion of female virtue. Indeed, there were, at one time,
laws in England specifically “ for the punishment of bad
women who seduced the soldiers of the king.”
I do not remember that the Bible has said much, if
anything, about the awful crime of seducing women. It
has, I believe, on the contrary, commiserated the sad
condition of the ninny part of our mixed population. Read
attentively Proverbs vii. on this subject. Making a
running commentary on it, it reads somewhat as follows:
“Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister, and call under
standing thy kinswoman, that may keep thee from the
Strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
43
her words (the seducer). For at the window of my house
I looked through my casement (peeped from behind the
curtains, spying over other people’s affairs, which showed
the writer’s interest in the subject) and I beheld among
the simple ones (the ninny population—not the women,
mind), a young man void of understanding (not a very
*
rare case) passing the street near her corner (whoever shai=
was, the woman that lived in the corner over the way),
and he went the way to her house in the twilight in tha
evening, in the black and dark night (that is to say,
repeatedly, and sometimes when it was so dark that ‘ it
was all I could do to watch them *, and behold there met
)
him a woman with the attire of a harlot, and subtle of
heart (cunning and capable of seduction); so she caught
him and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto
him ‘ I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry,
with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt. I have
perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon.
Come, let us us take our fill of love until the morning, let
us solace ourselves with loves. For the good man (the
husband) is not at home, he has gone along journey. He
hath taken a bag of money with him and will come home
at the day appointed ’ (that is to say, not too soon for us).
With her much fair speech she caused him to yield (seduced
him), with the flattering of her lips she forced him to yield
(figuratively, violation, I suppose). He goeth after her
(ninny-like) straight-way as an ox goeth to the slaughter,
or as a fool (as he was) to the correction of the stocks;
till a dart strikes through his liver.”
The point here is that the Bible makes the chief
instance of seduction to be that of the man by the woman
in common allusion to the matter. Indeed, we always
admit this, after the first instance; but, then, without
much logic for it, we assume that it is always the man, in
this first instance of the the so-called “ fall from virtue,”
who has betrayed and ruined the woman. This point tha
Bible does not mention or refer to. If, then, woman
is the only sex which elevates seduction into a profession
or a life-business, I suggest that there may be some mistake
about the matter, and that the poor innocent girl, or older
maiden, who wakes our sympathy for her wronged in
nocence, may, at least in a majority of cases, have planned
her own ruin, and have seduced the foolish man into
what goes afterwards as his criminality. I still adhere to
my proposition of a law to emanate from & Parliament
“for^the protection of ninnies against the seduction of
young girls and grown women.” If law is to regulate ths
matter, let the whole ground be effectually covered.
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
MARRIAGE.
“Wishing each other not divorced but dead,
They live respectably as man and wife.”—Byron.
If on-e were driven in a corner for an argument against
the existing marriage system, it would only be necessary
to refer to the records of the Divorce Courts during one
short year. What a catalogue of wretchedness is con
tained in those files! Those “ human documents ” are
more tragically pathetic than the most startlingly realistic
work of the imagination ever written in the past or which
can ever be penned in the future. People of all ranks
and all classes devour their filthy details, published by
the least reputable of the daily journals, and yet turn up
the whites of their eyes and hold up their hands in
hypocritical amazement when any would-be reformer of
the existing horrible state of things steps into the arena
to denounce unholiness, and to endeavour to bring about
a more holy, a purer, and a more natural condition of
things.
How often do we not hear it said, by women of the
world, as well as by men, that “ marriage is a lottery ? ”
The proposition indeed is so self-evident as to be undeni
able. A “ lottery!” That is precisely what marriage has
come to be. For one marriage of affection and love,
there are many unions of what the French term “con
venience ”—that is to say, marriages wherein the prevail
ing, and often the only, element is cash I It is all a
question (to employ the mordant phrase of the Poet
Laureate) of “ Proputty, proputty, proputty I ” Now, how
is the modern marriage “ brought about ? ”
For reasons, which are so obvious that they do not
require to be specified, I will deal first with marriage as
it is known in what, by a polite fiction, are styled “ the
upper classes,” albeit some of those who “ live, move, and
have their being ” in that orbit have, by their evil example,
done more than any other classes to bring the sacred
institution of marriage into loathing and contempt. Like
most of the other marts of commerce, the marriage of
Modern Babylon is open for all practical purposes the
whole year round, morning, noon, afternoon, and night.
Special activity, however, reigns during the Spring and
�Lady Cook’s
essays.
45
Summer months, from April to the end of July the
market-place of Society is thronged by matrons and
maids, the latter decked out in all the colours of the
rainbow, and further bedizened by the aid of “jewels
rich and rare.” No expense is spared by the matronly
auctioneers to make their property attractive and fas
cinating, and every inducement is offered to purchasers to
come and buy the human flesh and blood. The proprie
tors of all this beauty are their own auctioneers, and set
up their rostrums as we have all seen, and can see every
season, in every conceivable place; it may be an at home
in Mayfair, a dance in Belgravia, or a Royal strawberry
crush in Pall Mall. But, no matter where it may be, the
procedure never varies, but is always the same.
A goodly assemblage having been got together, the
auctioneer-mother mounts the rostrum, and the sale
begins :—■
“ My lords and gentlemen, the catalogue of to-day’s
auction contains, as you will have seen, an unusually choice
selection of youthful beauties, differing only in age, height,
and colour. Many of them can trace their family history
back to the days of Adam; they are highly accomplished,
able to drive, ride, swim, row, fence, and play tennis as
well as any of yourselves. Some have been taught, or
perhaps I should say, have taught themselves to smoke,
but at present, I grieve to say, these latter are in the
minority. And now, my lords and gentlemen, with these
few preliminary remarks, we will have Lot I. brought
forward. Her age is eighteen, and, as you will observe,
she is a magnificent blonde, as like as possible to her
female ancestress, the Countess of Ruffleton, whose por
trait, painted by Lely, you have all doubtless seen at
Hampton Court. Observe her lustrous eyes, the texture
of her velvety skin, the roundness of her arms, the beauty
of her bust, her delicate hands, and her small feet.
Approach her more closely, gentlemen; don’t be afraid—
she won’t mind your criticism. She is the last of six
sisters, so don’t let this opportunity slip. The reserve
price put upon her is only £100,000. The purchaser need
not have any birth at all. We ask no particulars as to
the existence of grandfathers or grandmothers ; money is
the sine qua non. £100,000 buys her 1 Buyer’s name,
please, Mr. Moneybags ? Thank you. The solicitors
will wait on you in the morning. Now put up the next
lot.”
And thus the sales of human flesh and blood proceed
day after day and year after year in the marriage mart of
�•
Lady Cook’s Essays.
the Modern Babylon. If I am charged with exaggerating
the prevailing condition of things, I am content to call
one witness, and one only, in support of the accuracy of
what I have set down in no spirit of malice or unchari
tableness. Let us hear “ Canon Liddon on the Marriage
Market,” for that is the exact heading which the news
papers gave their reports of that memorable discourse,
which the ever-to-be-lamented divine delivered from the
pulpit of St. Paul’s Cathedral a short time before his
death. Canon Liddon (I am now quoting textually from
the newspaper reports of that period), preaching yesterday
at St. Paul’s on the parable of the rich landowner who
had more goods than he could stow away, said there were
many counterparts of him in modern society. . . . After
dwelling on four considerations as to the use or abuse of
property to be derived from the parable, Canon Liddon
said:—
“ The London season is approaching, and a bevy of
mothers, like Generals on a campaign, will complain of
no fatigue if they can only marry their daughters, not to
high-souled and generous men, but to those who have a
fortune. There will also be a group of young men, who,
having lived a life of dissipation, are thinking of settling
down. They will look for a girl, not with graces of
character which will make her husband and children
happy, but for one possessed of a dowry which will
enable him to keep up a large establishment. Thus the
most sacred of all human relationships, both for time and
eternity, is prostituted to the brutal level of an affair of
cash, and is quickly followed by months and years of
misery, which, after seething in private, are paraded to
the world amid the shame and degradation of the Divorce
Court. He did not underrate the dangers of involution
likely to arise from the strained relations of capital, labour,
strikes, and other causes, but there were dangers nearer
home.”
■ These words, of one of the most devoted sons of the
Church who ever lived, made a profound, but not lasting,
impression on the world generally. Nobody dared to
criticise them, for they were stamped with the impress of
Truth, and not to be ridiculed or explained away by
sneering doctrinaires in the Press or Voltairian cynics in
the drawing-rooms and clubs. Liddon had spoken and
the mouths of the mockers were closed; and they were
as dumb dogs in the presence of such an accusation.
Dr.' Magee, the deeply-regretted Archbishop of York, was
another eminent cleric, who was not afraid to speak out,
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
47
either in the pulpit or the Senate, and a few others might
be added to the glorious roll of men in high places who,
recognising the social decadence of which every day
furnishes more and more striking proofs, did not hesitate
to denounce the evils which still surround us, despite the
vaunted “spread of civilization,” Free Education, and
the benefits which we are told a Free and Cheap Press
has bestowed upon the Empire.
When we read of Joan of Arc being tied to the stake
and burnt, we shudder even now; but how far in excess
of all physical torture is the refined cruelty of the nine
teenth century, which compels a girl or a woman to be
the companion of a lustful being who is hardly one remove
from a beast, simply because she is penniless and he has
well-filled coffers 1 In the great majority of cases it may
be safely assumed that a girl knows nothing whatever
about the duties and responsibilities of wedded life until
she is married. Such ignorance is not only culpable, it
is positively criminal on the part of those who have let
her go blindfolded to the altar. Where there has been no
love, how can there ever be any respect ? And where the
husband sets a bad example—as he too often does, parti
cularly in aristocratic life—who can wonder at the wife
straying into the paths of sin ? The wonder is, not that
there is so little good in the world, but that there is not
more vice than unfortunately exists.
Marriage, according to the existing system, is, with
many women, the first step towards demoralisation—the
initial step to Avernus—from which there is no retreat.
“All hope abandon ye who enter here! ” It is a sad
and ghastly fact that a newly-married woman, no matter
how young she may be, is considered fair game by all the
elderly andyouthful roues whose position enables them to
approach her. Every artful wile is practised to lead her
astray; she is flattered and fooled to the top of her
bent; money is lavished upon her; and, to sum up, she
finds a life of sin so much easier and more pleasurable
than one of virtue, that she too seldom hesitates before
leading it.
Again, if we do but consider the number of oppor
tunities which young and middle-aged married women
have of kicking over the traces, we shall be the less sur
prised at the appalling results of modern marriage. Where
the alliance has been entirely a question of cash, and
where, as in any great city like London and New York,
women are surrounded by luxuries and beset by the most
insidious temptations, how can we expect society of all
�4»
Lady Cook’s Essays.
kinds to be other than it is ? The looseness of the con
versation at the dinner-table, and even in the drawing
room, has much to do with ruining women, especially if
they be of the giddy and thoughtless kind. And what
shall we say of feminine dress, which, in this year of
grace one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five, may
be said to have reached the acme of indecency and extra
vagance? It seems to be a race with “fashionable”
women who shall wear the most decolletee gown and the
largest diamonds. Whenever I see one of these muchjewelled ladies, I am reminded of what Juvenal says in
his terrible trenchant and biting Sixth Satire : There is
nothing a woman will not allow herself, nothing she holds
disgraceful, when she has encircled her neck with
emeralds, and inserted ear-rings of great value in her
ears, stretched with their weight. Is it not humiliating
to reflect that the world is no better now than it was in
its infancy—than it was when the greatest satirist who
ever lived penned his scathing denunciations of the
women of Old Rome ? Juvenal, remember, was born in
a small town of the Volsei, about the year of Christ 38,
yet his Satires are almost as applicable to the end of the
nineteenth century as they were to the period of which
he wrote.
Let us glance for a moment at the frequently discussed
union of George Eliot and George Henry Lewes.
They were brought together through the medium of
Mr. Herbert Spencer, and in less than three years, as is
evident from her correspondence, they had become every
thing to each other. They could not legally marry, inas
much as Mr. Lewes’s wife was living. Mr. J. W. Cross,
who, less than two years after the death of Lewes, was
married to George Eliot at the fasnionable fane in Hanover
Square, says:—“ In forming a judgment on so momentous
a question, it is above all things necessary to understand
what was actually undertaken and what was actually
achieved; and, in my opinion, this can be best arrived
at, not from outside statement or arguments, but by con
sideration of the true tenour of the life ” which followed,
in the development of which Mr. Lewes’s true character,
as well as that of George Eliot, unfolded itself. George
Eliot herself, writing to a lady in defence of her line of
conduct, declared, “ If there is any one action or relation
in my life which, is and always has been profoundly
serious, it is my relation to Mr. Lewes.” In order to
allay any prejudice which her friends may have had
against her mode of life (says one of her biographers), she
argues the possibility for two persons to have different
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
49
opinions on momentous subjects with equal sincerity,
with an equally earnest conviction that their respective
opinions are alone the truly moral ones. “ If we differ
on the subject of marriage laws,” says George Eliot,
writing to Mrs. Bray, the lady above referred to, “ I at
least can believe of you that you cleave to what you
believe to be good; and I don’t know anything in the
nature of your views that should prevent you believing
the same of me. . . . One thing I can tell you in a
few words: Lightly and easily broken ties are what I
neither desire theoretically nor could live for practically.
Women who are satisfied with ties do not act as I have
done. That any unworldly, unsuperstitious person, who
is sufficiently acquainted with the realities of life, can
pronounce my relation with Mr. Lewes immoral, I can
only understand by remembering how subtle and com
plex are the influences which mould opinion. From the
majority of persons, of course, we never looked for any
thing but condemnation. We are leading no life of self
indulgence, except, indeed, that being happy in each
other, we find everything easy. ... I should not
care to vindicate myself if I did not love you, and desire
to relieve you of the pain which you say these conclusions
have given you. I should like never to write about
myself again; it is not healthy to dwell on one’s own
feelings and conduct, but only try and live more faithfully
and more lovingly every fresh day.” It is, perhaps,
hardly necessary for me to point out what is perfectly
well known—namely, that Lewes and his wife had pre
viously come to the cenclusion that they could no longer
live together. The world would be all the better if we
had more George Eliot’s—women with the courage to be
true to their hearts and their convictions—and fewer of
those women who, in accordance with the monstrous law
of society that you may commit any number of sins if
you can do so without being found out, lead double lives,
and instead of elevating themselves and their husbands
by the good influence which an honourable attachment
would exercise over them, gradually sink down and down,
and become brutalised under the weight of the dual
existence which they have been beguiled into leading.
These, however, are precisely the women who are most
severe and unsparing in denouncing the weaker vessels
who have fallen in public estimation, simply because they
have not been sufficiently clever to observe the Eleventh
Commandment: “ Thou shalt not be found out! ”
From the days when, to go no farther back, Hogarth
�50
Lady Cook’s Assays.
painted his “ Marriage a la Mode,” down to the present
date, our satirists have made the marriage institution a
target for their most pointed shafts. One eminent writer
makes these pertinent remarks, which I perhaps may be
pardoned for observing fully bear out my assertions as
printed above:—
“ Considering how fashionable marriages originate, it
is astonishing that they do not turn out worse than they
generally do. A man meets a girl in a ballroom, admires
her, gets into the way of dancing with her, calls on her
parents, and, perhaps, is asked to dinner. The end of
the season approaches; she seems to ^prefer him to
others ; the match would be suitable; he proposes and
is accepted. . . . Whatever the cause and explana
tion, a thoroughly united and loving couple is compara
tively seldom to be met with in good society. . . .
Finding it terribly dull at home, she invites some of
her most favoured acquaintances to call on her. Soon
one succeeds in rendering himself more agreeable than
his rivals, and he gradually establishes his position as
permanent cavalier. . . . and she soon gets so used
to his visits and attractions as to look on them as almost
necessaries of life. By degrees the cavalier draws his
intimacy closer. . . . Then the woman must be a
prodigy if she is not in great danger of forfeiting her
fair fame.”
Our novelists and playwrights base the great majority
of their stories and dramatic plots on the unhappiness of
those women. And as it is in “ Society,” so it is in the
ranks of the middle and lower middle classes—in fact, the
bourgeoisie. Mr. Giblet, the poulterer, will not allow his
daughter to wed the son of Mr. Spratt, the fishmonger,
unless he has ocular demonstration of the fact that Spratt
p£re is certain to “ cut up warm,” and vice-versa. The
great linendraper, who has made a fortune by the sale of
shirting and huckaback, urges his son to marry into the
ranks of the aristocracy, and threatens to cut him with
the proverbial shilling unless he does so. Not long ago
the daughter of a Hebrew dressmaker espoused a Roman
Catholic nobleman! Indeed, the children of wealthy
Jews frequently marry into Christian families whose
blood is pure though their purses are light. In fact, from
the top to the bottom of the ladder it is the same story—
“ Proputty—proputty—proputty! ” The American poet
summed up the matter tersely and accurately when he
wrote—
,
“ O, dimes and dollars-—dollars and dimes ’
An empty pocket’s the worst of crimes !3
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
51
It is only on rare occasions that we hear any reference
made to the “ sanctity of the marriage-tie.” This is
well, for, remembering what Society is, and has long
been, it would take a judge who has been through
many divorce cases to tell us the precise amount of
“ sanctity ” which still hovers over the institution of
marriage. A primary evil of the existing institution of
marriage is the mad haste with which many matrimonial
alliances are concluded. The young couple who are to be
“joined together in holy matrimony” see one another, so
to speak, in false colours—at all events, not in their own
characters. They are thrown together for a short time,
when both are decked out in the most attractive manner,
and usually under circumstances which do not admit of
any but the merest puerilities of the day being gossiped
about. A few hasty conversations at parties, where every
thing is artificial, and everybody playing a part; an
occasional chat in a drawing-room, where the girl’s
mother and sisters are watching her every movement and
striving to catch what he is saying; a stolen meeting in the
park or elsewhere—these are often the only opportunities
afforded the husband and wife of the future to become
acquainted with each other. “ Acquaintance ” is indeed
the right word for it, inasmuch as their knowledge of one
another rarely or never developes into anything more
until the clergyman has made them one. But, indeed, it
may be stated as an incontestible fact, that under the
present conditions of social life it takes years for people to
know each other at all intimately; yet, in face of this
drawback, parents willingly give their consent to the
marriage of their children, well knowing that the girl and
the young man are absolutely without any—even the
smallest—knowledge of each other’s real character, tem
perament, disposition, and good or bad qualities. Oppor
tunity of talking over the serious matters inseparable
from that existence into which they are about to plunge,
unreflecting, yet nevertheless responsible, they have
never had. Each is more or less infatuated with the other;
and that is the Alpha and the Omega of their wooing !
A man no sooner endeavours to fathom the ideas,
capabilities, and general character of a girl to whom he
has been drawn more than to another, than his evident
partiality for her is misinterpreted, and he is asked by the
eager match-making mother what his “intentions” are.
Thus he is too often bamboozled into what is called
“ making a declaration,” and he finds himself “ engaged ”
before he knows whether he is standing on his head or os
�53
Lady Cook’s Essays.
his heels I When, by some chance or other, he arrives at
the terrible conclusion that the young lady is not at all
suited to his notions of what a helpmate should be, it is too
late for him to retract, the least symptom of his wish to do
so being greeted by a hint that the matter will have to be
referred to the family solicitor. Fearful of such a denoument as a breach of promise action, he holds to his
written or spoken word, and goes to the altar writh the
knowledge that he is entering upon a marriage which can
but end in dire, humiliating failure. Is it not a crying
shame and scandal that the Church and the law should
sanction such unholy alliances, ending as so many of them
inevitably must, and do end, in the Divorce Court, or
worse ? Surely a woman who offers herself for money in
the street is a lesser offender than one who sells herself at
the altar for a fortune or a title. The former, indeed,
does less positive harm to the community than the latter,
who is guilty of bringing into the world children for whom
she has no real affection, and who are too often the fruit
of a transient animal passion.
Even worse are the marriages of ignorance, which,
alas ! only too often become criminal marriages. When
mothers take less trouble over the accomplishments and
appearance of their children, and more over the early
formation of their characters and dispositions; when,
instead of bedizening them with jewellery, tricking them
out in purple and fine linen, and rushing them into
marriage, for no other reason than to get rid of them
because there are others growing up, and because £hey are
crazy to secure for their offspring big incomes and what
is fatuously termed “ social position ”; when mothers
steadfastly and determinedly impress upon their progeny
the absolute necessity of deep consideration and reflection
before taking a step which can never be retraced, and
which, if hastily and thoughtlessly taken, may embitter
and perhaps ruin several lives ; when mothers become the
true guides, teachers, and loving advisers of their children,
instead of being, as now, their covert enemies; when
they impress upon them that a passing fancy or a spas
modic passion must not be mistaken for love, and that love
which is not based on mutual respect will never serve as
the foundation of married happiness; and when they
teach them that marriage was not instituted for the
simple purpose of getting them “ well provided for ”—in
other words, of enabling them to live the lives of drones;
when, in short, mothers will no longer think it “wrong” to
discuss marriage and its attendant responsibilities with
�Lady Cook’s Essavs.
53
their daughters, but will initiate them into the duties and
requirements of wedded life, and look upon them as their
best friends instead of as burdens and ignorant beings,
from whom everything relating to the innermost life of a
woman—or of man—must be jealously hidden, while girls
must only be permitted to see the artificial side of life,
and be callously left to find out the rest for themselves—
then, and not till then, shall we have moral marriages,
unions of hearts and souls; in which the characters of
both men and women will be elevated, purified, and deve
loped—unions in which both husband and wife can truly
say—not only at the altar, but every day of their lives—
that they will “ love, honour, and respect ” each other,
�54
Lady Cook's Essays.
WRONGS OF MARRIED MEN.
“ If too wary, then she’ll shrew thee,
If too lavish, she’ll undo thee.”
—Cotton!s Joys of Marriage,
The circumstances relating to marriage are becoming
so confused and anomalous, that a re-casting of the laws
pertaining to it must soon be universally demanded. At
present married people scarcely know where they are.
The daily papers constantly give most pathetic accounts
of injured husbands in humble life resorting to Police
Magistrates for assistance or advice, and finding that they
have no remedy against the misconduct of their worthless
partners. We have not been sparing, from time to time,
in enumerating the wrongs of women. But the men have
theirs also to a less degree, and it is only equitable that
attention should be drawn to them, for justice and fair
play should be given to all. We have never demanded
that women should have any privileges denied to men.
We only ask that both should share alike.
Not long ago, when the law gave the husband sole
control of the wife’s unsettled property, it was right that
he should be liable for her maintenance. But when, as
now, a married woman retains her own, the reason for
compelling maintenance from the husband has disap
peared. She maj have a good house and a good income,
and from caprice or other cause, may deny him admittance
to his married home, and to any share of her living. If
destitute he mav go to the workhouse, while she is living in
luxury, and no claim can be made upon her for his sus
tenance. But reverse the positions, and the husband will
be compelled to allow her a maintenance. This system
falls hardest on the poorest. It is not uncommon for a
Police Magistrate to order a working man to contribute
twelve shillings a week or more to the support of a
separated wife. Few men of such a class can do this and
live.
Again, since the Jackson case, no husband can compel
an unwilling wife to cohabit with him. Of course, this is
right enough. But, on the other hand, a wife can compel
an unwilling husband, by a Judge’s order, to restore her
to cohabitation or pay the penalty of refusal. This seems
an unfair distinction. If a husband neglect his wife and
family, so that it become constructive cruelty, the wife
can obtain a separation order without so much as tha
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
53
asking. But a wife may spend her days in dissipation,
may frequent public-houses, and neglect her children, and
the husband has neither remedy nor power to prevent
her.
The wife may be a nagger, a scold, a perpetual
tormentor; one of the class whom our humorous and
practical forefathers cured by the application of a duck
ing-stool and a horse-pond; she may be guilty of any
misconduct short of adultery, and the unfortunate
husband must put up with it all. Many such fly for
refuge to the nearest tavern and drown their misery in
drink, and often become criminal from their misfortune.
Many an honest, hard-working man, too, is punished by
the Magistrates because, in his absence from home, his
wife neglected her duties and kept his children from
school. If the fines are not paid, it is he who is im
prisoned, and not the culprit wife.
Widows can claim, absolutely, one-third of the
personalty of husbands dying intestate, but widowers
have only a life interest in the unwilled property of
deceased wives.
As a rule the husband has to work hard to maintain
his wife and family, but however humble their circum
stances may be, the wife can, if she will, be as idleas she
please, and her husband has no remedy. The law will
punish him for his neglect, but not her for hers. For
merly he could castigate her, now he must not so much
as threaten. A working man complains to a Magistrate
that his wife neglects to get his meals, and when she should
be tidying his home, spends her time gossiping in a public
house. “ Very sorry,” replies the Magistrate, “ but I
can do nothing for you. You have taken her for better
or for worse ; you must grin and bear it.” He refuses,
and leaves her, and she straightway obtains a mainte
nance order against him. But would not easy, swift, and
cheap divorce, be a fairer and more sensible mode of
settling their difficulty? Ought the law to compel
people to commit adultery before they can obtain it ?
These are some of the wrongs under which married
men suffer, owing to the radical changes which have taken
place in the relations of husband and wife since marriage
was made a religious sacrament. A more rational per
ception of its nature, however, is beginning to prevail,
and it is time that all these and other anomalies should
cease. The religious idea of its character must give way.
Marriage will have to be thoroughly re-constructed on the
basis of a civil partnership, terminable at will, or from
�56
Lady Cook’s Essays.
breach of . contract, as in other associations. Even time
partnerships, to lapse at the end of a term, say seven or
any other number of years to be agreed upon, would be
better than the hap-hazard, happy-go-lucky system now
in vogue. These, if agreeable, could be renewed or con
tinued at the will of both. As Mr. Labouchere has just
said in the House of Commons, the Law of Divorce is
utterly absurd. “ If two people,” he added, “ wanted to
be married, let them be married,—and if they wanted to
be. divorced, let them be divorced.” Although these
opinions were greeted with much laughter by the House,
as though they were excessively funny, they are neverthe
less correct, and domestic happiness will never be
universal until they be received as serious truths. Should
there be children of those separated, it would be a simple
matter to compel parents to set aside a sum for their sup
port in a ratio according to the individual property of
each. This would put an end to the filthy accounts of
divorce suits which pollute our daily papers, and which
obtain ready admittance into families where a serious
essay on manners and morals is too often excluded
because it contains a little necessary plain speaking—as
though omelettes could be expected without breaking eggs.
If people could divorce themselves at will and with
out publicity, they would be as careful to preserve each
other’s esteem after, as they were before marriage. We
should then seldom see what so frequently happens now ;
the charming, neat, obliging, fiancee, developing into the
giddy, careless, slatternly, and dis-obliging wife, or the
ardent and devoted lover cooling down into the neglectful
and heartless husband. Those truly married would con
tinue to do all they could to please each other -; and those
superficially united would practise the outward decencies
of married life from mutual and self interests. Marriage
would cease to be the grave of love, and the sum total of
human happiness would be immensely increased. Pos
session during good behaviour is far better for our weak
human nature than possession absolute. In the State of
Illinois, where divorce is as easy as possible, only one
couple in seven resort to it, including strangers who visit
there for the purpose, so that of the inhabitants, perhaps
not more than one in fourteen couples, or one person in
twenty-eight, desire to break through the marriage bond.
The nature of marriage would be elevated by bringing it
as nearly as possible to a condition of mutual satisfaction.
Morality would be increased through it. All that are
required to effect these ends are: equal conditions of
partnership, civil contract, and easy method of separation..
�Lapy Cook’s Essays.
57
ARE WE POLYGAMISTS?
A Domestic Dialogue.
“
. . . That love, Sir,
Which is the price of virtue, dwells not here.”
—Beaumont and Fletcher—The New Lover.
He : I don’t know what you mean, Gladys, by asking
such a ridiculous question. Of course we are not poly
gamists. Polygamy is practised only by Asiatics, Africans,
aboriginal Americans, Mormons, and such people, and not
by Europeans, except in Turkey, much less by English
men.
She : I am quite aware, Bertie, that Englishmen are
not supposed to be polygamists. I know that public
opinion, the laws, and our religion, are understood to be
directed against plurality of wives. But I have heard
and read some very strange things lately, and since our
honeymoon, five years ago, my ideas of marriage have
become so much clearer, that I have really begun to
question whether polygamy may not be an institution
with us in private, although disavowed in public. I
assure you, dear, the query is by no means a ridiculous
one.
He ; I suppose you have been reading some of the
trashy views put forth by the advocates of women’s
rights and other rubbish of that sort. Better stick to a
lively novel, Gladys; it will do you more good.
She : No, Bertie, you have not guessed correctly. My
thoughts are my own. But I don’t see why you should
be so hard on women’s rights. If they have any, sureb
they should be allowed to claim them, and it is not ver
gallant of the men to treat rightful claims so contenr
tuously. Howeve-r, Bertie dear, we won’t quarrel ov
this. But I should so like to ask you a few questions
you will answer them on your honour, well and tn?
They say Socrates used to arrive at the truth by askS
questions. Then why not a woman ?
He: Well, my little philosopher in petticoats,-s^
. what you please, and I will answer as well as
able.
She : Do you love me, Bertie ?
�5s
Lady Cook’s Essays,
He : You darling little goose, of course I do. You
know I do. What makes you ask such a question ?
She : Excuse me, dear, you must not ask questions,
but only answer them. Else the process will be spoilt.
Did you ever love anyone else ?
He : Come now, my little wifey, that’s hardly fair. I
suppose I have done much like other young men. Most
of them sow a few wild oats before they settle down to
the calm delights of matrimony. No one thinks the worse
of them for that, and many believe that they are all the
better for it afterwards.
She : I have heard these sentiments before, dear. I
suppose it soothes men’s consciences to play at this kind
of make-believe. You, Bertie, are very clever and sen
sible, as everyone knows. Do you think immorality is
less immoral because you call it “ wild oats ” ?
He : Certainly not.
She : Does it depend upon sex ?
He : Well, I suppose not. I should say what would
be immoral in one would be immoral in the other.
She : Yet, darling, if you had put the question to me
and l had given a similar reply as to my former life, I am
afraid you would not have forgiven me.
He : I am afraid not, too. But then girls are not ex
pected to do the same as men. Society gives men greater
licence, and with good reason. Conduct which scarcely
harms them would ruin women.
She : Just so. Men weigh their actions in one balance
and ours in another. But they could not sow wild oats
unless women helped them.
He : True, but not your sort, dear. I think we had
t better not discuss them.
She : Then you can answer my question. Did you
ever love anyone else ?
He : Most men love, or think they love, many times,
perhaps, before they meet with the right one. I have
done the same. But I have never loved anyone as I love
you, Gladys, and that should satisfy you.
1 She : It does. I am very proud and happy in
yobr love, darling. I am only trying in my weak, and,
peliaps, foolish way, to see whether we are polygamists
or Vot. So I am sure you will humour me for a few
minLtes. Did you ever know a man obtain the affections
of a tvoman, persuade her to live with him in all the man
ner ok a wife, and then legally marry some one else while .
so enraged ?
I am sorry to say, many.
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
59
She : Is it true that it is quite a common thing, for
men of means especially, both married and single, to have
one or more mistresses and to keep two or more homes ?
He : I am afraid it is very common, from the well-todo even up to royalty, and the higher the more so.
She : And if a Prince, say, marry one woman with
his left hand and another with his right, and he call the
first marriage morganatic, what should we call the second ?
He : I don’t know. I suppose the second does away
with the first.
She : How can it ? It doesn’t do away with the
woman and her children. If the second is not bigamy
it must be polygamy,
He : But, possibly, he may not have any further con
nection with the first. Polygamy does not mean a series
of wives, but having more than one at the same time.
She : I am aware. But I believe it is not the habit of
polygamists in the foreign parts you first mentioned, to be
closely associated always with all their wives. No one
can suppose that Solomon for example, loved a thousand
women at once. One or two favourite ones usually
supplant the others, but these are maintained and their
children cared for because the mothers continue to be
wives in name, as they were at one time in fact. There
is something honest about this. Every woman knows
beforehand that she must expect associate wives, and
often prefers them, because they share and lighten her
duties. Her constitution is seldom broken down by
excessive child-bearing. But English women endure
much because they are led to anticipate an undivided
empire over their husbands, who, by your own admission
give them only a share in their affections and embraces.
If the custom is general, it would be better for the happi
ness of women if we were to profess polygamy as well as
practise it,—better if it were acknowledged openly and
legalized as in the East. Do you think it general ? Pray
answer me carefully, dear.
He : Why, Gladys, your praises of polygamy surprise
me. It will not be very hard to convert the men. For '
am ashamed to confess,—but a promise is a promise,that in every class of life men have mistresses. I do n<
mean to say that all have, or that the practice is alwa
general with those who do. On the contrary I belie
that, as a rule, the union is occasional only, and that
any given moment those who thus indulge themselvesi
in a minority. Yet there are comparatively few who0
not have concubines at some time or other in their lb
*
�6d
Lady Cook’s Essays*
She : You are trifling with me. I do not admire
polygamy, but I admire honesty, and honest polygamy is
better than dishonest and hypocritical polygamy. Young
married women are the fashion, now, I am told. But
what becomes of these women ?
He: Heaven knows. I don’t like to speculate. I fear
that, when cast off, they retaliate by deceiving other men,
and go from bad to worse. Sometimes they pass from
one “ protector” to another; at others, they fall as low as
women can.
She : Then that disposes of all excuse for wild oat sow
ing. r The results are terrible to think of. What would you
say of me, Bertie, if after professing to love you above all
men, and you only, after lying in your bosom and becoming
your other self, I were, from mere caprice or selfish con
venience, to cast you forth to poverty, shame, the streets,
and premature death,—I having the power, as men have,
to do all these ?
He : I cannot imagine it, dear. You couldn’t do it.
She : No I I could not do it, and I cannot understand
how men can do it. But such creatures are not men.
Cowards, like these, do not deserve to call any woman
mother.
He : You are getting excited, and the children are just
coming in and will want to see us.
She : The darlings ! O, Bertie, promise me to guard
our boy against sowing wild oats, and I will teach our
little Gladys to shun the snares and follies that may
I threaten her in the future.
\
He : We will both do our best to shield them from
evil.
' She : And, as to the question with which we started,
I suspect I am not sufficiently Socratic, or you have been
oo vague in your replies, for although, from what I have
\eard,'I fear that Englishmen are mostly polygamists by
ractice or inclination, I am not able to decide it from my
yn observation. Suppose we submit our remarks to the
tblic. You know “ in the multitude of counsel there is
lA.sdom.”
| He : The very thing. I will write them out at once,
■
i
1
B
B
■
B
v
V
•A
�Lady Cook’s Essays.
, 6x
MORALS OF AUTHORS.
,
J .....
It is a melancholy fact that the morals of writers and
their writings have often been at variance. A large num
ber of distinguished authors whose works have become
immortal, and whom it would be invidious to mention,
have been men of indifferent lives, and in some cases
grossly dissolute and abandoned. Their work, however,
was better than themselves, and has been preserved and
valued for its intrinsic merit. Genius and moral purity
should be inseparable, but unfortunately it is not so. As
a rule, men of great abilities have claimed for themselves
a license denied to meaner mortals, and on the whole it
has been regretfully conceded to them. For just as we
pardon the private follies and wickedness of those
monarchs who have ruled well, so with these, the true
kings of men, mankind have been lenient to their faults
for the sake of their great public usefulness. Strange to
say, no matter to what department of intellectual or
artistic greatness we turn our eye, we observe that its
mc-st splendid members have very frequently been distin
guished for eccentricity or recklessness, they soar higher
and fall lower than other men. “ Great wits to madness
are allied,” said the poet, and thus brilliant abilities have
been too often united to moral worthlessness. But by
universal practice and consent, a distinction has been
preserved between the worker and his work. Each has
been judged separately, and thus some of the priceless
intellectual and artistic treasures of past times have come
down to us, whereas otherwise they would have been lost.
It was chiefly reserved for this century, and notably since
the days of Wesley and Lord Byron, to attempt to mea
sure a man’s work by the standard of his moral character.
This spirit, however, has never been so remarkably ex
hibited as during the last few weeks. And as it appears
to be opposed to sound sense and to the public welfare,
we desire to question its utility and therefore its morality.
An author and playwright of some considerable repu»
tMion has been convicted by a jury of infamous crim
**
�62
Lady Cook's Essays.
nality. Before his conviction—indeed, as soon as he was
charged—his works were in some places withheld from
the public. And now a Member of the Westminster
Vestry has given notice to move “that they be withdrawn
from the two public libraries in Westminster, and that
the other local authorites in London be requested to take
the same course in regard to the libraries under their
control.” Several libraries had already done this, per
haps without sufficient consideration. We have never
had any acquaintance whatever, beyond common repute,
with the author in question or his literary works. But
these, we presume, were good to have become so popular,
and if they were good then they must be the same now.
Here we regard only the principle involved. This resolves
itself into the query—Should we prohibit or refuse good
work because of the immorality of the author or doer ?
The absurdity of an affirmative to this question should
be self-evident, and, if carried out, would land us into
endless difficulties. If our baker bakes good bread, or
our bootmaker makes good boots, we do not ask what are
the morals of these tradesmen before eating the bread
and wearing the boots. It would be agreeable to know
that they are worthy people, and sad to think them the
reverse, but the usefulness of their handiwork would not
be affected by either sentiment. Indeed one ought to be
thankful to be able to get a good thing at all without
troubling about the moral deficiencies of the makers.
We do not inquire before buying a picture whether
the artist is moral or otherwise. The quality of the work
is all we regard. If literature is to be an exception to
this custom, there would be very little left but that of
inferior value, for, unfortunately, as we have said, the
men of highest genius have been too frequently of ex
tremely shaky morals.
The virtuous vestryman of Westminster no doubt
goes to church regularly and enjoys the Psalms of David
and the Song of his son Solomon. But the worst of
modern authors are the pinks of propriety compared to
those old poetic Jews who perpetrated many villainies.
However, we do not on that account move that these
amorous and religious effusions be withdrawn from
Westminster Abbey and our other churches. On the con
trary, if their perusal will do any one any good, by all
means let people read them. And let us thank God that
it is possible to educe good from the evil, and to paint
the beauty of the rose and the fairness of the lily from
the ordure of the stable.
�It is surprising how virtuous everybody is when some
one more unfortunate is found out. Some men have been
practising an indescribable and abominable custom from
time immemorial. The greatest and most accomplished
were frequently addicted to it, and thousands of well born
and high bred in our country today still follow it. If the
waves of indignation which are said to pass over the
English speaking nations demand that the intellectual
work of its votaries be also condemned, then, to be con
sistent, we must prohibit the choicest efforts of genius.
Horace, and most of the rest of the ancient classics must
be burnt, the Bible expurgated, and possibly even our
own glorious Shakespeare himself would come under the
ban. Are our great works to make room for some of the
puling and demoralizing novels of up-to-date writers, the
giants to give way to pigmies ? It would seem so if
we permit vestrymen to decide.
If we are genuine in our desire to root out this immo
rality, we should attack the many instead of making scape
goats of one or two. We should check the growth of
this abomination in our schools and colleges, where our
youths are too often educated in the vice, and stamp it
out in our Army and Navy as we did the leprosy. And
our sense of virtue should impel us to lay hands upon
that viler and far more important abuse : the betrayal and
ruin of innocent girls, for, unlike the other, this is fol
lowed by every evil: suicide, infanticide, destitution,
disease, or death,.
�TI-IE FIRST
SERIES
OF
LADY COOK’S ESSAYS
ON THE
EVILS OF SOCIETY
CONTAINS I
iJ * a*
IDEAL WOMAN
..
..
•• »-.......................
VIRTUE...........................................
3
8
I2
MODESTY
..
MATERNITY
.. .. '...............................................
1Q
....................................................
2Q
MOTHERS AND THEIR DUTIES.......................
3I
REGENERATION OF UOiNETY
PRUDERY
.......................
35
..
THE LOST RIB
MORAL ESPIONAGE
............................................
4g
PLEA FOR YOUNG & OLD MAIDS.......................
5I
MOTHERS-IN-LAW......................................................
55
AID FOR THE POOR
............................................
TO BE OBTAINED OF THE UNIVERSAL PUBLISHING Co.,
24, Bedfordbury, Covent Garden, London, W.C,
Pries id. Post Free, iH
�PUBLISHERS’ NOTICE.
The Publishers desire to inform the numerous
Readers of the First and Second Series of Lady
Cook’s Essays, and the General Public, that the
Third Series will be issued shortly in Book Form,
much larger and on good paper, at the Low Price
of Sixpence.
As only a limited number will be
printed, orders should be sent in without delay.
No money will be accepted till day of publication,
when we will notify those who send them Names
and Addresses.
Her Ladyship’s future works will comprise
a large number of most powerful essays, amongst
which will be—
Advice to Parents,
Advice to Young Men,
Advice to Young Girls,
Advice to Married Women,
Advice to Married Men,
Advice to Those About to Marry, and
Improvement of the Race Morally and
Physically.
besides numerous other striking articles that will
appear for the first time, and for which the
Publishers
take the responsibility o’t bringing
before the Public.
;THE UNIVERSAL PUBLISHING CO.
N.B,—All of Lady Cook’s Essays can be had
through your Newsagent on Application.
�DEDICATION
THE FOLLOWING ESSAYS ARE AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED TO
MY DEAR HUSBAND,
WHO HAS MOST GENEROUSLY AIDED ME IN ALL MY WORK.
THE FIRST SERIES
OF
ESSAYS
LADY COOK’S
ON THE
EVILS OF SOCIETY
CONTAINS
Page.
IDEAL WOMAN
...
...
VIRTUE
MODESTY
...
...
MATERNITY ...
THE LOST RIB
...
...
...
...
MOTHERS AND THEIR DUTIES
REGENERATION OF SOCIETY ...
PRUDERY
...
...
...
MORAL ESPIONAGE
...
PLEA FOR YOUNG AND OLD MAIDS
...
MOTHERS-IN-LAW
AID FOR THE POOR
.......................
...
...
...
3
8
12
16
26
31
35
43
48
51
55
60
To be obtained of the UNIVERSAL PUBLISHING COMPANY,
24, Bedfordbury, Covent Garden, London, W.C., and can be
obtained from all Newsagents.
Price Id.
Post Free, l£d.
N.B.—If your Newsagent has not got Lady Cook's Essays in
stools he can obtain them for you through his Agent, or
direct from the Publishing Office.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Lady Cook's essays
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cook, Tennessee Claflin [Lady]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: [3],63, [3] p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Contents: A short history of marriage -- True love -- Who should propose? -- Which is to blame? man or woman? -- Marriage -- Wrongs of married men -- Are we polygamists? a domestic dialogue -- Morals of authors. Contains material previously published elsewhere, likely in 'Evils of Society and their Remedies'. Second Series of Essays, Universal Publishing Company, 1895. Publisher's notice, advertisements and author's dedication on unnumbered pages at end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Universal Publishing Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1895?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N179
Subject
The topic of the resource
Marriage
Women
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 (Lady Cook's essays), 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
Marriage
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/714f94f00334eae281173238a0a5b8c5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=F8Od9xpQduTqv7tJ5EIdi9uTKE0sidxRIdbBmHOKvWqx%7EqLQYfc650uJZlEnNt8Zcm9PIrMVpcqbXdc-0EGBDW12Fb9r6srm%7EWsx8jGfJEo7AXbZi%7EQCC-FTE4KQHaojYjFcCM-tsjpFTTONh48ZpJsI5yZuuLmNkTWVWRY-SIC27%7E9g1fv6I4L9YfcxOO295yHeGz%7E-Cy0RxJ0bcPilF549dw7uAgHmfaROtIkiEqR13Oy6eTiSkOPkR2BWLmQvNwJhNd4rEK%7EsdXkSfAbOfCnbQ3jYMWH2UIXKyErox9FBXCzMGOWSwovNk16ZiBY2hN2%7EX2Dz4jV14TADWratmw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2fb0683fc830402415c5a739bb134ea5
PDF Text
Text
■ 7'7,
•'■fu
LARGE OR SMALL FAMILIES?
ON WHICH SIDE LIES
THE BALANCE OF COMFORT?
BY AUSTIN HOLYOAKE.
To be publicly known as a Freethinker is not respectable, to be suspected
of Atheism is monstrous, and to be an avowed Malthusian is detestable!
These are weighty reasons why a man who wishes to- be “ thought well of
by his neighbours,” and who is “quite sure the world will go on well
enough without his interference,” should hold his peace, make money, and
die in the odour of respectable sanctity “universally regretted by a large
circle of acquaintances.*’ But to some men conscience is higher than
consequence. This may be their misfortune, but they are afflicted with the
infirmity of speaking out what they think, because they are infatuated
enough to imagine that what they have to say may benefit others. There
are the names of many men in history who have done this thing, generally
to their own loss, but to the world’s great advantage.
Without the vanity of insinuating that what I may say will ever be
recorded in history, and knowing that the force of the argument of the
present paper can only apply to certain states of society in certain coun
tries, I wish to record for the first time convictions which I have enter
tained for many years, believing and hoping sincerely that they will be
productive of benefit and not of evil to others.
That most delicate of all subjects, the Population Question, the news
papers generally shun lest they should lose caste, and the medical periodi
cals are dead against it. But then it is a question which presses for
solution more and more every day, and which underlies the happiness of
the great mass of the population in all old and over-populated countries;
it therefore becomes imperative that some one should endeavour to point
out a remedy, or at least a palliative for the widespread misery, suffering,
and disease which are kept up and perpetuated from generation to genera
tion. This topic has been dilated upon by men whose names will
be remembered in history, and all honour to them for their courage. The
Rev. Mr. Malthus, though his views in some respects I believe to have
been radically defective, did more good by the attention he called to this
question, than by all the dogmatic sermons he ever preached. Robert
Dale Owen, the worthy son of a worthy sire, wrote his invaluable tract
entitled “Moral Physiology;” Dr. Knowlton published his pamphlet
“ Fruits of Philosophyand later has appeared a work—to which is due
the honour of having revivified Subject which had become dormant from
the close of the Socialist agitation in 1844, till the time of its appearance
— “The Elements of Social Science.” Other works treat upon population,
from Mr. John Stuart Mill’s great treatise on “ Political Economy,”
down to a penny tract entitled “ Poverty: its Cause and Cure. ” This
question is the political problem of to-day, and he who solves it will be the
most useful man of his age.
�.Large or Small Families ?
Various schemes are propounded for the amelioration of the growing
want and misery of this country, such as Home Colonisation, Emigration,
Co-operation, Trades’ Unions, and the like. All writers and statesmen
admit the fact of an increasing population, and consequently an increasing
poverty, pauperism, and starvation. But this may be taken as an absolute
truth, that no one scheme could supply an universal remedy, the causes of
poverty and suffering in our civilised mode of life being so multifarious.
I do not intend to travel over the whole field of politics, or out of this
small country of ours. I wish to narrow the question to a very small
compass, and to individualise it; here is the root of the evil, and when
the root is diseased, neither branches nor leaves can be healthy.
England is a small island, and, in proportion to the land under cultiva
tion for human food, it is over-populated No one disputes that fact
The over-population produces disease, suffering, starvation, and death.
If instead of thirty, we had twenty millions of human beings, would there
not be a better chance of health and food for all ? Home colonists say that
as long as there is land in this country, it ought to be cultivated, and then
double the present number could be maintained. This is not to be disputed.
But supposing that by some grand act of legislation, the whole land of this
country were to be suddenly distributed to the people, and made to main
tain double the present population, how long would society be in a better
state than it is now? Just twenty-five years! But supposing it took
longer, still the inevitable result would ultimately come, unless some sys
tem of regulating the population were adopted. This island is limited,
and unless the people on it consent to limit their numbers, the evils from
which we now suffer, will not only not diminish, but will go on increasing.
I am not unmindful of the disproportions and inequalities which abound,
and which must be considerably modified before anything approaching to a
rational state of society can obtain. I have always warred against the
injustice of our societary arrangements, and I believe the efforts of the
social reformers of this century have been productive of lasting good to
our race. But in the present day, in spite of all the teaching and
preaching we have had during the last half century, we find ourselves in
the midst of a more widespread misery and starvation than perhaps
England has ever known before. We talk of the sacredness of human life,
but human life shares the fate of every other “ article ” which gluts the
market—it becomes depreciated in value; and it will, as amatter of course,
never rise in value so long as the supply is abundant. England’s weak
ness at this moment is her oyerwhelming population. We devise schemes
of emigration to get rid of those who are compelled to abandon the place
of their birth, and sever the ties of kindred and home, and seek for a sub
sistence in the uncultivated wilds of a foreign land thousands of miles
away from the associates of their youth and the friends of their maturity.
Let those who think it is a good thing that the Anglo-Saxon race should
people the world, watch the poor emigrants as the ships leave our shores,
and also look into the faces of the relatives and friends whom the expa
triated are parting with for ever, and t^n say if it would not be more
humane to prevent so much agony in the world. Granted there may be
plenty of beautiful spots on this globe which are suitable for new colonies,
still it is the last duty I should consider incumbent upon me to send my
children to inhabit them. It is no concern of mine, or any man’s in
particular, whether these places are populated or not. The aborigines of
every sparsely peopled country that the Anglo-Saxon race have seized
upon to which to carry the “ blessings of rum and true religion
�Large or Small Families ?
whether it be Africa, America, Australia, New Zealand, or elsewhere—
have never had reason to believe in the righteousness of the “ pale faces ”
over-running their land; for wherever Englishmen go, there they spread
vice, disease, and death among the “ untutored savages,” and never rest
till they have exterminated the ancient possessors of the soil.
More than nine-tenths of the natives of England would prefer to
remain in the land of their birth, if they could be ensured a moderate
return for their industry. The “ roving Englishman ” is generally a
person of means, who travels about the world for his own amusement,
knowing he can return at any moment he feels “ home sick.” The great
majority of people object to leave even the town in which they have been
reared, hence the crowding of large cities, London especially. And if
this question were confined to the town-life aspect of it alone, there would
be much to be said in favour of limitation. In fact, it is here that it
presses with such peculiar force upon the thoughtful artisan, the small
tradesman, and the professional man,
A working man in London, with a large family, if he be reflective, and
a person of some refinement, cannot have a happy home. The conditions
of happiness to him do not exist. He has no privacy, and the proper de
cencies of domestic life are not at his command. His children are not
surrounded by the necessary conditions to ensure their healthy training,
either physically or mentally. His eldest boy may be his pride, and he
thinks he would make a bright man if he could be sent to a good school for
a number of years; but then there are five or six others to be considered,
and in justice to them he cannot spend money in the education of one, which
is required for the food and clothing of the others. And so that wish of his
heart is thrust down, and the boy, instead of becoming a brilliant man in
some profession, is made a carpenter, a shoemaker, or blacksmith, and is
known in after years as “ Harry Despond, who would have been a clever
fellow if he had been educated when young?” And in times of trade
disputes, when the toiler is impelled to resist some reduction in his wages,
trifling though it may seem, but which will make the difference to him
between subsistence and semi-starvation—who is it who holds out longest
in “strikes” (those battles of the poor swarms against the rich few), he
who has one or two children, or the man who “ has a large number depend
ing upon him?” The thoughtless working man supplies the weapons for
his own defeat.
The small tradesmen—that large section of the population of England
who form what is called “ the lower middle-class”—are influenced in the
same degree, though in a different way. At periods of public excitement
—it may be a municipal election, or a general election, or when some dar
ing attempt of a retrograde Government is made to wrest from the people
one of their dearly-bought liberties—if you appeal to the small tradesman
for his active co-operation in the popular cause, you are constantly met by
the reply,I would if I dared, but then you know I have a large family
dependent up me; I would not care for myself, but I am bound to think of
them. My sympathies are entirely with you, but I am obliged to keep
quiet, for it is as much as I can do to pay rent and taxes, and keep the
wolf from the door.” And so the ever-present obstacle in this island, “ a
large family,” stands in the way of education, reform, social comfort, and
a thousand necessary and desirable changes. But to what do we mainly
owe this state of things ? Why, to that pestilential doctrine derived from
the Bible, “ Increase and multiply,” which is taught in our churches
as an “ ordinance of God, ” and which has been the cause of more crime
�4
Large or Small Families ?
and anguish in England than any other false doctrine that ever cursed the
land. No one is bound to increase and multiply, excepting it be perfectly
agreeable to him and suitable to his circumstances in life. No man is
master of his fate so long as he keeps on multiplying “ circumstances”
which control him at every turn.
The class of clerks in London are numbered by the thousand. They
may be in Government departments, in laweyrs’ offices, in banks, in mer
chants’ warehouses, and other places. They have to sustain the external
appearance of gentlemen, and their incomes are fixed, or if they increase,
it is only by slow degrees, providing they remain in one establishment for
a number of years. But as domestic matters are usually managed, their
responsibilities multiply yearly, and there is no corresponding increase of
means. And all know what a misery genteel poverty is. During the first
three or four years of the married life of a poor professional man, he can
manage to live in a decent neighbourhood in town ; but as time goes on,
he must either remove into an inferior locality, or move out of town into
the suburbs, as, having a number of children, he is “ objected to on
account of his family ” in every desirable house where he wishes to occupy
apartments only. And let every man reflect hew much he loses of rest, of
time, of money, and of opportunities of instruction, of amusement, or of
friendly intercourse, by being obliged to “catch a train” or an omnibus
every night of his life; and the same anxiety and excitement have to be
repeated every morning, when he who has to pursue a daily occupation
in town is compelled, by economical considerations, to live out of it. A
physician some time ago gave it as his experience, that the mortality
among city men whs lived out of town, was greatly in excess of that among
those who lived only a walking distance from their places of business,
owing to the excitement induced by anxiety to catch the train or omnibns
night and morning.
Hitherto I have viewed this question almost entirely ffom the man’s
point of view. But that is not the whole aspect of the case. There is the
woman’s, which is quite as important, as the happiness of the world may
be said to be in her keeping. The marriage state is the only rational and
moral state for the vast majority of adult human beings, and anything that
prevents or even hinders that, injures the individual and society. But
then the advocates of unlimited families do not hesitate to praise the pru
dence of the young man who says “ he cannot marry until he has made a
position in the world.” They surely cannot reflect upon the many evils
arising from delay. Look at the state of our streets, and read the pro
ceedings of the coroners’ courts. We are taught to regard with horror the
custom in China of regulating their population by killing a certain propor
tion of the female children; but what is the condition of London, where,
Dr. Lancaster says, the hands of thousands of mothers are imbrued in the
blood of their infants, and where specimens of “ God’s image ” done to
‘death may be picked up in the squares, on door steps, and fished out of
the river between the rising and setting of every sun ? Is this a state of
things to be pleaded for, and is there no remedy to be devised to put an
end to so much brutalising demoralisation ? If persons understood tha1 it
was possible to have early marriages and small families, a marked change
would be visible in society in a few years. In the present state of the
population in England, if every adult male were to take a wife, there
would then remain an enormous number of women without husbands.
Some persons think they see in the plan of Dale Owen and others, the door
opened to wide-spread immorality. This fear would be entitled to respect
�La/rge or Small Families ?
5
if the present state of society were perfect. There is no plan on 3ny sub
ject that may not be abused. In spite of the deadly consequences arising
from immorality now, thousands upon thousands of reckless and vicious
people abound who dare all consequences. Everybody agrees that the social
problem wants solving, and that “ some remedy ought to be devised," but
very few have the courage to broach this population question, owing to the
sneers and odium they have to encounce. The remedy now proposed can
be adopted by every individual as soon as its expediency is seen.
All men, generally speaking, not only admire their own wives, but are
gratified when other people speak approvingly of their healthy and
pleasing looks after years of married life. But those men who admire their
wives most, are too often reckless of the charms which win admiration.
Constantly do we hear it said by persons when speaking of married women
—“ Ah, I knew Mrs.------ before she was married. She was one of the
prettiest girls in our neighbourhood a few years ago; but she has had
children so fast, that she is a complete wreck of her former self.” This is
of so common occurrence, that almost every adult person knows a case in
point. But how cruel all this is to the woman. No man, however philoso
phical he may be, or however “ high ” his moral principles, feels the same
interest in a faded wife, as he does in a bright and healthy one. There
are exceptions, of course, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, the
deterioration of the wife arises from the selfishness of the husband. Man first
destroys the greatest charm of his life, and then has the “ consolation" of
knowing that he is the author of his own misery. He who is blessed with
a wife who retains the bloom of youth through a number of years, glides
into the vale of life unconscious of a thousand troubles which rack the
souls of men not so fortunately circumstanced. There is much talk about
conservatism in politics; but if there were a little more thought devoted to
conservatism in domestic life, it would be better for the human race. In
married life, the domestic affections may be more perfectly realised by a
small family than a large one, and the truest love and the most generous
consideration go hand in hand.
It has been frequently maintained, that the children of large families
make better men and women than those of small ones, because, having to
go out into the world from the earliest age, they learn to “ rough it, ”
whereas the children of small families are brought up more tenderly, and
are apt to be a little pampered. It is undeniable that two children only
in a family are more likely to be better nurtured than four or six, but that
they are always spoiled thereby, is no more true than that the roughly
“dragged up” always make industrious and useful citizens. If there be
any truth in the alleged refining influence of education and good surround
ings, the balance of probabilities is against the roughly trained being so
useful in the world as the cultivated. And at what a cost is this “ rough
and vigorous ” member of society produced. The mother of a numerous
progeny risks her life eight or ten times, besides passing the best portion
of her existence in continual suffering. A grave charge made by oppo
nentsis, that to check the population is an “ abnormality,” and must im
pairs the health of both man and woman. This is not true; but if it were,
it would be easy to show that the ailments forced upon women in a
“natural” way, far exceed any possible to arise from an exercise of
prudence. In hundreds, nay thousands of families in this country, the
doctor and the undertaker are constantly in attendance; and where such
is the case, who can say that there is a “home,” in the true sense of
that term, for either the father or r >ther? With a large family, the
�6
La/rge or Small Families ?
father is never free from the harassing care of providing the means for
their bare subsistence. A working man who has to support six or eight
besides himself, has little leisure and small desire to cultivate his own mind,
and this is a fact worthy of consideration by all who wish well to the
present generation. The most delightful impulses of our mature years are
excited and called forth by the love of children, but the impulses are
always checked, and sometimes almost obliterated, when anxiety and de
privation enter the house. To preserve the happy medium is a wise
economy of the small share of happiness which falls to the lot of man.
(It must not be forgotten, that the whole of my arguments have
special reference to the working classes, of whatever degree.)
Duggan, the man who recently murdered his wife and six children,
and then committed suicide, might have been alive and compara
tively happy, and the world have been saved the remembrance of an
appalling crime, if he had had two children instead of six. He was a
journeyman silversmith with a moderate wage, and for eight persons to
be sustained out of so limited an income, meant semi-starvation, with no
education for the children, and perpetual drudgery for the mother, for how
was she to maintain a servant out of her scanty weekly allowance ? Dug
gan was a man of weakly body, and possibly weakly mind, and had he
been relieved of sixty-six per cent, of his “ responsibilities,” in all
probability he would have been able to have borne his burden through
life.
Children who are well cared for and gently reared, experience in their
early days the purest and most unalloyed happiness that life can give.
But how few members of large and poor families ever wish to pass their
childhood over again. And if one or both parents should die early, how
rarely is it that more than two or three out of a family of six or eight
ever “do well.” Their number is a bar to their prospects, and their
relatives being totally unable to provide for such a “ swarm,” they are
left to the tender mercies of an already over-stocked society, and their
destiny becomes impossible of calculation.
It is urged, that to interfere with the domestic relations, will be to press
with peculiar hardship upon the poor. I think this is a mistaken notion.
I have been endeavouring to show that the tradesman and professional
man, as well as the artisan, would be more independent with fewer “ en
cumbrances,” as the supposed child-loving population designate children;
but the poor man, in consequence of his poverty, has most to gain by pru
dence. The real objection underlying the opposition, though it is not openly
expressed, is the idea of the deprivation of pleasure supposed to be involved.
But this by no means follows. And if it were so, I think I have shown
that it would be but tbe substitution of one advantage for a greater. Earl
Russell, in a non-Parliamentary address, said, a few years ago, that life
was a “compromise.” He was certainly right, look at life as we may.
The same passion or desire, though felt by all, does not operate in all with
the same intensity. Some require more sleep than others, but they can
not indulge in it if their position in life does not admit of it. One man has
an inordinate craving for drink, but when he gratifies it at tbe expense of
his means and his sobriety, all “ society ” condemn him. Another has a
dainty appetite, and must have expensive dishes and plenty of them—he
is an epicure, A sluggard who is selfish, will only work half a day, when
he ought, to keep his family in decent circumstances, t© labour a whole
one—him we shun as lazy. But the man who has ten children, when he
can only keep two, we pity, and subscribe for, and regard as unfortunate.
�Large or Small Families ?
1
But where is the difference? Why should one passion or desire have
more immunity than the others?
Some opponents of the practice of limiting the population, urge that the
future state of society should be considered, and profess to dread the pros
pect of the world being without inhabitants. I confess that this consider
ation does not disturb me. In fact, I do not consider it incumbent upon
me to provide for a “ possible ” future. I am interested in the improve
ment of the present state of society, and I feel perfectly assured the future
populations of this globe will be more likely to know how to regulate
their own affairs than we are. The present generation being anxious to
control the future, is like a miser wishing to dispose of his wealth even
after his death. The great difficulty in politics is how to get rid of the
laws and restrictions bequeathed to us by our ancestors, who were no
doubt very solicitous that people in after ages should be “ well governed,”
forgetting that every new generation has fresh ideas and fresh require
ments.
I never heard but one argument, from a national point of view, against
limiting the population, which struck me as possessing any force, and it is
this. It is said, and said justly, that the thoughtful people who are
capable of self-control, are the best citizens; and if they reduce their own
numbers, by limiting their families, they are virtually abandoning society
to the vicious and improvident classes—the swarms who generate and
overspread the land like some of the prolific lower animals. This is a
little startling to the man who is desirous, not only of improving present
society, but that which is to follow. But hitherto the competition between
the two classes has not been very encouraging, for while “ every day a
wise man dies, every minute a fool is bom.” Of course it will be urged,
why seek to lessen the chances of the inferior classes being counter-balanced
by the superior? I think the prudence inculcated by the system of early
marriages and small families will not have that effect, for it is not exclu
sively from the lower, or even the lowest class that all criminals spring.
The younger sons and daughters of middle and upper class parents, having
the notions of “gentility ” without the means, frequently have recourse to
questionable practices to keep up “appearances.”
This question, viewed physiologically, to the student of human nature
is a most interesting one. Our present system of haphazard marriages
is productive of a great deterioration of the human race. Unions
are daily contracted between people who ought never to come to
gether, and if the evil could be limited to the contracting parties,
it would be of inestimable advantage to society. There are also others
who are attracted to each other by the strongest feelings of love,
and to prevent their marriage would be a real hardship; but for such
people to become parents is a crime. Robert Owen was a firm believer in
the influence of circumstances in the formation of character, and advocated
the surrounding of every individual at birth with superior associations, in
order to develop the good, and suppress the evil, tendencies of their natures.
This is sound and rational. But a vast amount of disease and vice would
oe prevented if the “ education ” commenced earlier—namely, if parents
Were only to have children when they themselves were perfectly healthy,
and when their means would allow of their properly nurturing and educat
ing all their offspring alike. The late Pierrepont Greaves was a strong
advocate of this system of regenerating the world, and was somewhat op
posed to Robert Owen’s doctrine of circumstances. Robert Owen’s cele
brated saying was this—“ Man’s character is formed for him and not by
�8
Large or Small Families ?
him." Mr. Greaves formulated his thesis thus—" As being is before
knowing, so education can never remedy the defects ef birth." There is a
world of truth in both sayings, and if Greaves were acted upon first,
and Robert Owen afterwards, a few generations hence would be the
heritors of sound bodies and sound minds; and the enormous sums now
spent in doctors to cure diseases which need never exist, in parsons who
flourish out of the superstition engendered by ignorance, and the policemen
and jailors who are employed to punish the vice and crime arising from
defective organisations and immoral training—might be devoted to schools
where real knowledge would be taught, and in the purchase of necessaries'
for domestic happiness, without which no family is free to develop to the
full its mental and moral attributes.
There is no possibility of gainsaying the fact, that this country is overpopulated, that at our usual rate of increase it must always remain so, and
not only not improve, but gradually grow worse. There is only one of two
ways of relieving the over-stocked labour market, and that is by death or
emigration, and either one is a calamity from which we all instinctively
shrink. I have not considered the state of any other country than Eng
land, and I have not directed my remarks to any other, whether continen
tal or American. The social problem at home presses for solution, and in
adducing this as a remedy for much of the evil which threatens to over
whelm us, 1 do not pretend that it is free from objection, but I do submit
that it is worthy of serious consideration.
In this tract I have endeavoured to show, that persons of a ** philoso
phical ’’ turn of mind may marry early and avoid the evils of delay; may
cultivate the domestic affections at a moderate cost of health and anxiety;
may conserve the charms which yield the keenest joy in wedded life; may
ensure to their offspring sound bodies and sound minds; may train those
minds to the fullest extent and under the happiest circumstances; may keep
their children around them and get them well placed; may control their
own fate and maintain their independence; and if my conclusions be sound,
there can be little doubt on which side lies the balance of comfort.
[Those who are not acquainted with the practical remedies, will find all
necessary information in the little tract “ Poverty: its Cause and Cure,”
price one penny. J
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed and Published by Austin & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court,
Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Large or small families? On which side lies the balance of comfort?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, Austin
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4952
Subject
The topic of the resource
Birth control
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Large or small families? On which side lies the balance of comfort?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Birth Control
Marriage
Population Increase
Poverty
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6de107ecb6cb1c012e8ef8d4e1665667.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=IRmrDNyeO8nvhN0hrOP2B-SxD5uNs1UJt77Att6C98z-92rCiUaKXQ2o2%7EQlo01lkp-MSv%7EsFA9ZwZqISBDtacI-1-GKGwIdtY7weQShS4IUGT-5dZ31O50F4aEUGtWCYUTMRX-SnbRBZ7VcWj9egcG%7EWF0xIOy4GRiLq2d4bP8ExkeTziNFtvrhVyGUBNd912H1X8ggcb4wZMD8DXGw4ltMWzcx5Z8jvgAhnQk8cpxR8Jd%7EBNqJTV%7EcfT9a99iT1bLt3dXYsaJhohU7YH8iP5BDsIdSy9iOgqsmN2sSR9pMFlvE1KxkX5nIl8eMTL20MvDhPw-cl1uVRkn1gLje3w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7c494523eee86ac7949e014048d24231
PDF Text
Text
national secular scc7^
MARRIAGE
AND
DIVORCE
AN AGNOSTIC’S VIEW.
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY G. W. EOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�V9 0-73 0
M374-
During November and December, 1889, the North
American Review printed a number of articles by repre
sentative men on the subject of Divorce. The editor
framed a series of four questions, which the various
writers replied to. Colonel Ingersoll answered them
seriatim and fully, without the least evasion or reserve,
having a habit, not only of meaning what he says, but of
saying what he means. His article is now reproduced
for the benefit of English readers. It is a very important
contribution to the literature of the marriage question,
and it is to be hoped that those who are privileged to
read it will circulate it amongst their friends and
acquaintances.
��MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
Question (1). Do you believe in the principle of divorce under
any circumstances ?
The world for the most part is ruled by the tomb, and
the living are tyrannised over by the dead. Old ideas,
long after the conditions under which they were produced
have passed away, often persist in surviving. Many are
disposed to worship the ancient—to follow the old paths,
without inquiring where they lead, and without knowing
exactly where they wish to go themselves.
Opinions on the subject of divorce have been for the
most part inherited from the early Christians. They
have come down to us through theological and priestly
channels. The early Christians believed that the world
was about to be destroyed, or that it was to be purified
by fire; that all the wicked were to perish, and that the
good were to be caught up in the air to meet their Lord
—to remain there, in all probability, until the earth was
prepared as a habitation for the blessed. With this
thought or belief in their minds, the things of this world
were of comparatively no importance. The man who
built larger barns in which to store his grain was re
garded as a foolish farmer, who had forgotten, in his
greed for gain, the value of his own soul. They regarded
prosperous people as the children of Mammon, and the
unfortunate, the wretched, and diseased, as the favorites
of God. They discouraged all worldly pursuits, except
the soliciting of alms. There was no time to marry or
to be given in marriage ; no time to build homes and
have families. All their thoughts were centred upon the
heaven they expected to inherit. Business, love, all
secular things, fell into disrepute.
�6
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
Nothing is said in the Testament about the families of
the Apostles ; nothing of family life, of the sacredness of
home; nothing about the necessity of .education, the im
provement and development of the mind. These things
were forgotten, for the reason that nothing, in the pre
sence of the expected event, was considered of any
importance, except to be ready when the Son of Man
should come. Such was the feeling, that rewards were
offered by Christ himself to those who would desert their
wives and children. Human love was spoken of with
contempt. “Let the dead bury their dead. What is
that to thee ? Follow thou me.” They not only believed
these things, but acted in accordance with them; and, as
a consequence, all the relations of life were denied or
avoided, and their obligations disregarded. Marriage
was discouraged. It was regarded as only one degree
above open and unbridled vice, and was allowed only in
consideration of human weakness. It was thought far
better not to marry—that it was something grander for
a man to love God than to love woman. The exceedingly
godly, the really spiritual, believed in celibacy, and held
the opposite sex in a kind of pious abhorrence. And
yet, with that inconsistency so characteristic of theo
logians, marriage was held to be a sacrament. The
priest said to the man who married: “ Remember that
you are caught for life. This door opens but once.
Before this den of matrimony the tracks are all one
way.” This was in the nature of a punishment for
having married. The theologian felt that the contract of
marriage, if not contrary to God’s command, was at least
contrary to his advice, and that the married ought to
suffer in some way, as a matter of justice. The fact that
there could be no divorce, that a mistake could not be
corrected, was held up as a warning. At every wedding
feast this skeleton stretched its fleshless finger towards
bride and groom.
Nearly all intelligent people have given up the idea
that the world is about to come to an end. . They do not
now believe that prosperity is a certain sign of wicked
ness, or that poverty and wretchedness are sure, certificates
of virtue. They are hardly convinced that Dives should
have been sent to hell simply for being rich, or that
�MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
7
Lazarus was entitled to eternal joy on account of his
poverty. We now know that prosperous people may
be good, and that unfortunate people may be bad. We
have reached the conclusion that the practice of virtue
tends in the direction of .prosperity, and that a violation
of the conditions of well-being brings, with absolute
certainty, wretchedness and misfortune.
There was a time when it was believed that the sin of an
individual was visited upon the tribe, the community, or
the nation to which he belonged. It was then thought
that if a man or woman had made a vow to God, and had
failed to keep the vow, God might punish the entire com
munity ; therefore it was the business of the community
to see to it that the vow was kept. That idea has been
abandoned. As we progress, the rights of the individual
are perceived, and we are now beginning dimly to discern
that there are no rights higher than the rights of the
individual. There was a time when nearly all believed in
the reforming power of punishment—in the beneficence of
brute force. But the world is changing. It was at one
time thought that the Inquisition was the savior of
society; that the persecution of the philosopher was
requisite to the preservation of the State; and that, no
matter what happened, the State should be preserved.
We have now more light. And standing upon this
luminous point that we call the present, let me answer
your questions.
Marriage is the most important, the most sacred, con
tract that human beings can make. No matter whether
we call it a contract or a sacrament, or both, it remains
precisely the same. And no matter whether this contract
is entered into in the presence of magistrate or priest, it is
exactly the same. A true marriage is a natural concord
and agreement of souls, a harmony in which discord is not
even imagined; it is a mingling so perfect that only one
seems to exist; all other considerations are lost; the
present seems to be eternal. In this supreme moment
there is no shadow—or the shadow is as luminous as light.
And when two beings thus love, thus unite, this is the true
marriage of soul and soul. That which is said before the
altar, or minister, or magistrate, or in the presence of
witnesses, is only the outward evidence of that which has
�8
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
already happened within; it simply testifies to a union
that has already taken place—to the uniting of two
mornings that hope to reach the night together. Each
has found the ideal: the man has found the one woman of
all the world—the impersonation of affection, purity,
passion, love, beauty, and grace; and the woman has
found the one man of all the world-—her ideal, and all that
she knows of romance, of art, courage, heroism, honesty, is
realised in him. The idea of contract is lost. Duty and
obligation are instantly changed into desire and joy, and
two lives, like uniting streams, flow on as one. Nothing
can add to the sacredness of this marriage, to the obliga
tion and duty of each to each. There is nothing in the
ceremony except the desire on the part of the man and
woman that the whole world should know that they are
really married, and that their souls have been united.
Every marriage, for a thousand reasons, should be
public, should be recorded, should be known; but, above
all, to the end that the purity of the union should appear.
These ceremonies are not only for the good and for the
protection of the married, but also for the protection of
their children, and of society as well. But, after all, the
marriage remains a contract of the highest possible
character—a contract in which each gives and receives a
heart.
The question then arises, Should this marriage, under
any circumstances, be dissolved ? It is easy to understand
the position taken by the various Churches ; but back of
theological opinions is the question of contract.
In this contract of marriage the man agrees to protect
and cherish his wife. Suppose that he refuses to protect;
that he abuses, assaults, and tramples upon the woman he
wed. What is her redress ? Is she under any obligation
to him ? He has violated the contract. He has failed to
protect, and, in addition, he has assaulted her like a wild
beast. Is she under any obligation to him 1 Is she bound
by the contract he has broken ? If so, what is the con
sideration for this obligation ? Must she live with him for
his sake ? or, if she leaves him to preserve her life, must
she remain his wife for his sake ? No intelligent man will
answer these questions in the affirmative.
If, then, she is not bound to remain his wife for the
�MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
9
husband’s sake, is she bound to remain his wife because the
marriage was a sacrament ? Is there any obligation on the
part of the wife to remain with the brutal husband for the
sake of God ? Can her conduct affect in any way the
happiness of an infinite being ? Is it possible for a human
being to increase or diminish the well-being of the Infinite ?
The next question is as to the right of society in this
matter. It must be admitted that the peace of society
will be promoted by the separation of such people.
Certainly society cannot insist upon a wife remaining
with a husband who bruises and mangles her flesh.
Even married women have a right to personal security.
They do not lose, either by contract or sacrament, the
right of self-preservation; this they share in common,
to say the least of it, with the lowest living creatures.
This will probably be admitted by most of the enemies
of divorce; but they will insist that, while the wife has
the right to flee from her husband’s roof and seek
protection of kindred or friends, the marriage the
sacrament—must remain unbroken. Is it to the interest
of society that those who despise each other should live
together ? Ought the world to be peopled by the children
of hatred or disgust, the children of lust and loathing, or
by the welcome babes of mutual love ? Is it possible that
an infinitely wise and compassionate God insists that a
helpless woman shall remain the wife of a cruel wretch 1
Can this add to the joy of Paradise, or tend to keep one
harp in tune ? Can anything be more infamous than for a
Government to compel a woman to remain the wife of a
man she hates—of one whom she justly holds in abhor
rence ? Does any decent man wish the assistance of. a
constable, a sheriff, a judge, or a church, to keep his wife
in his house ? Is it possible to conceive of a more con
temptible human being than a man who would appeal to
force in such a case ? It may be said that the woman is
free to go, and that the courts will protect her from the
brutality of the man who promised to be her protector;
but where shall the woman go ? She may have no
friends; or they may be poor ; her kindred may be dead.
Has she no right to build another home ? Must this
woman, full of kindness, affection, health, be tied and
chained to this living corpse ? Is there no future for
�10
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
her ? Must she be an outcast for ever—deceived and
betrayed for her whole life ? Can she never sit by her
own hearth,, with the arms of her children about her
neck, and with a husband who loves and protects her ?
Is she to become a social pariah, and is this for the bene
fit of society ?—or is it for the sake of the wretch who
destroyed her life ?
The ground has been taken that woman would lose
her dignity if marriage could be annulled. Is it necessary
to lose your liberty in order to retain your moral
character—in order to be pure and womanly ? Must a
woman,, in order to retain her virtue, become a slave, a
serf, with a beast for a master, or with society for a
master, or with a phantom for a master ?
If an infinite being is one of the parties to the contract,
is it not the duty of this being to see to it that the con
tract is carried out ? What consideration does the infinite
being give ? What consideration does he receive ? If a
wife owes no duty to her husband because the husband
has violated the contract, and has even assaulted her life,
is it possible for her to feel towards him any real thrill of
affection ? If she does not, what is there left of marriage ?
What part of this contract or sacrament remains in living
force ? She cannot sustain the relation of wife, because
she abhors him ; she cannot remain under the same roof,
for fear that she may be killed. They sustain, then, only
the relations of hunter and hunted—of tyrant and victim.
Is it desirable that this relation should last through life,
and that it should be rendered sacred by the ceremony of a
church ?
Again I ask, Is it desirable to have families raised under
such circumstances ? Are we in need of children born of
such parents ? Can the virtue of others be preserved
only, by this destruction of happiness, by this perpetual
imprisonment ?
A marriage without love is bad enough, and a marriage
for wealth or position is low enough; but what shall we
say of a marriage where the parties actually abhor each
other 1 Is there any morality in this ? any virtue in
this ? Is there virtue in retaining the name of wife, or
husband, without the real and true relation ? Will any
good man say, will any good woman declare, that a true,
�MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
11
loving woman should be compelled to be the mother of
children whose father she detests ? Is there a good
woman in the world who would not shrink from this her
self ; and is there a woman so heartless and so immoral
that she would force another to bear that from which she
would shudderingly and shriekingly shrink ?
Marriages are made by men and women, not by society;
not by the State; not by the Church; not by supernatural
beings. By this time we should know that nothing is
moral that does not tend to the well-being of sentient
beings j that nothing is virtuous the result of which is not
good. We know now, if we know anything, that all the
reasons for doing right, and all the reasons against doing
wrong, are here in this world. We should have imagination
enough to put ourselves in the place of another. Let a man
suppose himself a helpless woman beaten by a brutal
husband—would he advocate divorces then ?
Few people have an adequate idea of the sufferings of
women and children, of the number of wives who tremble
when they hear the footsteps of a returning husband, of the
number of children who hide when they hear the voice of
a father. Few people know the number of blows that fall
on the flesh of the helpless every day, and few know the
nights of terror passed by mothers who hold babes to their
breasts. Compared with these, all the hardships of
poverty borne by those who love each other are as
nothing. Men and women truly married bear the suffer
ings and misfortunes of poverty together. They console
each other. In the darkest night they see the radiance of
a star, and their affection gives to the heart of each
perpetual sunshine.
The good home is the unit of the good government.
The hearth-stone is the corner-stone of civilisation. Society
is not interested in the preservation of hateful homes, of
homes where husbands and wives are selfish, cold, and
cruel. It is not to the interest of society that good women
should be enslaved, that they should live in fear, or that
they should become mothers by husbands whom they hate.
Homes should be filled with kind and generous fathers,
with true and loving mothers; and when they are so filled
the world will be civilised. Intelligence will rock the
cradle; justice will sit in the courts; wisdom in the
�12
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
legislative halls; and above all and over all, like the dome
of heaven, will be the spirit of liberty.
Although marriage is the most important and the most
sacred contract that human beings can make, still, when
that contract has been violated, courts should have the
power to declare it null and void upon such conditions as
may be just.
As a rule, the woman dowers the husband with her
youth, her beauty, her love—with all she has; and from
this contract certainly the husband should never be released,
unless the wife has broken the conditions of that contract.
Divorces should be granted publicly, precisely as the
marriage should be solemnised. Every marriage should be
known, and there should be witnesses, to the end that the
character of the contract entered into should be understood;
the record should be open and public. And the same is
true of divorces. The conditions should be determined,
the property should be divided by a court of equity, and
the custody of the children given under regulations pre
scribed.
Men and women are not virtuous by law. Law does not
of itself create virtue, nor is it the foundation or fountain
of love. Law should protect virtue, and law should protect
the wife, if she has kept her contract, and the husband, if
he has fulfilled his. But the death of love is the end of
marriage. Love is natural. Back of all ceremony burns
and will forever burn the sacred flame. There has been no
time in the world’s history when that torch was extin
guished. In all ages, in all climes, among all people, there
has been true, pure, and unselfish love. Long before a
ceremony was thought of, long before a priest existed,
there were true and perfect marriages. Back of public
opinion is natural modesty, the affections of the heart; and,
in spite of all law, there is and forever will be the realm of
choice. Wherever love is, it is pure; and everywhere,
and at all times, the ceremony of marriage testifies to that
which has happened within the temple of the human heart.
Question (2). Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry
under any circumstances 2
This depends upon whether marriage is a crime. If it
is not a crime, why should any penalty be attached ? Can
�MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
13
anyone conceive of any reason why a woman obtaining a
divorce, without fault on her part, should be compelled as a
punishment to remain forever single ? Why should she be
punished for the dishonesty or brutality of another ? Why
should a man who faithfully kept his contract of marriage,
and who was deserted by an unfaithful wife, be punished
for the benefit of society ? Why should he be doomed to
live without a home ?
There is still another view. We must remember that
human passions are the same after as before divorce. To
prevent remarriage is to give excuse for vice.
Question (3). What is the effect of divorce upon the integrity
of the family 2
The real marriage is back of the ceremony, and the real
divorce is back of the decree. When love is dead, when
husband and wife abhor each other, they are divorced.
The decree records in a judicial way what has really taken
place, just as the ceremony of marriage attests a contract
already made.
The true family is the result of the true marriage, and
the institution of the family should above all things be
preserved. What becomes of the sacredness of the home,
if the law compels those who abhor each other to sit at
the same hearth ? This lowers the standard, and changes
the happy haven of home into the prison-cell. If we
wish to preserve the integrity of the family, we must
preserve the democracy of the fireside, the republicanism
of the home, the absolute and perfect equality of husband
and wife. There must be no exhibition of force, no
spectre of fear. The mother must not remain through
an order of court, or the command of a priest, or by
virtue of the tyranny of society; she must sit in absolute
freedom, the queen of herself, the sovereign of her own
soul and of her own body. Real homes can never be
preserved through force, through slavery, or superstition.
Nothing can be more sacred than a home, no altar purer
than the hearth.
Question (4). Does the absolute prohibition of divorce, where
it exists, contribute to the moral purity of society 2
We must define our terms. What is moral purity ?
The intelligent of this world seek the well-being of them
�14
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
selves and others. They know that happiness is the only
good; and this they strive to attain. To live in accordance
with the conditions of well-being is moral in the highest
sense. To use the best instrumentalities to attain the
highest ends is our highest conception of the moral. In
other words, morality is the melody or the perfection of
conduct. A man is not moral because he is obedient
through fear or ignorance. Morality lives in the realm of
perceived obligation, and where a being acts in accordance
with perceived obligation, that being is moral. Morality
is not the child of slavery. Ignorance is not the corner
stone of virtue.
The first duty of a human being is to himself. He must
see to it that he does not become a burden upon others.
To be self-respecting, he must endeavor to be self-sustaining.
If by his industry and intelligence he accumulates a margin,
then he is under obligation to do with that margin all the
good he can. He who lives to the ideal does the best he
can. In true marriage men and women give not only
their bodies, but their souls. This is the ideal marriage;
this is moral. They who give their bodies, but not their
souls, are not married, whatever the ceremony may be;
this is immoral.
If this be true, upon what principle can a woman
continue to sustain the relation of wife after love is dead 1
Is there some other consideration that can take the place
of genuine affection 1 Can she be bribed with money, or
a home, or position, or by public opinion, and still remain
a virtuous woman ? Is it for the good of society that
virtue should be thus crucified between Church and State ?
Can it be said that this contributes to the moral purity of
the human race 1
Is there a higher standard of virtue in countries where
divorce is prohibited than in those where it is granted 1
Where husbands and wives who have ceased to love cannot
be divorced there are mistresses and lovers.
The sacramental view of marriage is the shield of vice.
The world looks at the wife who has been abused, who
has been driven from the home of her husband, and the
world pities ; and when this wife is loved by some other
man, the world excuses. So, too, the husband who cannot
live in peace, who leaves his home, is pitied and excused.
�MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
15
Is it possible to conceive of anything more immoral than
for a husband to insist on living with a wife who has no
love for him ? Is not this a perpetual crime ? Is the wife
to lose her personality ? Has she no right of choice ? Is
her modesty the property of another ? Is the man she
hates the lord of her desire ? Has she no right to guard
the jewels of her soul ? Is there a depth below this ? And
is this the foundation of morality ? this the corner-stone of
society ? this the arch that supports the dome of civilisa
tion ? Is this pathetic sacrifice on the one hand, this sacri
lege on the other, pleasing in the sight of heaven ?
To me, the tenderest word in our language, the most
pathetic fact within our knowledge, is maternity. Around
this sacred word cluster the joys and sorrows, the agonies
and ecstasies, of the human race. The mother walks in
the shadow of death that she may give another life. Upon
the altar of love she puts her own life in pawn. When the
world is civilised, no wife will become a mother against her
will. Man will then know that to enslave another is to
imprison himself.
�Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll,
of Moses.
The only complete edition in
England. Accurate as Colenso,
and fascinating as a novel. 132 pp.
Is. Superior paper, cloth Is. 6d.
Defence of Freethought.
A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial
of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy.
6d.
The Gods. 6d.
Reply to Gladstone. With
a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
4d.
Rome or Reason? A Reply
to Cardinal Manning. 4d.
Crimes against Criminals.
3d.
Oration on Walt Whitman.
3d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d.
Abraham Lincoln. 3d.
Paine the Pioneer. 2d.
Humanity’s Debt to Thomas
Paine. 2d.
Ernest Renan and Jesus
Christ. 2d.
True Religion. 2d.
The Three Philanthropists.
2d.
Love the Redeemer. 2d.
Is Suicide a Sin? 2d.
Last Words on Suicide. 2d.
Some Mistakes
God and the State. 2d.
Why am I an Agnostic
Part I. 2d.
Why am I
an Agnostic ?
Part II. 2d.
Faith and Fact. Reply to
Dr. Field. 2d
God and Man. Second reply
to Dr. Field. 2d.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
The Limits of Toleration.
A Discussion with the Hon. F. D.
Ooudert andGrov. S. L. Woodford.
2d.
The Household of Faith.
2d.
Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme ? 2d.
The Clergy and Common
Sense. 2d.
Social Salvation. 2d.
Marriage and Divorce. An
Agnostic’s View. 2d.
Skulls. 2d.
The Great Mistake, id.
Live Topics. Id.
Myth and Miracle. Id.
Real Blasphemy. Id.
Repairing the Idols. Id.
Christ and Miracles. Id.
Creeds & Spirituality. Id.
COL. INGERSOLL’S NEW LECTURE,
ABOUT THE
HOLY
BIBLE.
Price Sixpence.
READ
THE
FREETHINKER,
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
■Published every Thursday. Price Twopence.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Marriage and divorce : an agnostic's view
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: 15 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: No. A5 in Stein checklist (not identified or located by Stein). Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Reproduced from the North American Review. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N374
Subject
The topic of the resource
Marriage
Agnosticism
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 (Marriage and divorce : an agnostic's view), 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
Divorce
Marriage
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/55f4dc6e85246257b396b2984fc11b11.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=jR5pbvoNCzMJl%7E%7E4jVL8zyYnmQrWArpEwXi6uKmg4rMIirCqZD1yUVUQZ6gwRwQbEqyHbw9A22NBqeX6MzGrB%7EoAM%7EthH8dCk45mHZQsznrL1g%7E52XdEkcOCgG6sP42cn%7EalD%7EnqTSWRqlFoP%7EVan8-MLaa5Cvg%7Eu-LCfUJKYTbkymsoq2xyFvmiI38vqPxM3w6Bb-v9LQx0xEmN-HHWRLF11iLpJLPvVhLVyFIYRDYsh6Sk1DtBt4iwbOKqdSTLh22jtZD1JE6Uwv6-EQCBpCiVi2Be8svz-LU3Ac9-f6GP4RTM7F3E9W5z0x1T%7ERkHB8XdxRjcDZt7e94EUFauGg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2c6539390e8c37fb8db3d89541608751
PDF Text
Text
M4-73
national secular society
PRICE ONE PENNY. J
MARRIED LIFE:
COMFORT OR MISERY?
Qvamati#
TC AyFj
)
Mary ( married ladies.
Ethel
an unmarried lady.
Ethel (entering to Kate). How are you, Kate ? What an
age it seems since I saw you, and how well you look! Not a
day older, I declare, than on your wedding day—how long ago
is that now ?
Kate. Almost six years. I am so glad to see you, dear;
but I can’t return your compliments : you seem to be thinner?
and what is the meaning of those dark rings under your eyes ?
Ethel. Oh! that’s nothing; I am quite well; I used to be
too fat.
Kate. What rubbish! you were just right, and you look
depressed, too.
Ethel. That’s all your fancy, Kate! I’m all right, but tell
me about yourself: how have you been all this time ? What a
lovely little room you have got! Where did you get that
beautiful dado ? It’s hand-painted, I do believe. Oh ! you
extravagant woman, is it for this your poor husband toils in
the city ?
Kate. Spare my blushes, and don’t be so severe. That’s
il a, little thing of my own”, and cost me.about ten shillings
for colors.
�Ethel. You don’t say so ! "What made you so awfully
clever? I don’t seem to remember anything of the kind at.
school.
Kate. Well 1 I did take the second prize for drawing in our
last term, though you don’t seem to remember it; but that
was eight years ago, and I have been taking lessons ever since.
Ethel. Curiouser and curiouser I It is borne in upon me
that you used to hate every kind of lessons.
Kate. Your memory is painfully accurate this time, but I
had a reason. But talking of school, do you remember Mary
Burns ?
Ethel. Oh! quite well—a pretty, fair girl, with a lovely
complexion; she was extraordinarily High Church, wasn’t
she ? and used to fast, and appear unexpectedly in black, and
sit up at night keeping vigils, or some queer thing of that sort.
What about her ?
Kate. She lives here, and I expect her every minute. When
I got your note I asked her to come too, poor thing! I thought
she would enjoy a chat over old times.
Ethel. Why, what’s the matter with her ?
Kate. Wait till you see her: you will soon find out. You
know she is married; her husband is Mr. Crossley, a curate
here.
Ethel. A curate, is he ? I suppose they are not just
rolling in wealth ?
Kate. They are not. Here she is, I think; don’t remark
on her looks. {A servant shows in Mrs. Crossley..) Well,
Mary dear, here you are; I was afraid you could not come
after all, and I would not pour out the tea, because I wanted
you to have the best cup. Try this chair, we have just got it,
and it’s delightful.
Mary. You are always so kind, Kate. I thought I should
never get away. Just as I was ready, the baby woke and
screamed, and Bessy was washing up, and I had to take him;
and then Emmie fell down stairs, and hurt her head lather
badly, so that stopped me again; and then, just at the door,
the baker met me with his bill, and I had to persuade him---Why, Ethel, is that you? What a start you gave me, I was
afraid it was a stranger.
Ethel. It’s the first time I have been considered a terrify
ing object, and I am rather flattered. I am very glad to see
you, Mary. What changes there have been since we last met
in that dingy old s*chool-room! Do you remember how glad
�( 3 )
we all were to get away from it ? And all the ridiculous plans
we used to make about our future lives. You were to be a
nun, Kate was to go about lecturing on woman’s rights, and I
was always carnally-minded, and intended to marry the first
* man I met, provided he was young, had a Greek profile, Spanish
-eyes and the curliest black hair (I think we called it hyacinthine locks then), and was six foot four, and possessed six
thousand a year, and came of a noble family. You will be
surprised to hear that I have not met him yet, and I begin to
doubt if that sort are quite as common as they were when I
was seventeen.
Mary. How you do rattle on! You have not lost your
good spirits, evidently. As for your hero, if you can find a
man with six thousand a year, take him ; if he were as ugly as
sin and as old as Methusaleh, never mind; nothing is so dreadBful as poverty.
Ethel. Oh I Mary: you don’t mean that seriously, surely;
I and, besides, I am engaged, only mother says we are too poor
to marry.
Mary. Ethel, take my advice, don't yaexTy a poor man!
Take warning by me: I married a poor man for love, and have
' repented it ever since. I thought if we gave up luxuries and
I lived very quietly, we could manage: but I did not reckon on
I having five children in six years.
Kate. Mary, you know you need not have had them.
Mary. Kate, don’t talk so; I can’t bear to hear you. I
know what you mean, but these things are in God’s hands,
and we must submit to His will. If my husband knew you
had mentioned such a thing to me, he would be very angry, and
perhaps stop my coming here any more. But, Ethel, do listen
to me; my life is nothing but a burden; often I wish I were
I in my grave; we can only afford one servant, and no good
■servant would work in such a household as ours. I never get
half the sleep I want, and I’m sure no London maid-of-all-work
does as much as I do. I often sit up half the night mending
and making, and that’s not all. Two years ago my little Eddie
died; he was only ill two or three days, and we owed the doctor
Hso much I did not like to send for him again; and when at
last I did, it was too late. It was inflammation of the lungs,
and he said Eddie’s life might have been saved if he had seen
him earlier. I shall never forgive myself. And when we
buried him, we could not afford even the plainest tombstone.
It is the same with everything; we can’t pay our way. You
�( 4 )
heard me speak of the baker just now; you would not believe
the. degrading things I have had to do, to coax tradesmen into
waiting for their money. I never can overtake my work ; it’s
useless to attempt it. As to books, I have not opened one for
years.
Ethel. And your singing—you had such a sweet voice.
Mary. Singing ! we can’t afford a piano ; I have forgotten
it all. That would be nothing, but I can’t keep the place even I
clean, and the children never get all the milk they should, and
this is my best dress—just look at it I And just look at me,
did you ever see such a fright as I have grown ? But I could
bear it all if it were not for my husband, he looks so wretchedly
ill, and he is not half warmly enough dressed. If he could but
have a great-coat this winter, but I know it is impossible, and
then he slaves day and night at any literary work he can get,
even copying he does. But, oh I Kate, the worst is still to be
told : another baby is coming, and the last two are so delicate,
what will this one be ? And how can I do more than I do now ?
(Mary breaks down and sobs; Ethel tries to comfort her, and
Kate leaves the room, and returns with a glass of port wine.)
Kate. Now, Mary, drink this; there, you will feel better
directly. Come and lie on the sofa a little.
Mary. Dear Kate, thank you; but I must go home—I don’t
know wbat the children may be doing. I ought not to have
stayed so long. Good bye, dear; good bye, Ethel, and remem
ber what I have said. {Exit Mary.)
Ethel. Oh, Kate, what a shocking story! And how ill
she looks, and how miserable! I don’t think I should have
known her. And I’m afraid she is right, and one ought not to
marry a poor man. To live as Mary describes, I am sure
would just kill me. I don’t think I am very selfish, but I
■could not give up every comfort like that, and with it all to be
so miserable. And I am sure it would drive Jack into a lunatic
asylum! Kate : what ought we to do ? We have been engaged I
five years, and I sometimes think Jack is getting tired of it—H
his letters are colder now. Oh! I wish he were as well off as
your husband; if Jack and I could have a smart little house
like this, we should want nothing better.
Kate. I thought something was wrong, and I am glad you
told me. Who is “Jack ” ?
Ethel. J ack Dawson : he is a doctor, but only beginning to I
practise, and-------Kate. Why, I know Mr. Dawson very well, and like him
�U )
iso much. I knew he was engaged, but had no notion it was
to you. I do congratulate you-—he is one of the nicest men I
know.
Ethel. I thank you, dear, but I don’t know that there is
much to congratulate us on, for I don’t see a chance of our
getting married for years, and I’m not exactly growing younger.
Kate. You are twenty-five, I think, and Mr. Dawson, I
know, is twenty-seven. He was here the other day, talking
over his prospects with Fred; and now I have good news for
you, Ethel—Mr. Dawson and my husband are making almost
exactly the same income.
Ethel. Kate! What! Oh! I can't believe it. Do you
mean to say you are living on the sum Jack earns now ?
Kate. Yes; and, what is more, Mr. Crossley, who is so
steeped in poverty, has very nearly the same. Within three
=or four pounds, I believe, the three incomes are exactly similar.
Ethel. I am more astonished than I can say. Then is it
simply the children that make the enormous difference between
you and Mary ? Why, I thought you were quite rich.
Kate. It is as I say; but then our income is divided by
two, while theirs is divided by seven already.
Ethel. Ah ! yes; but that simply means that you are
lucky to have no family.
Kate. You should say, how wise I am.
Ethel. Kate, what did you mean by telling Mary she need
not have had them ? Can one really prevent it ? Do tell me
(truly, because, if one can, Jack and I might marry to morrow.
K ate. I am anxious to tell you the truth. It can be done :
-it’ only requires perseverance; and if you make up your mind
to marry, I will tell you all about it.
Ethel. Oh! Kate, how can I thank you—I was so un
happy! Mother had just shown me a letter from that horrid
Mrs. Grundy, and she said: “You are never going to let Ethel
marry that wild young Jack Dawson.” And then—oh ! I can’t
"tell you what she said; and I don’t believe it; but I know
Jack is vexed with me for delaying our marriage so long.
Kate. Never mind Mrs. Grundy. Fred knows Mr. Daw
son well, and I know there is nothing for you to be alarmed at.
But, remember, he is not the stuff out of which ascetics or
hermits are made—nor, for that matter, is Fred. I should not
like it if he were. But we married very young, and I am certain
Fred has never thought of another woman in that way, although
lie is good friends with several. Then I am always well and
�able to go out with him; and, though I say it, I don’t believethere is a prettier or more comfortable home in England than
his; so what temptation has he to be wild or fast ?
Ethel. But, Kate, why did Mary say her husband thinks
it so wrong ? Ought one not to believe what a clergyman says?’J
Kate. I cannot see why Mr. Crossley’s opinion should have
more weight than yours or mine. This is not a question of re-£
ligious dogma, but of morality and the welfare of the human,
race, in which questions we are all equally interested.
Ethel. But suppose Jack agreed with him.
Kate. In that case you had better not marry; but it is
very unlikely. Jack is a really well-educated and thoughtful
man, and all advanced thought in the present day tends in thisdirection. But, if you Eke, Fred shall find out casually in con
versation, what his views are, and I will tell you.
Ethel. I wish he would; but, Kate, how did you find this
out ?
Kate. You know my old aunt Dorothy. In her youth shewas engaged to a young man for ten years, and then he jilted'
her, and married a young girl. She was dreadfully heart
broken, and has spent her life almost in propagating these;
ideas. She wrote a book about it, and when I became engaged
she gave Ered a copy to read, and when he told her he thought
it very sensible, and that he agreed with every word, she
urged us to marry. And we did. You see the result. But
that is not all. I have plenty of leisure time, and I earn money I
too. Fred’s earnings supply the necessaries and a fair amount
of comfort; mine supply my dress and all the little luxuries
you see round us, and keep a cot in the children’s hospital be
sides. If I had a family to attend to, I could not earn any
thing, for I should not have time.
Ethel. How do you earn money, Kate; could I ?
Kate. Very likely you could. I earn money by my draw
ings. You were admiring my dado : I have painted three others
in different drawing rooms, and was well paid for it. I paint
screens, too, and design Christmas cards by the score. I paint
menus and programmes and all sorts of things. And I take a
lesson every week; I work between three and four hours a day,
and I like it.
Ethel. Well, I can’t draw, but I can make lace. I soldsome the other day at fifteen shillings a yard at a fancy bazaar,
and I overheard the purchaser saying that she thought it cheap
at the price. I know I could help in that way; but, Kate,
�(&t)
would you not like to have children ? I do love them so.
Kate. Yes, I should, but we can’t afford it yet. I am only
I twenty-five, and there is plenty of time. When we can afford
■t I hope to indulge in one or two. I am sure it would be
wrong to have a large family.
Ethel. But why, if you could afford it ?
Kate. Because the country is too full now, and we should
"■do wrong to add to the pressure of competition, which is already
I too great.
Ethel. Kate, how clever you are; I never heard anyone
else talk like this.
Kate. I’m not a bit clever, and my ideas are all second- Kand: but you see I have time to read and improve myself, and
I have read a good deal since we married.
rj Ethel. Well, you have taken a great weight off my mind;
I but what will mother say to all this ?
Kate. You must, of course, use your own discretion about
telling her; but you are old enough to please yourself, and
remember you must choose between her and Jack. When she
sees that you are happy and comfortable, she will surely be
content.
Ethel. Yes, I suppose so—at least that is all she can want
yor me. And now I must go. Good-bye, dear Kate ; I am so
much obliged to you, and I’ll come and see you' again very
< soon. (Exit Ethel.)
I Kate (soliloquises). I think I have smoothed her way a little.
I wish everyone were as quick and sensible. Nothing can be
done for those poor Crossleys: one can’t get them to listen to
reason; and what a dreadful example for a clergyman to set I
Their case is hopeless; but Ethel is different, and for her I
I foresee both a useful and a happy life.
A. Bosneb, Printer, 34, Bouveris Street, London, E.C.
�LIST
OF
BOOKS .
SOLD BY
W. H. REYNOLDS, Publisher, New Cross, London, S.E.
(Sent through the POST ONLY).
THE LAW OF POPULATION. By Annie Besant. A work
designed to induce married people to limit their families
within the means of subsistence. Post free, 8d.
THE WIFE’S HANDBOOK: How a Woman should order
herself during Pregnancy, in the Lying-in Room, and after
Delivery ; with Hints on the Management of the Baby, and
on other matters of importance necessary to be known by
Married Women. By Dr. H. A. Allbutt. Post free, 8d.
THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE. The most com
plete work on sexual matters ever published. Should be read
by every adult. Bound in cloth, 604 pages. Post free, 3s. 4d.
THE POPULATION QUESTION. By Dr. C. R. Drysdale,
President of the Malthusian League. Post free, Is. Id.
LIFE AND WRITINGS OF T. R. MALTHUS. By Dr. C.
R. Drysdale, President of the Malthusian League. With
portrait of Malthus. Post free, Is. Id.
GOD’S VIEWS ON MARRIAGE. By Annie Besant. Post
free, 3d.
THE RADICAL REMEDY IN SOCIAL SCIENCE; or,
Borning Better Babes through Regulating Reproduction by
Controlling Conception. By Dr. E. B. Foote. Post free, Is. Id.
EARLY MARRIAGE AND LATE PARENTAGE: The only
Solution of the Social Problem. By Oxoniensis. Post free, 4d.
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF MALTHUSIANISM. By Annie
Besant. Post free, 2d.
POVERTY: Its Cause and Cure. By M. G. H. Post free, 2d.
WHY DO MEN STARVE? By C.Bradlaugh. Post free, 2d.
LABOR’S PRAYER. By C. Bradlaugh. Post free, 2d.
POVERTY : Its Effects on the Political Condition of the People.
By C. Bradlaugh. Post free, 2d.
THE MALTHUSIAN: A Crusade against Poverty. The
monthly organ of the Malthusian League. Post free, l|d.
MALTHUSIAN LEAFLETS.—A packet will be sent on receipt
of postage to any person who will undertake to distribute
them.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Married life : comfort or misery?
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 7 p. ; 19 cm.
Note: Publisher's list on back cover (books sold by W.H. Reynolds, Publisher, New Cross, London, S.E.). Printed by A. Bonner. Written in the form of a dramatic conversation between two married ladies and an unmarried lady. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
W.H. Reynolds
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[191-?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N475
Subject
The topic of the resource
Marriage
Birth control
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 (Married life : comfort or misery?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Birth Control
Marriage
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e68430333bdc8a3decbb6bdaee6ecd68.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ePgbIYhLiX4Ji-7GapDt2QGIF1P7Clkr-HHSPc6Uk79FXWP8q1QR9dWlarIash5z91uWe05nz6iJaNCCFlBTxds44m5EoU7kwJ1OYnXJ9KlKL%7EzaSpiYL8BeFD1xTkpI7U0BXXgB8hlDSfDd-CW3aOgWd69AoiE5B6T-Xlfot5WFgpo%7EXJZvmLs0bB1bP5DzEX9oOXLePHeIVc5GUkIJjVfPddN-jf1bC%7E0Yj%7EY1v8NCZn2f4K2A2g4wrV73fImUMn2tWOETbs1Z2LoMnzMJR5WXhvPPRhKquJfr2piYQLTpknj5i7cwj%7E3lgY1D46D-PYBmrj7juzPUt0tNZ3Jjxw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f50a74840b3b4827c08c1b2a11d082a9
PDF Text
Text
1
'4
NATIONAL SEOUL/
Rome
WTOTY
Reason
or
p
<
A REPLY TO
MANNING.
CARDINAL
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
Reprinted from
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW,
October and November, 1888.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
London:
1 THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD.,
2 Newcastle Street, Farringdgn Street, E.C.
1903.
I
41
�PRINTED BY
THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD,,
2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, LONDON, E.C.
�ROME OR REASON?
A REPLY TO CARDINAL MANNING.
PART I.
Superstition “ has ears more deaf than adders to the voice oj
any true, decision."
Cardinal Manning has stated the claims of the Roman
Catholic Church with great clearness, and apparently
without reserve. The age, position, and learning of this
man give a certain weight to his words, apart from their
worth. He represents the oldest of the Christian
Churches. The questions involved are among the most
important that can engage the human mind. No one
having the slightest regard for that superb thing known
as intellectual honesty will avoid the issues tendered, or
seek in any way to gain a victory over truth.
Without candor, discussion, in the highest sense, is
impossible. All have the same interest, whether they
know it or not, in the establishment of facts. All have
the same to gain, the same to lose. He loads the dice
against himself who scores a point against the right.
Absolute honesty is to the intellectual perception what
light is to the eyes. Prejudice and passion cloud the
mind. In each disputant should be blended the advocate
and judge.
In this spirit, having in view only the ascertainment
of the truth, let us examine the arguments, or rather the
statements and conclusions, of Cardinal Manning.
The proposition is that “ The Church itself, by its
marvellous propagation, its eminent sanctity, its inex
haustible fruitfulness in all good things, its catholic
�4
ROME OR REASON ?
unity and invincible stability, is a vast and perpetu?
motive of credibility, and an irrefragable witness of its
own divine legation.”
The reasons given as supporting this proposition are:-—
That the Catholic Church interpenetrates all the
nations of the civilised world; that it is extra-national
and independent in a supernational unity ; that it is the
same in every place; that it speaks all the languages in
the civilised world ; that it is obedient to one head ; that
as many as seven hundred bishops have knelt before the
Pope ; that pilgrims from all nations have brought gifts
to Rome, and that all these things set forth in the most
self-evident way the unity and universality of the Roman
Church.
It is also asserted that “ men see the Head of the
Church year by year speaking to the nations of the
world, treating with empires, republics, and govern
ments ” that “ there is no other man on earth that can
so bear himself,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor
from Constantinople can such a voice go forth to which
rulers and people listen.”
It is also claimed that the Catholic Church has
enlightened and purified the world ; that it has given us
the peace and purity of domestic life; that it has
destroyed idolatry and demonology; that it gave us a
body of law from a higher source than man ; that it has
produced the civilisation of Christendom ; that the popes
were the greatest of statesmen and rulers; that celibacy
is better than marriage, and that the revolutions and
reformations of the last three hundred years have been
destructive and calamitous.
We will examine these assertions as well as some
others.
No one will dispute that the Catholic Church is the
best witness of its own existence. The same is true of
everything that exists ; of every Church, great and
small; of every man, and of every insect.
But it is contended that the marvellous growth or
propagation of the Church is evidence of its divine
origin. Can it be said that success is supernatural ?
All success in this world is relative. Majorities are not
�ROME OR REASON ?
5
necessarily right. If anything is known—if anything
can be known—we are sure that very large bodies of
men have frequently been wrong. We believe in what
is called the progress of mankind. Progress, for the
most part, consists in finding new truths and getting rid
of old errors—that is to say, getting nearer and nearer
in harmony with the facts of nature, seeing with greater
clearness the conditions of well-being.
There is no nation in which a majority leads the way.
In the progress of mankind, the few have been the nearest
right. There have been centuries in which the light
seemed to emanate only from a handful of men, while
the rest of the world was enveloped in darkness. Some
great man leads the way—he becomes the morning star,
the prophet of a coming day. Afterwards, many millions
accept his views. But there are still heights above and
beyond; there are other pioneers, and the old day, in
comparison with the new, becomes a night. So, we cannot
say that success demonstrates either divine origin or
supernatural aid.
We know, if we know anything, that wisdom has often
been trampled beneath the feet of the multitude. We
know that the torch of science has been blown out by
the breath of the hydra-headed. We know that the whole
intellectual heaven has been darkened again. The truth
or falsity of a proposition cannot be determined by
ascertaining the number of those who assert, or of those
who deny.
If the marvellous propagation of the Catholic Church
proves its divine origin, what shall we say of the mar
vellous propagation of Mohammedanism ?
Nothing can be clearer than that Christianity arose out
of the ruins of the Roman Empire—-that is to say, the
ruins of Paganism. And it is equally clear that Moham
medanism arose out of the wreck and ruin of Catholicism.
After Mohammed came upon the stage, “ Christianity
was for ever expelled from its most glorious seat—from
Palestine, the scene of its most sacred recollections ; from
Asia Minor, that of its first churches; from Egypt,
whence issued the great doctrine of Trinitarian Ortho
doxy, and from Carthage, who imposed her belief on
�6
ROME OR REASON ?
Europe.” Before that time “the ecclesiastical chiefs of
Rome, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria were
engaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying
out their purposes by weapons and in ways revolting to
the conscience of man. Bishops were concerned in
assassinations, poisonings, adulteries, blindings, riots,
treasons, civil war. Patriarchs and primates were
excommunicating and anathematising one another in
their rivalries for earthly power ; bribing eunuchs with
gold and courtesans and royal females with concessions
of episcopal love. Among legions of monks who carried
terror into the imperial armies and riot into the great
cities arose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but
never a voice for intellectual liberty or the outraged
rights of man.
“ Under these circumstances, amid these atrocities and
crimes, Mohammed arose, and raised his own nation from
Fetichism, the adoration of the meteoric stone, and from
the basest idol worship, and irrevocably wrenched from
Christianity more than half—and that by far the best
half—of her possessions, since it included the Holy Land,
the birth-place of the Christian faith, and Africa, which
had imparted to it its Latin form ; and now, after a lapse
of more than a thousand years, that continent, and a very
large part of Asia, remain permanently attached to the
Arabian doctrine.”
It may be interesting in this connection to say that the
Mohammedan now proves the divine mission of his
Apostle by appealing to the marvellous propagation of
the faith. If the argument is good in the mouth of a
Catholic, is it not good in the mouth of a Moslem ? Let
us see if it is not better.
According to Cardinal Manning, the Catholic Church
triumphed only over the institutions of men, triumphed
only over religions that had been established by men, by
wicked and ignorant men. But Mohammed triumphed
not only over the religions of men, but over the religion
of God. This ignorant driver of camels, this poor,
unknown, unlettered boy, unassisted by God, unen
lightened by supernatural means, drove the armies of the
true cross before him as the winter’s storm drives
�ROME OR REASON ?
7
withered leaves. At his name, priests, bishops, and
cardinals fled with white faces, popes trembled, and the
armies of God, fighting for the true faith, were conquered
on a thousand fields.
If the success of a church proves its divinity, and after
that another church arises and defeats the first, what does
that prove ?
Let us put this question in a milder form : Suppose
the second church lives and flourishes in spite of the
first, what does that prove ?
As a matter of fact, however, no Church rises with
everything against it. Something is favorable to it, or
it could not exist. If it succeeds and grows, it is abso
lutely certain that the conditions are favorable. If it
spreads rapidly, it simply shows that the conditions are
exceedingly favorable, and that the forces in opposition
are weak and easily overcome.
Here, in my own country, within a few years, has
arisen a new religion. Its foundations were laid in an
intelligent community, having had the advantages of
what is known as modern civilisation. Yet this new
faith—founded on the grossest absurdities, as gross as
we find in the Scriptures—in spite of all opposition
began to grow, and kept growing. It was subjected to
persecution, and the persecution increased its strength.
It was driven from State to State by the believers in
universal love, until it left what was called civilisation,
crossed the wide plains, and took up its abode on the
shores of the Great Salt Lake. It continued to grow.
Its founder, as he declared, had frequent conversations
with God, and received directions from that source.
Hundreds of miracles were performed, multitudes upon
the desert were miraculously fed, the sick were cured,
the dead were raised, and the Mormon Church continued
to grow, until now, less than half a century after the
death of its founder, there are several hundred thousand
believers in the new faith.
Do you think that men enough could join this Church
to prove the truth of its creed ?
Joseph Smith said that he found certain golden plates
that had been buried for many generations, and upon
�8
ROME OR REASON ?
these plates, in some unknown language, had been
engraved this new revelation, and I think he insisted
that by the use of miraculous mirrors this language was
translated. If there should be Mormon bishops in the
countries of the world eighteen hundred years from now,
do you think a cardinal of that faith could prove the
truth of the golden plates simply by the fact that the
faith had spread and that seven hundred bishops had
knelt before the head of that Church ?
It seems to me that a “supernatural” religion—that
is to say, a religion that is claimed to have been divinely
founded and to be authenticated by miracle—is much
easier to establish among an ignorant people than any
other, and the more ignorant the people, the easier such
a religion could be established. The reason for this is
plain. All ignorant tribes, all savage men, believe in
the miraculous, in the supernatural. The conception
of uniformity, of what may be called the eternal con
sistency of nature, is an idea far above their compre
hension. They are forced to think in accordance with
their minds, and as a consequence they account for all
phenomena by the acts of superior beings—that is to
say, by the supernatural. In other words, that religion
having most in common with the savage, having most
that was satisfactory to his mind, or to his lack of mind,
would stand the best chance of success.
It is probably safe to say that at one time, or during
one phase of the development of man, everything was
miraculous. After a time, the mind slowly developing,
certain phenomena, always happening under like con
ditions, were called “ natural,” and none suspected any
special interference. The domain of the miraculous
grew less and less—the domain of the natural larger ;
that is to say, the common became the natural, but the
uncommon was still regarded as the miraculous. I he
rising and setting of the sun ceased to excite the wonder
of mankind—there was no miracle about that; but an
eclipse of the sun was miraculous. Men did not then
know that eclipses are periodical, that they happen with
the same certainty as the sun rises. It took many
observations through many generations to arrive at this
�ROME OR REASON ?
(J
conclusion. Ordinary rains became “ natural,” floods
remained “ miraculous.”
But it can all be summed up in this: The average
man regards the common as natural, the uncommon as
supernatural. The educated man—and by that I mean
the developed man—is satisfied that all phenomena are
natural, and that the supernatural does not and cannot
exist.
As a rule, an individual is egotistic in the proportion
that he lacks intelligence. The same is true of nations
and races. The barbarian is egotistic enough to suppose
that an Infinite Being is constantly doing something, or
failing to do something, on his account. But as man
rises in the scale of civilisation, as he becomes really
great, he comes to the conclusion that nothing in Nature
happens on his account—that he is hardly great enough
to disturb the motions of the planets.
Let us make an application of this : To me, the success
of Mormonism is no evidence of its truth, because it has
succeeded only with the superstitious. It has been
recruited from communities brutalised by other forms of
superstition. To me, the success of Mohammed does not
tend to show that he was right—for the reason that he
triumphed only over the ignorant, over the superstitious.
The same is true of the Catholic Church. Its seeds were
planted in darkness. It was accepted by the credulous,
by men incapable of reasoning upon such questions. It
did not, it has not, it cannot, triumph over the intellectual
world. To count its many millions does not tend to
prove the truth of its creed. On the contrary, a creed
that delights the credulous gives evidence against itself.
Questions of fact or philosophy cannot be settled
simply by numbers. There was a time when the Coper
nican system of astronomy had but few supporters—the
multitude being on the other side. There was a time
when the rotation of the earth was not believed by the
majority.
Let us press this idea further. There was a time when
Christianity was not in the majority, anywhere. Let us
suppose that the first Christian missionary had met a
prelate of the Pagan faith, and suppose this prelate had
�10
RoSiE OR REASON ?
used against the Christian missionary the Cardinal’s
argument—how could the missionary have answered if
the Cardinal’s argument is good?
But, after all, is the success of the Catholic Church a
marvel ? If this Church is of divine origin, if it has
been under the special care, protection, and guidance of
an Infinite Being, is not its failure far more wonderful
than its success ? For eighteen centuries it has perse
cuted and preached, and the salvation of the world is
still remote. This is the result, and it may be asked
whether it is worth while to try to convert the world to
Catholicism.
Are Catholics better than Protestants ? Are they nearer
honest, nearer just, more charitable ? Are Catholic
nations better than Protestant ?
Do the Catholic
nations move in the van of progress ? Within their
jurisdiction are life, liberty, and property safer than
anywhere else ? Is Spain the first nation of the world ?
Let me ask another question : Are Catholics or Pro
testants better than Freethinkers ? Has the Catholic
Church produced a greater man than Humboldt ? Has
the Protestant produced a greater than Darwin ? Was
not Emerson, so far as purity of life is concerned, the
equal to any true believer ? Was Pius IX., or any
other Vicar of Christ, superior to Abraham Lincoln ?
But it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal,
and that its universality demonstrates its divine origin.
According to the Bible, the Apostles were ordered to
go into all the world to preach the gospel—yet not one of
them, nor one of their converts at any time, nor one of
the Vicars of God, for fifteen hundred years afterward,
knew of the existence of the Western Hemisphere.
During all that time, can it be said that the Catholic
Church was universal ? At the close of the fifteenth
century, there was one half of the world in which the
Catholic faith had never been preached, and in the other
half not one person in ten had ever heard of it, and of
those who had heard of it, not one in ten believed it.
Certainly the Catholic Church was not then universal.
Is it universal now ? What impression has Catholicism
made upon the many millions of China, of Japan, of
�ROME OR REASON ?
II
India, of Africa ? Can it truthfully be said that the
Catholic Church is now universal ? When any church
becomes universal, it will be the only church. There
cannot be two universal churches, neither can there be
one universal church and any other.
The Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic
Church is divine, “ by its eminent sanctity and its inex
haustible fruitfulness in all good things.”
And here let me admit that there are many millions of
good Catholics—that is, of good men and women who
are Catholics. It is unnecessary to charge universal
dishonesty or hypocrisy, for the reason that this would
be only a kind of personality. Many thousands of heroes
have died in defence of the faith, and millions of Catholics
have killed, and been killed, for the- sake of their religion.
And here it may be well enough to say that martyrdom
does not even tend to prove the truth of a religion. The
man who dies in flames, standing by what he believes to
be true, establishes, not the truth of what he believes,
but his sincerity.
Without calling in question the intentions of the
Catholic Church, we can ascertain whether it has been
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things,” and whether
it has been “ eminent for its sanctity.”
In the first place, nothing can be better than goodness.
Nothing is more sacred, or can be more sacred, than the
well-being of man. All things that tend to increase or
preserve the happiness of the human race are good—
that is to say, they are sacred. All things that tend to
his unhappiness, are bad, no matter by whom they are
taught or done.
It is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has
taught, and still teaches, that intellectual liberty is dan
gerous—that it should not be allowed. It was driven to
take this position because it had taken another. It
taught, and still teaches, that a certain belief is necessary
to salvation. It has always known that investigation
and inquiry led, or might lead, to doubt; that doubt leads,
or may lead, to heresy, and that heresy leads to hell. In
other words, the Catholic Church has something more
important than this world, more important than the well
�12
ROME OR REASON ?
being of man here. It regards this life as an oppor
tunity for joining that Church, for accepting that creed,
and for the saving of your soul.
If the Catholic Church is right in its premises, it is
right in its conclusion. If it is necessary to believe the
Catholic creed in order to obtain eternal joy, then, of
course, nothing else in this world is, comparatively
speaking, of the slightest importance. Consequently,
the Catholic Church has been, and still is, the enemy of
intellectual freedom, of investigation, of inquiry—in
other words, the enemy of progress in secular things.
The result of this was an effort to compel all men to
accept the belief necessary to salvation. This effort
naturally divided itself into persuasion and persecution.
It will be admitted that the good man is kind, merciful,
charitable, forgiving, and just. A Church must be
judged by the same standard. Has the Church been
merciful ? Has it been “ fruitful in the good things ” of
justice, charity, and forgiveness ? Can a good man,
believing a good doctrine, persecute for opinion’s sake ?
If the Church imprisons a man for the expression of an
honest opinion, is it not certain, either that the doctrine
of the Church is wrong or that the Church is bad ?
Both cannot be good. “ Sanctity ” without goodness is
impossible. Thousands of “ saints ” have been the most
malicious of the human race. If the history of the world
proves anything, it proves that the Catholic Church was
for many centuries the most merciless institution that
ever existed among men. I cannot believe that the
instruments of persecution were made and used by the
eminently good ; neither can I believe that honest people
were imprisoned, tortured, and burned at the stake by a
Church that was “ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good
things.”
And let me say here that I have no Protestant pre
judices against Catholicism, and have no Catholic
prejudices against Protestantism. I regard all religions
either without prejudice or with the same prejudice.
They were all, according to my belief, devised by men,
and all have for a foundation ignorance of this world
and fear of the next. All the gods have been made by
�ROME OR REASON ?
*3
men. They are all equally powerless and equally use
less. I like some of them better than I do others, for
the same reason that I admire some characters in fiction
more than I do others. I prefer Miranda to Caliban,
but have not the slightest idea that either of them existed.
So I prefer Jupiter to Jehovah, although perfectly satisfied
that both are myths. I believe myself to be in a frame
of mind to justly and fairly consider the claims of
different religions, believing as I do that all are wrong,
and admitting as I do that there is some good in all.
When one speaks of the “ inexhaustible fruitfulness in
all good things ” of the Catholic Church we remember
the horrors and atrocities of the Inquisition—the rewards
offered by the Roman Church for the capture and murder
of honest men. We remember the Dominican Order,
the members of which, upheld by the Vicar of Christ,
pursued the heretics like sleuth-hounds, through many
centuries.
The Church, “ inexhaustible in fruitfulness in all good
things,” not only imprisoned and branded and burned
the living, but violated the dead. It robbed graves, to
the end that it might convict corpses of heresy—to the
end that it might take from widows their portions and
from orphans their patrimony.
We remember the millions in the darkness of dungeons
-—the millions who perished by the sword-—the vast
multitudes destroyed in flames—those who were flayed
alive—those who were blinded—those whose tongues
were cut out—those into whose ears were poured molten
lead—those whose eyes were deprived of their lids—
those who were tortured and tormented in every way by
which pain could be inflicted and human nature over
come.
And we remember, too, the exultant cry of the Church
over the bodies of her victims : “ Their bodies were
burned here, but their souls are now tortured in hell.”
We remember that the Church, by treachery, bribery,
perjury, and the commission of every possible crime, got
possession and control of Christendom, and we know the
use that was made of this power—that it was used to
brutalise, degrade, stupefy, and “ sanctify ” the children
�14
ROME OR REASON ?
of men. We know also that the Vicars of Christ were
persecutors for opinion’s sake—that they sought to
destroy the liberty of thought through fear—that they
endeavored to make every brain a Bastille in which the
mind should be a convict—that they endeavored to make
every tongue a prisoner, watched by a familiar of the
Inquisition—and that they threatened punishment here,
imprisonment here, burnings here, and, in the name of
their God, eternal imprisonment and eternal burnings
hereafter.
We know, too, that the Catholic Church was, during
all the years of its power, the enemy of every science. It
preferred magic to medicine, relics to remedies, priests to
physicians. It thought more of astrologers than of
astronomers. It hated geologists, it persecuted the
chemist, and imprisoned the naturalist, and opposed
every discovery calculated to improve the condition of
mankind.
It is impossible to forget the persecutions of the Cathari,
the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Hugue
nots, and of every sect that had the courage to think just
a little for itself. Think of a woman—the mother of a
family—taken from her children and burned, on account
of her view as to the three natures of Jesus Christ. Think
of the Catholic Church—an institution with a Divine
Founder, presided over by the agent of God—punishing
a woman for giving a cup of cold water to a fellow being
who had been anathematised. Think of this Church,
“ fruitful in all good things,” launching its curse at an
honest man—not only cursing him from the crown of
his head to the soles of his feet with a fiendish
particularity, but having at the same time the impudence
to call on God, and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ,
and the. Virgin Mary, to join in the curse ; and to curse
him not only here, but for ever hereafter; calling upon
all the saints and upon all the redeemed to join in a
hallelujah of curses, so that earth and heaven should
reverberate with countless curses launched at a human
being simply for having expressed an honest thought.
This Church, so “fruitful in all good things,” invented
crimes that it might punish. This Church tried men for
�ROME OR REASON?
15
a “ suspicion of heresy ”—imprisoned them for the vice
of being suspected—stripped them of all they had on
earth and allowed them to rot in dungeons, because they
were guilty of the crime of having been suspected.
This was a part of the Canon Law.
It is too late to talk about the “ invincible stability ”
of the Catholic Church.
It was not invincible in the seventh, in the eighth, or
in the ninth centuries. It was not invincible in Germany
in Luther’s day. It was not invincible in the Low
Countries. It was not invincible in Scotland, or in
England. It was not invincible in France. It is not
invincible in Italy. It is not supreme in any intellectual
centre of the world. It does not triumph in Paris, or
Berlin ; it is not dominant in London, in England;
neither is it triumphant in the United States. It
has not within its fold the philosophers, the statesmen,
and the thinkers, who are the leaders of the human
race.
It is claimed that Catholicism “ interpenetrates all the
nations of the civilised world,” and that “ in some it
holds- the whole nation in its unity.”
I suppose the Catholic Church is more powerful in
Spain than in any other nation.
The history of this
nation demonstrates the result of Catholic supremacy,
the result of an acknowledgment by a people that a
religion is too sacred to be examined.
Without attempting in an article of this character to
point out the many causes that contributed to the adop
tion of Catholicism by the Spanish people, it is enough
to say that Spain, of all nations, has been and is the
most thoroughly Catholic, and the most thoroughly inter
penetrated and dominated by the spirit of the Church of
Rome.
Spain used the sword of the Church. In the name of
religion it endeavoured to conquer the infidel world. It
drove from its territory the Moors, not because they
were bad, not because they were idle and dishonest, but
because they were infidels. It expelled the Jews, not
because they were ignorant or vicious, but because they
were unbelievers. It drove out the Moriscoes, and
�16
ROME OR REASON ?
deliberately made outcasts of the intelligent, the industri
ous, the honest and the useful, because they were not
Catholics. It leaped like a wfild beast upon the Low
Countries, for the destruction of Protestantism.
It
covered the seas with its fleets, to destroy the intellec
tual liberty of man. And not only so—it established
the Inquisition within its borders. It imprisoned the
honest, it burned the noble, and succeeded after many
years of devotion to the true faith, in destroying the
industry, the intelligence, the usefulness, the genius, the
nobility and the wealth of a nation. It became a wreck,
a jest of the conquered, and excited the pity of its former
victims.
In this period of degradation, the Catholic Church
held “ the whole nation in its unity.”
At last Spain began to deviate from the path of the
Church. It made a treaty with an infidel power. In
1782 it became humble enough, and wise enough, to be
friends with Turkey. It made treaties with Tripoli and
Algiers and the Barbary States. It had become too
poor to ransom the prisoners taken by these powers. It
began to appreciate the fact that it could neither conquer
nor convert the world by the sword.
Spain has progressed in the arts and sciences, in all
that tends to enrich and ennoble a nation, in the pre
cise proportion that she has lost faith in the Catholic
Church. This may be said of every other nation in
Christendom. Torquemada is dead ; Castelar is alive.
The dungeons of the Inquisition are empty, and a little
light has penetrated the clouds and mists—not much,
but a little. Spain is not yet clothed and in her right
mind. A few years ago the cholera visited Madrid and
other cities. Physicians were mobbed. Processions of
saints carried the host through the streets for the pur
pose of staying the plague.
The streets were not
cleaned ; the sewers were filled. Filth and faith, old
partners, reigned supreme. The Church, “ eminent for
its sanctity,” stood in the light and cast its shadow on
the ignorant and the prostrate. The Church, in its
“ inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things,” allowed
its children to perish through ignorance, and used the
�ROME OR REASON ?
I?
diseases it had produced as an instrument to further
enslave its votaries and its victims.
No one will deny that many of its priests exhibited
heroism of the highest order in visiting the sick and
administering what are called the consolations of religion
to the dying, and in burying the dead. It is necessary
neither to deny nor disparage the self-denial and good
ness of these men. But their religion did more than all
other causes to produce the very evils that called for the
exhibition of self-denial and heroism. One scientist in
control of Madrid could have prevented the plague. In
such cases, cleanliness is far better than “ godliness ” ;
science is superior to superstition ; drainage much better
than divinity; therapeutics more excellent than theology.
Goodness is not enough—intelligence is necessary. Faith
is not sufficient, creeds are helpless, and prayers fruitless.
It is admitted that the Catholic Church exists in many
nations ; that it is dominated, at least in a great degree,
by the Bishop of Rome—that it is international in that
sense, and that in that sense it has what may be called
a “ supernational unity.” The same, however, is true of
the Masonic fraternity. It exists in many nations, but
it is not a national body. It is in the same sense extra
national, in the same sense international, and has in the
same sense a supernational unity. So the same may be
said of other societies. This, however, does not tend to
prove that anything supernational is supernatural.
It is also admitted that in faith, worship, ceremonial,
discipline and government, the Catholic’ Church is
substantially the same wherever it exists. This estab
lishes the unity, but not the divinity of the institution.
The church that does not allow investigation, that
teaches that all doubts are wicked, attains unity through
tyranny—that is, monotony by repression. Wherever
man has had something like freedom, differences have
appeared, heresies have taken root, and the divisions
have become permanent. New sects have been born,
and the Catholic Church has been weakened. The
boast of unity is the confession of tyranny.
It is insisted that the unity of the Church substantiates
its claim to divine origin, This is asserted over and over
�i8
ROMS OR REASON ?
again, in many ways ; and yet in the Cardinal’s article is
found this strange mingling of boast and confession:
“ Was it only by the human power of man that the
unity, external and internal, which for fourteen hundred
years had been supreme, was once more restored in the
Council of Constance, never to be broken again ?”
By this it is admitted that the internal and external
unity of the Catholic Church has been broken, and that
it required more than human power to restore it. Then
the boast is made that it will never be broken again.
Yet it is asserted that the internal and external unity of
the Catholic Church is the great fact that demonstrates
its divine origin.
Now if this internal and external unity was broken,
and remained broken for years, there was an interval
during which the Church had no internal or external
unity, and during which the evidence of divine origin
failed. The unity was broken in spite of the Divine
Founder. This is admitted by the use of the word
“ again.” The unbroken unity of the Church is asserted,
and upon this assertion is based the claim of divine
origin ; it is then admitted that the unity was broken.
The argument is then shifted, and the claim is made that
it required more than human power to restore the internal
and external unity of the Church, and that the restora
tion, not the unity, is proof of the divine origin. Is there
any contradiction beyond this ?
Let us state the case in another way. Let us suppose
that a man has a sword which he claims was made by
God, stating that the reason he knows that God made
the sword is that it never had been, and never could be,
broken. Now if it was afterwards ascertained that it had
been broken, and the owner admitted that it had been,
what would be thought of him if he then took the ground
that it had been welded, and that the welding was the
evidence that it was of divine origin?
A prophecy is then indulged in, to the effect that the
internal and external unity of the Church can never be
broken again. It is admitted that it was broken, it is
asserted that it was divinely restored,? and^ then it. is
declared that it is never to be broken again. No reason
�ROME OR REASON ?
19
is given for this prophecy ; it must be born of the facts
already stated, Put in a form to be easily understood, it
is this :—
We know that the unity of the Church can never be
broken, because the Church is of divine origin.
We know that it was broken ; but this does not weaken
the argument, because it was restored by God, and it has
not been broken since.
Therefore, it never can be broken again.
It is stated that the Catholic Church is immutable, and
that its immutability establishes its claim to divine origin,
Was it immutable when its unity, internal and external,
was broken ? Was it precisely the same after its unity
was broken that it was before ? Was it precisely the same
after its unity was divinely restored that it was while
broken ? Was it universal while it was without unity ?
Which of the fragments was universal—which was im
mutable ?
The fact that the Catholic Church is obedient to the
Pope, establishes, not the supernatural origin of the
Church, but the mental slavery of its members. It estab
lishes the fact that it is a successful organisation ; that it
is cunningly devised; that it destroys the mental inde
pendence, and that whoever absolutely submits to its
authority loses the jewel of his soul.
The fact that Catholics are, to a great extent, obedient
to the Pope, establishes nothing except the thoroughness
of the organisation.
How was the Roman Empire formed ? By what means
did that great Power hold in bondage the then known
world ? How is it that a despotism is established ? How
is it that the few enslave the many ? How is it that the
nobility live on the labor of the peasants ? The answer
is in one word—Organisation. The organised few
triumph over the unorganised many. The few hold the
sword and the purse. The unorganised are overcome in
detail—terrorised, brutalised, robbed, conquered.
We must remember that when Christianity was estab
lished the world was ignorant, credulous, and cruel.
The Gospel, with its idea of forgiveness, with its heaven
and hell, was suited to the barbarians among whom it
�ao
ROME OR REASON ?
was preached. Let it be understood, once for all, that
Christ had but little to do with Christianity. The people
became convinced—being ignorant, stupid, and credulous
—that the Church held the keys of heaven and hell.
■ The foundation for the most terrible mental tyranny that
has existed among men was in this way laid. The
Catholic Church enslaved to the extent of its power. It
resorted to every possible form of fraud ; it perverted
every good instinct of the human heart; it rewarded
every vice; it resorted to every artifice that ingenuity
could devise, to reach the highest round of power. It
tortured the accused to make them confess ; it tortured
witnesses to compel the commission of perjury; it tor
tured children for the purpose of making them convict
their parents; it compelled men to establish their own
innocence; it imprisoned without limit; it had the
malicious patience to wait; it left the accused without
trial, and left them in dungeons until released by death.
There is no crime that the Catholic Church did not
commit, no cruelty that it did not practise, no form of
treachery that it did not reward, and no virtue that it did
not persecute. It was the greatest and most powerful
enemy of human rights. It did all that organisation,
cunning, piety, self-denial, heroism, treachery, zeal, and
brute force could do to enslave the children of men. It
was the enemy of intelligence, the assassin of liberty, and
the destroyer of progress. It loaded the noble with
chains and the infamous with honors. In one hand it
carried the alms-dish, in the other a dagger. It argued
with the sword, persuaded with poison, and convinced
with the faggot.
It is impossible to see how the divine origin of a
Church can be established by showing that hundreds of
bishops have visited the Pope.
Does the fact that millions of faithful visit Mecca
establish the truth of the Koran? Is it a scene for
congratulation when the bishops of thirty nations kneel
before a man ? Is it not humiliating to know that man
is willing to kneel at the feet of man ? Could a noble
man demand, or. joyfully receive, the humiliation of his
fellows?
�ROME OR REASON '?
21
As a rule, arrogance and humility go together. .He
who in power compels his fellow-man to kneel, .will him
self kneel when weak. The tyrant is a cringer in power ,
a cringer is a tyrant out of power. Great men stand
face to face. They meet on equal terms. The cardinal
who kneels in the presence of the Pope, wants the bishop
to kneel in his presence; and the bishop who kneels
demands that the priest shall kneel to. him; and the
priest who kneels demands that they in lower orders
shall kneel; and all, from Pope to the lowest—that is to
say, from Pope to exorcist, from Pope to the one in
charge of the bones of saints all demand that the
people, the laymen, those upon whom they live, shall
kneel to them.
The man of free and noble spirit will not kneel.
Courage has no knees. Fear kneels, or falls upon its
ctsh-di
The Cardinal insists that the Pope is the Vicar of
Christ, and that all Popes have been. What is a Vicar
of Jesus Christ ? He is a substitute, in office. He
stands in the place, or occupies the position in relation
to the Church, in relation to the world, that Jesus Christ
would occupy were he the Pope at Rome. In other
words, he takes Christ’s place; so that, according to the
doctrine of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ himself is
present in the person of the Pope.
We all know that a good man may employ a bad
agent. A good king might leave his realm and put in
his place a tyrant and a wretch. The good man and the
good king cannot certainly know what manner of man
the agent is-—what kind of person the vicar is; conse
quently the bad may be chosen. But if the king
appointed a bad vicar, knowing him to. be bad, knowing
that he would oppress the people, knowing that he would
imprison and burn the noble and generous, what excuse
can be imagined for such a king ?
. .
Now, if the Church is of divine origin, and if each
Pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, he must have been
chosen by Jesus Christ", and when he was chosen
Christ must have known exactly what his Vicar would
do. Can we believ^xthat an infinity wise and good
�22
ROME OR REASON r1
Being would choose immoral, dishonest, ignorant,
malicious, heartless, fiendish, and inhuman Vicars ?
The Cardinal admits that “ the history of Christianity
is the history of the Church, and that the history of the
Church is the history of the Pontiffs,” and he then de
clares that “ the greatest statesmen and rulers that the
world has ever seen are the Popes of Rome.”
Let me call attention to a few passages in Draper’s
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
“ Constantine was one of the Vicars of Christ. After
wards, Stephen IV. was chosen. The eyes of Constan
tine were then put out by Stephen, acting in Christ’s
place. 1 he tongue of the Bishop Theodorus was
•
amputated by the man who had been substituted for
God. This bishop was left in a dungeon to perish of
thirst. Pope Leo III. was seized in the street and
forced into a church, where the nephew's of Pope Adrian
attempted to put out his eyes and cut off his tongue.
His successor, Stephen V., was driven ignominiously
from Rome. His successor, Paschal I., was accused of
blinding and murdering twro ecclesiastics in the Lateran
Palace. John VIII.,unable to resist the Mohammedans,
was compelled to pay them tribute.
“At this time, the Bishop of Naples was in secret
alliance with the Mohammedans, and they divided with
this Catholic bishop the plunder they collected from
other Catholics. This bishop was excommunicated by
the Pope; afterwards he gave him absolution because
he betrayed the chief Mohammedans, and assassinated
others. There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy to mur
der the Pope, and some of the treasures of the Church
were seized, and the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened
with false keys to admit the Saracens. Formosus, who
had been engaged in these transactions, who had been
excommunicated as a conspirator for the murder of Pope
John, was himself elected Pope in 891. Boniface VI.
was his successor. He had been deposed from the
diaconate and from the priesthood for his immoral and
lewd life. Stephen VII. was the next Pope, and he had
the dead body of Formosus taken from the grave,
clothed in papal habiliments, propped up in a chair and
tried before a Council. The corpse w'as found guilty,
three fingers were cut off, and the body cast into the
Tiber. Afterwards Stephen VII.. this Vicar of Christ,
was thrown into prison and strangled.
�ROME OR REASON ?
23
“ From 896 to 900, five popes were consecrated.
Leo V., in less than two months after he became Pope,
was cast into prison by Christopher, one of his chaplains.
This Christopher usurped his place, and in a little while
was expelled from Rome by Sergius III., who became
Pope in 905. This Pope lived in criminal intercourse
with the celebrated Theodora, who with her daughters
Marozia and Theodora, both prostitutes, exercised an
extraordinary control over him. The love of Theodora
was also shared by John X. She gave him the Arch
bishopric of Ravenna, and made him Pope in 915. The
daughter of Theodora overthrew this Pope. She sur
prised him in the Lateran Palace. His brother, Peter,
was killed; the Pope was thrown into prison, where he
was afterwards murdered. Afterward, this Marozia,
daughter of Theodora, made her own son Pope, John XI.
Many affirmed that Pope Sergius was his father, but his
mother inclined to attribute him to her husband Alberic,
whose brother Guido she afterwards married. Another
of her sons, Alberic, jealous of his brother, John the
Pope, cast him and their mother into prison. Alberic s
son was then elected Pope as John XII.
“John was nineteen years old when he became the
Vicar of Christ. His reign was characterised by the
most shocking immoralities, so that the Emperor Otho I.
was compelled by the German clergy to inteifere. He
was tried. It appeared that John had received bribes
for the consecration of bishops; that he had ordained
one who was only ten years old; that he was charged
with incest, and with so many adulteries that the Lateran
Palace had become a brothel. He put out the eyes of
* one ecclesiastic; he maimed another—both dying in
consequence of their injuries. He was given to drunken
ness and to gambling. He was deposed at last, and
Leo VII. elected in his stead. Subsequently he got the
upper hand. He seized his antagonists ; he cut off the
hand of one, the nose, the finger, and the tongue of
others. His life was eventually brought to an end by
the vengeance of a man whose wife he had seduced.”
And yet,I admit that the most infamous Popes, the
most heartless and fiendish bishops, friars, and priests
were models of mercy, charity, and justice when com
pared with the orthodox God—with the God they wor
shipped. These popes, these bishops, these priests could
persecute only for a few years—they could burn only for
�24
kOME OR REASON ?
a few moments—but their God threatened to imprison
and burn for ever; and their God is as much worse than
they were, as hell is worse than the Inquisition.
“John XIII, was strangled in prison. Boniface VII.
imprisoned Benedict VII., and starved him to death.
John XIV. was secretly put to death in the dungeons of
the castle of St. Angelo. The corpse of Boniface was
dragged by the populace through the streets.”
It must be remembered that the popes were assassin
ated by Catholics—murdered by the faithful; that one
Vicar of Christ strangled another Vicar of Christ, and
that these men were “ the greatest rulers and the
greatest statesmen of the earth.”
“ Pope John XVI. was seized, his eyes put out, his
nose cut off, his tongue torn from his mouth, and he was
sent through the streets mounted on an ass, with his
face to the tail. Benedict IX., a boy of less than
twelye years of age, was raised to the apostolic throne.
One of his successors, Victor III., declared that the life
of Benedict was so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that
he shuddered to describe it. He ruled like a captain of
banditti. The people, unable to bear longer his
adulteries, his homicides and his abominations, rose
against him, and in despair of maintaining his position,
he put up his papacy to auction, and it was bought by a
Presbyter named John, who became Gregory VI., in the
year of grace 1045. Well may we ask, Were these the
Vicegerents of God upon earth—these, who had truly
reached that goal beyond which the last effort of human
wickedness cannot pass?”
It may be sufficient to say that there is no crime that
man can commit that has not been committed by the
Vicars of Christ. They have inflicted every possible
torture, violated every natural right. Greater monsters
the human race has not produced.
Among the “some two hundred and fifty-eight”
Vicars of Christ there were probably some good men.
This would have happened even if the intention had
been to get all bad men, for the reason that man reaches
perfection neither in good nor in evil; but if they were
selected by Christ himself, if they were selected by a
Church with a divine origin and under divine guidance,
then there is no way to account for the selection of a
�roMe or
Reason?
25
bad one. If one hypocrite was duly elected Pope—one
murderer, one strangler, one starver—this demonstrates
that all the Popes were selected by men, and by men
only, that the claim of divine guidance is born of zeal
and uttered without knowledge.
But who were the Vicars of Christ ? How many
have there been ? Cardinal Manning himself does not
know. He is not sure. He says : “ Starting from St.
Peter to Leo. XIII., there have been some two hundred
and fifty-eight Pontiffs claiming to be recognised by the
whole Catholic unity as successors of St. Peter and
Vicars of Jesus Christ.” Why did he use the word
“some”? Why “claiming”? Does he positively
know ? Is it possible that the present Vicar of Christ is
not certain as to the number of his predecessors ? Is
he infallible in faith and fallible in fact ?
PART II.
“ If we live thus tamely—
To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet—
Farewell nobility.”
No one will deny that “ the Pope speaks to many people
in many nations; that he treats with empires and
governments,” and that “neither from Canterbury nor
from Constantinople such a voice goes forth.”
How does the Pope speak ? What does he say ?
He speaks against the liberty of man—against the
progress of the human race. He speaks to calumniate
thinkers, and to warn the faithful against the discoveries
of science. He speaks for the destruction of civilisa
tion.
Who listens ? Do astronomers, geologists, and
scientists put the hand to the ear, fearing that an accent
�26
Rome or reason ?
may be lost ? Does France listen ? Does Italy hear ?
Is not the Church weakest at its centre ? Do those
who have raised Italy from the dead, and placed her
again among the great nations, pay attention ? Does
Great Britain care for this voice—this moan, this groan
—of the Middle Ages? Do the words of Leo XIII.
impress the intelligence of the Great Republic ? Can
anything be more absurd than for the Vicar of Christ to
attack a demonstration of science with a passage of
Scripture, or a quotation from one of the “ Fathers ” ?
Compare the popes with the kings and queens of
England. Infinite wisdom had but little to do with the
selection of these monarchs, and yet they were far better
than any equal number of consecutive popes. This is
faint praise, even for kings and queens ; but it shows
that chance succeeded in getting better rulers for England
than “ Infinite Wisdom ” did for the Church of Rome.
Compare the popes with the presidents of the Republic
elected by the people. If Adams had murdered
Washington, and Jefferson had imprisoned Adams, and
if Madison had cut out Jefferson’s tongue, and Monroe
had assassinated Madison, and John Quincey Adams had
poisoned Monroe, and General Jackson had hung Adams
and his Cabinet, we might say that presidents had been
as virtuous as popes. But if this had happened the
verdict of the world would be that the people are not
capable of selecting their presidents.
But this voice from Rome is growing feeble day by
day ; so feeble that the Cardinal admits that the Vicar
of God and the supernatural Church “are being tor
mented by Falck laws, by Mancini laws, and by Crispi
laws.” In other words, this representative of God, this
substitute of Christ, this Church of divine origin, this
supernatural institution—pervaded by the Holy Ghost—
are being “ tormented ” by three politicians. Is it pos
sible that this patriotic trinity is more powerful than the
other ?
It is claimed that if the Catholic Church “ be only a
human system, built up by the intellect, will, and energy
of men, the adversaries must prove it—that the burden
is upon them.”
�ROME OR REASON ?
As a general thing, institutions are natural. If this
Church is supernatural, it is the one exception. The
affirmative is with those who claim that it is of divine
origin. So far as we know, all governments and all
creeds are the work of man. No one believes that Rome
was a supernatural production, and yet its beginnings
were as small as those of the Catholic Church. Com
mencing in weakness, Rome grew, and fought, and con
quered, until it was believed that the sky bent above a
subjugated world. And yet all was natural. For every
effect there was an efficient cause.
The Catholic asserts that all other religions have been
produced by man—that Brahminism and Buddhism, the
religion of Isis and Osiris, the marvellous mythologies
of Greece and Rome, were the work of the human mind.
From these religions Catholicism has borrowed. Long
before Catholicism was born it w’as believed that women
had borne children whose fathers were gods. The Trinity
was promulgated in Egypt centuries before the birth of
Moses. Celibacy was taught by the ancient Nazarenes
and Essenes, by the priests of Egypt and India, by
mendicant monks, and by the piously insane of many
countries long before the Apostles lived. The Chinese
tell us that “ when there were but one man and one
woman upon the earth, the woman refused to sacrifice
her virginity even to people the globe ; and the gods,
honoring her purity, granted that she should conceive
beneath the gaze of her lover’s eyes, and a virgin mother
became the parent of humanity.”
The founders of many religions have insisted that it
was the duty of man to renounce the pleasures of sense,
and millions before our era took the vows of chastity,
poverty, and obedience, and most cheerfully lived upon
the labor of others.
The sacraments of baptism and confirmation are far
older than the Church of Rome. The Eucharist is
Pagan. Long before Popes began to murder each
other, Pagans ate cakes—the flesh of Ceres, and drank
wine—the blood of Bacchus. Holy water flowed in the
Ganges and Nile, priests interceded for the people, and
anointed the dying.
It will not do to say that every successful religion that
�28
ROME OR REASON ?
has taught unnatural doctrines, unnatural practices, must
of necessity have been of divine origin. In most reli
gions there has been a strange mingling of the good and
bad, of the merciful and cruel, of the loving and
malicious. Buddhism taught the universal brotherhood
of man, insisted on the development of the mind ; and
this religion was propagated, not by the sword, but by
preaching, by persuasion, and kindness ; yet in many
things it was contrary to the human will, contrary to the
human passions, and contrary to good sense. Buddhism
succeeded. Can we, for this reason, say that it is a super
natural religion ? Is the. unnatural the supernatural ?
It is insisted that, while other Churches have changed,
the Catholic Church alone has remained the same, and
that this fact demonstrates its divine origin.
Has the creed of Buddhism changed in three thousand
years ? Is intellectual stagnation a demonstration of
divine origin ? When anything refuses to grow, are we
certain that the seed was planted by God ? If the
Catholic Church is the same to-day that it has been for
many centuries, this proves that there has been no intel
lectual development. If men do not differ Upon religious
subjects, it is because they do not think.
Differentiation is the law of growth, of progress.
Every Church must gain or lose ; it cannot remain the
same ; it must decay or grow. The fact that the Catholic
Church has not grown—that it has been petrified from
the first—does not establish divine origin ; it simply
establishes the fact that it retards the progress of man.
Everything in nature changes ; every atom is in motion;
every star moves. Nations, institutions, and individuals
have youth, manhood, old age, death. This is, and will
be, true of the Catholic Church. It was once weak; it
grew stronger ; it reached its climax of power ; it began
to decay ; it can never rise again. It is confronted by
the dawn of Science. In the presence of the nineteenth
century it cowers.
It is not true that “ All natural causes run to disinte
gration.”
Natural causes run to integration as well as to dis
integration. All growth is integration, and all growth is
natural.
All decay is disintegration, and all decay is
�ROME OR REASON ?
29
natural. Nature builds and nature destroys. When
the acorn grows—when the sunlight and rain fall upon
it, and the oak rises—so far as the oak is concerned “all
natural causes” do not “run to disintegration.” But
there comes a time when the oak has reached its limit,
and then the forces of nature run towards disintegration,
and finally the. old oak falls. But if the Cardinal is
right, if “ all natural causes run to disintegration,” then
every success must have been of divine origin, and
nothing is natural but destruction. This, is Catholic
science: “All natural causes run to disintegration.’
What do these causes find to disintegrate? Nothing
that is natural. -The fact that the thing is not disinte
grated shows that it was, and is, of supernatural origin.
According to the Cardinal, the only business of nature
is to disintegrate the supernatural. To prevent this, the
supernatural needs the protection of the Infinite. Accord
ing to this doctrine, if anything lives and grows, it does
so in spite of nature. Growth, then, is not in accord
ance with, but in opposition to, nature. Every plant is
supernatural—it defeats the disintegrating influences of
rain and light. The generalisation of the Cardinal is
half the truth. It would be. equally true to say : All
natural causes run to integration.” But the whole truth
is that growth and decay are equal.
The Cardinal asserts that “ Christendom was created
by the world-wide Church as we see it before our eyes
at this day. Philosophers and statesmen believe it to
be the work of their own hands; they did not make it,
but they have for three hundred years been unmaking it
by reformations and revolutions.”
The meaning of this is that Christendom was far better
three hundred years ago than now ; that during these
three centuries Christendom has been going towards
barbarism. It means that the supernatural Church of
God has been a failure for three hundred years; that it
has been unable to withstand the attacks of philosophers
and statesmen, and that it has been helpless in the midst
of “ reformations and revolutions.”
What was the condition of the world three hundred
years ago, the period, according to the Cardinal, in which
the Church reached the height of its influence and since
�3°
ROME OR REASON ?
which it has been unable to withstand the rising tide of
reformation and the whirlwind of revolution ?
In that blessed time Phillip II. was King of Spain—he
with the cramped head and the monstrous jaw. Heretics
were hunted like wild and poisonous beasts ; the Inquisi
tion was firmly established, and priests were busy with
rack and fire. With a zeal born of the hatred of man
and the love of God, the Church with every instrument
of torture, touched every nerve in the human body.
In those happy days the Duke of Alva was devasta
ting the homes of Holland ; heretics were buried alive;
their tongues were torn from their mouths, their lids
from their eyes; the Armada was on the sea for the
destruction of the heretics of England, and the
Moriscoes, a million and a half of industrious people,
were being driven by sword and flame from their homes.
The Jews had been expelled from Spain. This Catholic
country had succeeded in driving intelligence and industry
from its territory; and this had been done with a cruelty,
with a ferocity, unequalled in the annals of crime.
Nothing was left but ignorance, bigotry, intolerance,
credulity, the Inquisition, the seven sacraments and the
seven deadly sins. And yet a Cardinal of the nine
teenth century, living in the land of Shakespeare, regrets
the change that has been wrought by the intellectual
efforts, by the discoveries, by the inventions and heroism
of three hundred years.
Three hundred years ago, under Charles IX., in France,
son of Catherine de Medici, in the year of grace 1572—
after nearly sixteen centuries of Catholic Christianity—
after hundreds of vicars of Christ had sat in St. Peter’s
chair—after the natural passions of man had been
“softened” by the creed of Rome—came the Massacre of
St. Bartholomew, the result of a conspiracy between the
Vicar of Christ, Philip II., Charles IX., and his fiendish
mother. Let the Cardinal read the account of this massacre
once more, and after reading it, imagine that he sees the
gashed and mutilated bodies of thousands of men and
women, and then let him say that he regrets the revolu
tions and reformations of three hundred years.
About three hundred years ago Clement VIII., Vicar
of Christ, acting in God’s place, substitute of the
�ROME OR REASON ?
31
Infinite, persecuted Giordano Bruno even unto death,
This great, this sublime man, was tried for heresy. He
had ventured to assert the rotary motion of the earth ;
he had hazarded the conjecture that there were in the
fields of infinite space worlds larger and more glorious
than ours. For these low and groveling thoughts, for
this contradiction of the word and Vicar of God, this
man was imprisoned for many years. But his noble
spirit was not broken, and finally in the year 1600, by
the orders of the infamous Vicar, he was chained to the
stake. Priests believing in the doctrine of universal
forgiveness; priests who when smitten upon one cheek
turned the other ; carried with a kind of ferocious joy
faggots to the feet of this incomparable man. These
disciples of “ Our Lord ” were made joyous as the
flames, like serpents, climbed around the body of Bruno.
In a few moments the brave thinker was dead, and the
priests who had burned him fell upon their knees and
asked the infinite God to continue the blessed work for
ever in hell.
There are two things that cannot exist in the same
universe—an infinite God and a martyr.
Does the Cardinal regret that kings and emperors are
not now engaged in the extermination of Protestants ?
Does he regret that dungeons of the Inquistion are no
longer crowded with the best and bravest ? Does he
long for the fires of the auto da fe ?
In coming to a conclusion as to the origin of the
Catholic Church ; in determining the truth of the claim
of infallibility, we are not restricted to the physical
achievements of that Church, or to the history of its
propagation, or to the rapidity of its growth.
This Church has a creed ; and if this Church is of
divine origin ; if its head is the Vicar of Christ, and, as
such, infallible in matters of faith and morals, this creed
must be true. Let us start with the supposition that
God exists, and that he is infinitely wise, powerful and
good—-and this is only a supposition. Now, if the creed
is foolish, absurd and cruel, it cannot be of divine origin.
We find in this creed, the following:
“ Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the Catholic faith,”
�32
ROME OR REASON ?
It is not necessary, before all things, that he be good,
honest, merciful, charitable and just. Creed is more
important than conduct. The most important of all
things is, that he hold the Catholic faith. There were
thousands of years during which it was not necessary to
hold that faith, because that faith did not exist; and yet
during that time the virtues were just as important as
now, just as important as they ever can be. Millions of
the noblest of the human race never heard of this
creed. Millions of the bravest and best have heard of
it, examined, and rejected it. Millions of the most
infamous have believed it, and because of their belief, or
notwithstanding their belief, have murdered millions of
their fellows. We know that men can be, have been,
and are just as wicked with it as without it. We know
that it is not necessary to believe it to be good, loving,
tender, noble, and self-denying.
We admit that
millions who have believed it have also been self
denying and heroic, and that millions, by such belief,
were not prevented from torturing and destroying the
helpless.
Now if all who believed it were good, and all who
rejected it were bad, then there might be some propriety
in saying that “whosoever will be saved,before all things
it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.” But as
the experience of mankind is otherwise, the declaration
becomes absurd, ignorant and cruel.
There is still another clause :
“ Which faith, except everyone do keep entire and
inviolate, without doubt he shall everlastingly perish.”
We now have both sides of this wonderful truth:
The believer will be saved, the unbeliever will be lost.
We know that faith is not the child or servant of the
will. We know that belief is a conclusion based upon
what the mind supposes to be true. We know that it is
not an act of the will. Nothing can be more absurd
than to save a man because he is not intelligent enough
to accept the truth, and nothing can be more infamous
than to damn a man because he is intelligent enough to
reject the false. It resolves itself into a question of
intelligence. If the creed is true, then a man rejects it
because he lacks intelligence. Is this a crime for which
�ROME
or reason
?
33
a man should everlastingly perish ? If the creed is
false, then a man accepts it because he lacks intelligence.
In. both cases the crime is exactly the same. If a man
is to be damned for rejecting the truth, certainly he
should not be saved for accepting the false. _ This one
clause demonstrates that a being of infinite wisdom and
goodness did not write it. It also demonstrates that it
was the work of men who had neither wisdom nor a
sense of justice.
.
What is this Catholic faith that must be held ? It is
this:
’
...
„ . .
u That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity m
Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the
substance.”
Why should an Infinite Being demand worship ?
Why should one God wish to be worshipped as three ?
Why should three Gods wish to be worshipped as
one ? Why should we pray to one God and think of
three, or pray to three Gods and think of one ? Can
this increase the happiness of the one or of the three ?
Is it possible to think of one as three, or of three as one ?
If you think of three as one, can you think of one as
none, or of none as one ? When you think of three as
one, what do you do with the other two? You must not
“ confound the persons ”—they must be kept separate.
When you think of one as three, how do you get the
other two ? You must not “ divide the substance.
Is
it possible to write greater contradictions than these ?
This creed demonstrates the human origin of the
Catholic Church. Nothing could be more unjust than to
punish man for unbelief—for the expression of honest
thought—for having been guided by his reason for
having acted in accordance with his best judgment.
Another claim is made, to the effect “ that the Catholic
Church has filled the world with the true knowledge of
the one true God, and that it has destroyed all idols by
light instead of by fire.”
The Catholic Church described the true God as a being
who would inflict eternal pain on his weak and erring
children ; described him as a fickle, quick-tempered, un
reasonable deity, whom honesty enraged, and whom
flattery governed; one who loved to see fear upon its
�34
Rome or reason ?
knees, ignorance with closed eyes and open mouth ; one
who delighted in useless self-denial, who loved to’hear
the sighs and sobs of suffering nuns, as they lay prostrate
on dungeon floors; one who was delighted when the
husband deserted his family and lived alone in some cave
in the far wilderness, tormented by dreams and driven
to insanity by prayer and penance, by fasting and faith.
According to the Catholic Church, the true God enjoyed
the agonies of heretics. He loved the smell of their
burning flesh, he applauded with wide palms when
philosophers were flayed alive, and to him the auto da fc
was a divine comedy. The shrieks of wives, the cries
of babes, when fathers were being burned, gave contrast,
heightened the effect, and filled his cup with joy. This
true God did not know the shape of the earth he had
made, and had forgotten the orbits of the stars. “ The
stream of light which descended from the beginning ”
was propagated by faggot to faggot, until Christendom
was filled with the devouring fires of faith.
It may also be said that the Catholic Church filled the
world with the true knowledge of the one true Devil. It
filled the air with malicious phantoms, crowded innocent
sleep with leering fiends, and gave the world to the
domination of witches and wizards, spirits and spooks,
goblins and ghosts, and butchered and burned thousands
for the commission of impossible crimes.
It is contended that: “ In this true knowledge of the
Divine Nature was revealed to men their own relation
to a Creator as sons to a Father.”
This tender relation was revealed by the Catholics to
the Pagans, the Arians, the Cathari, the Waldenses, the
Albigenses, the heretics, the Jews, the Moriscoes, the
Protestants—to the natives of the West Indies, of
Mexico, of Peru—to philosophers, patriots, and thinkers.
All these victims were taught to regard the true God as
a loving Father, and this lesson was taught with every
instrument of torture—with branding and burnings,
with flayings and flames. The world was filled with
cruelty and credulity, ignorance and intolerance, and the
soil in which all these horrors grew was the true know
ledge of the one true God, and the true knowledge of
the one true Devil. And yet we are compelled to say
�ROME OR REASON ?
35
that the one true Devil described by the Catholic Church
was not as malevolent as the one true God.
Is it true that the Catholic Church overthrew idolatry ?
What is idolatry ? What shall we say of the worship
of popes, of the doctrine of the Real Presence, of divine
honors paid to saints, of sacred vestments, of holy water,
of consecrated cups and plates, of images and relics, of
amulets and charms ?
.
The Catholic Church filled the world with the spirit of
idolatry. It abandoned the idea of continuity in nature,
it denied the integrity of cause and effect. The govern
ment of the world was the composite result of the caprice
of God, the malice of Satan, the prayers of the faithful—
softened, it may be, by the charity of Chance. Yet the
Cardinal asserts, without the preface of a smile, that
“ Demonology was overthrown by the Church, with the
assistance of forces that were above nature
and in the
same breath gives birth to this enlightened statement:
“ Beelzebub is not divided against himself.” Is a belief
in Beelzebub a belief in demonology ? Has the Cardinal
forgotten the Council of Nice, held in the year of grace
787, that declared the worship of images to be lawful ?
Did that infallible Council, under the guidance of the
Holy Ghost, destroy idolatry ?
The Cardinal takes the ground that marriage is a
sacrament, and therefore indissoluble, and he also insists
that celibacy is far better than marriage—holier than a
sacrament—that marriage is not the highest state, but
that “the state of virginity unto death is the highest
condition of man and woman.”
The highest ideal of a family is where all are equal—
where love has superseded authority—where each seeks
the good of all, and where none obey—where no religion
can sunder hearts, and with which no church can
interfere.
The real marriage is based on mutual affection—the
ceremony is but the outward evidence of the inward
flame. To this contract there are but two parties. The
Church is an impudent intruder. Marriage is made
public to the end that the real contract may be known,
so that the world can see that the parties have been
actuated by the highest and holiest motives that find
�36
ROME OR REASON?
expression in the acts of human beings. The man and
woman are not joined together by God, or by the
Church, or by the State. The Church and State may
prescribe certain ceremonies, certain formalities; but all
these are only evidence of the existence of a sacred fact
in the hearts of the wedded. The indissolubility of
marriage is a dogma that has filled the lives of millions
with agony and tears. It has given a perpetual excuse
for vice and immorality. Fear has borne children
begotten by brutality. Countless women have endured
the insults, indignities and cruelties of fiendish husbands,
because they thought that it was the will of God. The
contract of marriage is the most important that human
beings can make ; but no contract can be so important
as to release one of the parties from the obligation of
performance; and no contract, whether made between
man and woman, or between them and God, after a
failure of consideration caused by the wilful act of the man
or woman, can hold and bind the innocent and honest.
Do the believers in indissoluble marriage treat their
wives better than others ? A little while ago a woman
said to a man who had raised his hand to strike her,
“ Do not touch me; you have no right to beat me ; I
am not your wife.”
About a year ago a husband, whom God in his infinite
wisdom had joined to a loving and patient woman in
the indissoluble sacrament of marriage, becoming en
raged, seized the helpless wife and tore out one of her
eyes. She forgave him. A few weeks ago he deliber
ately repeated this frightful crime, leaving his victim
totally blind. Would it not have been better if man,
before the poor woman was blinded, had put asunder
whom God had joined together ?
Thousands of
husbands, who insist that marriage is indissoluble, are
beaters of wives.
The law of the Church has created neither the purity
nor the peace of domestic life. Back of all Churches is
human affection. Back of all theologies is the love of
the human heart. Back of all your priests and creeds is
the adoration of the one woman by the one man, and of
the one man by the one woman. Back of your faith is
the fireside, back of your folly is the family ; and
�ROME OR REASON ?
37
back of all your holy mistakes and your sacred ab
surdities is the love of husband and wife, and of parent
and child.
It is not true that neither the Greek nor the Roman
world had any true conception of a home. The splendid
story of Ulysses and Penelope, the parting of Hector and
Andromache, demonstrate that a true conception, of
home existed among the Greeks. Before the establish
ment of Christianity the Roman matron commanded the
admiration of the then known world. She was free and
noble. The Church degraded woman, made her the
property of the husband, and trampled her beneath its
brutal feet. The “fathers” denounced woman as a
perpetual temptation, as the cause of all evil. The
Church worshipped a God who had upheld polygamy,
and had pronounced his curse on woman, and had
declared that she should be the serf of the husband.
This Church followed the teachings of St. Paul. It
taught the uncleanliness of marriage, and insisted that
all children were conceived in sin. This Church pre
tended to have been founded by one who offered a
reward in this world, and eternal joy in the next, to
husbands who would forsake their wives and children
and follow him. Did this tend to the elevation of
woman ? Did this detestable doctrine “ create the purity
and peace of domestic life ? ” Is it true that a monk is
purer than a good and noble father ? that a nun is holier
than a loving mother ?
Is there anything deeper and stronger than a mother s
love ? Is there anything purer, holier than a mother
holding her dimpled babe against her billowed breast ?
The good man is useful, the best man is the most
useful. Those who fill the nights with barren prayers
and holy hunger, torture themselves for their own good
and not for the benefit of others. They are earning
eternal glory for themselves ; they do not fast for their
fellow-men, their selfishness is only equalled by their
foolishness. Compare the monk in his selfish cell,
counting beads and saying prayers for the purpose, of
saving his barren soul, with a husband and father sitting
by his fireside with wife and children. Compare the
nun with the mother and her babe.
�38
ROME OR REASON ?
Celibacy is the essence of vulgarity. It tries to put a
stain upon motherhood, upon marriage, upon love_ that
is to say, upon all that is holiest in the human heart.
Take love from the world, and there is nothing left
worth living for. The Church. has treated this great,
this sublime, this unspeakably holy passion, as though it
polluted the heart. They have placed the love of God
above the love of woman, above the love of man.
Human love is generous and noble. The love of God is
selfish, because man does not love God for God’s sake
but for his own.
Yet the Cardinal asserts “ that the change wrought
by Christianity in the social, political, and international
relations of the world the root of this ethical change,
private and public, is the Christian home.” A moment
afterwards, this prelate insists that celibacy is far
better than marriage. If the world could be induced
to live, in accordance with the “highest state,” this
generation would be the last. Why were men and
women created ? Why did not the Catholic God com
mence with the sinless and sexless ? The Cardinal
ought to take the ground that to talk well is good, but
that to be dumb is the highest condition ; that hearing
is a pleasure, but that deafness is ecstasy ; and that to
think, to reason, is very well, but that to be a Catholic
is far better.
Why should we desire the destruction of human
passions ? Take passions from human beings, and
what is left? The great object should be, not to
destroy passions, but to make them obedient to the
intellect. To indulge passion to the utmost is one form
of intemperance, to destroy passion is another. The
reasonable gratification of passion under the domination
of the intellect is true wisdom and perfect virtue.
The goodness, the sympathy, the self-denial of the
nun, of the monk, all come from the mother instinct, the
father instinct; all were produced by human affection—
by the love of man for woman, of woman for man. Love
is a transfiguration. It ennobles, purifies, and glorifies.
In true marriage two hearts burst into flower. Two
lives unite. They melt in music. Every moment is a
�KOi\iE OR REASON '?
39
melody. Love is a revelation, a creation. From love
the world borrows its beauty and the heavens their glory.
Justice, self-denial, charity, and pity are the children of
love. Lover, wife, mother, husband, father, child, home
—these words shed light; they are the gems of human
speech. Without love all glory fades, the noble falls
from life, art dies, music loses meaning and becomes
mere motions of the air, and virtue ceases to exist.
It is asserted that this life of celibacy is above and
against the tendencies of human nature; and the Car
dinal then asks: “ Who will ascribe this to natural
causes, and, if so, why did it not appear in the first four
thousand years ?”
If there is in a system of religion"a doctrine, a dogma,
or a practice against the tendencies of human nature
if this religion succeeds, then it is claimed by the
Cardinal that such religion must be of divine origin. Is
it 11 against the tendencies of human nature for a
mother to throw her child into the Ganges to please a
supposed god ? Yet a religion that insisted on that
sacrifice succeeded, and has, to-day, more believers than
the Catholic Church can boast.
Religions, like nations and individuals, have always
gone along the line of least resistance. Nothing has
“ ascended the stream of human license by a power
mightier than nature.” There is no such power. There
never was, there never can be, a miracle. We know
that man is a conditioned being. We know that he is
affected by a change of conditions. If he is ignorant he
is superstitious—that is natural. If his brain is developed,
if he perceives clearly that all things are naturally pro
duced, he ceases to be superstitious and becomes scien
tific. He is not a saint, but a savant—not a priest, but
a philosopher. He does not worship, he works; he inves
tigates ; he thinks; he takes advantage, through
intelligence, of the forces of nature. He is no longer
the victim of appearances, the dupe of his own ignorance,
and the persecutor of his fellow-men.
He then knows that it is far better to love his wife
and children than to love God. He then knows that the
love of man for woman, of woman for man, of parent
for child, of child for parent, is far better, far holier, than
�4°
fear10^
ROME OR REASON ?
phantom born of ignorance and
It is illogical to take the ground that the world was
cruel and ignorant and idolatrous when the Catholic
Church was established, and that because the world is
better now than then, the Church is of divine origin.
.What was the world when science came ? What was
it in the days of Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler ? What
was it when printing was invented ? What was it when
the Western World was found ? Would it not be much
easier to prove that science is of divine origin ?
. Science does not persecute. It does not shed blood—
it fills the world with light. It cares nothing for heresy;
it develops the mind, and enables man to answer his
own prayers.
Cardinal Manning takes the ground that Jehovah
practically abandoned the children of men for four
thousand years, and gave them over to every -abomina
tion. He claims that Christianity came “ in the fulness
of time,” and it is then admitted that “ what the fulness
of time may mean is one of the mysteries of times and
seasons that it is not for us to know.” Having declared
that it is a mystery, and one that we are not to know,
the Cardinal explains it: “One motive for the long
delay of four thousand years is not far to seek—it gave
time, full and ample, for the utmost development and
consolidation of all the falsehood and evil of which the
intellect and will of man is capable.”
Is it possible to imagine why an infinitely good and
wise being “ gave time full and ample for the utmost
development and consolidation of falsehood and evil ”?
Why should an infinitely wise God desire this develop
ment and consolidation ? What would be thought of a
father who should refuse to teach his son and deliberately
allow him to go into every possible excess, to the end
that he might “ develop all the falsehood and evil of
which his intellect and will were capable ”? If a super
natural religion is a necessity, and if without it all men
simply develop and consolidate falsehood and evil, why
was not a supernatural religion given to the first man ?
The Catholic Church, if this be true, should have been
founded in the garden of Eden. Was it not cruel to
�ROME OR REASON ?
4*
drown a world just for the want of a supernatural
religion ; a religion that man, by no possibility, could
furnish ? Was there “ husbandry in heaven ?
But the Cardinal contradicts himself by not only
admitting, but declaring, that the world had never seen
a legislation so just, so equitable, as that of Rome. Is
it possible that a nation in which falsehood and evil had
reached their highest development was, after all, so wise,
so just, and so equitable ? Was not the civil law far
better than the Mosaic—more philosophical, nearer just?
The civil law was produced without the assistance of God.
According to the Cardinal, it was produced by men in
whom all the falsehood and evil of which they were
capable had been developed and consolidated, while the
cruel and ignorant Mosaic code came from the lips of
infinite wisdom and compassion.
It is declared that the history of Rome shows what
man can do without God, and I assert that the history
of the Inquisition shows what man can do when assisted
by a church of divine origin, presided over by the
infallible vicars of God.
The fact that the early Christians not only believed
incredible things, but persuaded others of their truth, is
regarded by the Cardinal as a miracle. This is only
another phase of the old argument that success is the
test of divine origin. All supernatural religions have
been founded in precisely the same way. The credulity
of eighteen hundred years ago believed everything
except the truth.
A religion is a growth, and is of necessity adapted in
some degree to the people among whom it grows. It is
shaped and moulded by the general ignorance, the
superstition and credulity of the age in which it lives.
The key is fashioned by the lock. Every religion that
has succeeded has in some way supplied the wants of its
votaries, and has to a certain extent harmonised with
their hopes, their fears, their vices, and their virtues.
If, as the Cardinal says, the religion of .Christ is in
absolute harmony with nature, how can it be super
natural ? The Cardinal also declares that “ the religion
of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral
nature in all nations and all ages to this day.” What
�42
Rome
or reason
?
becomes of the argument that Catholicism must be of
divine origin because “ it has ascended the stream of
human license, contra ictum fluminis, by a power mightier
than nature ? If “ it is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations and ages to this day,” it
has gone with the stream, and not against it. If “ the
religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations,” then the men who have
rejected it are unnatural, and these men have gone
against the stream. How then can it be said that
Christianity has been in changeless opposition to nature
as man has marred it? To what extent has man
marred it ? In spite of the marring by man, we are
told that the reason and moral nature of all nations in all
aqres to this day is ip harmony with, the religion of Jesus
Christ.
J
Are we justified in saying that the Catholic Church is
of divine origin because the Pagans failed to destroy it
by persecution ?
We will put the Cardinal’s statement in form :
Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution,
therefore Catholicism is of divine origin.
Let us make an application of this logic:
Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution;
therefore, Catholicism is of divine origin.
Catholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by per
secution ; therefore, Protestantism is of divine origin.
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity ; therefore, Infidelity is of divine
origin.
Let us make another application :
Paganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism ;
therefore, Paganism was a false religion.
Catholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestant
ism ; therefore, Catholicism is a false religton.
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity ; therefore, both Catholicism and Pro
testantism are false religions.
The Cardinal has another reason for believing the
Catholic Church of divine origin. He declares that the
“ Canon Law is a creation of wisdom and justice to
which no statutes at large or imperial pandects can
�ROME OR REASON ?
43
bear comparison ” ; that “ the world-wide and secular
legislation of the -Church was of a higher character, and
that as water cannot rise above its source, the Church
could not, by mere human wisdom, have corrected and
perfected the imperial law, and therefore its source must
have been higher than the sources of the world.”
When Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law
was supreme. As a matter of fact, the good in the
Canon Law was borrowed—the bad was, for the most
part, original. In my judgment, the legislation of the
Republic of the United States is in many respects
superior to that of Rome, and yet we are greatly indebted
to the Common Law; but it never occurred to me that
our Statutes at Large are divinely inspired.
If the Canon Law is, in fact, the legislation of infinite
wisdom, then it should be a perfect code. Yet the
Canon Law made it a crime next to robbery and theft
to take interest for money. Without the right to take
interest the business of the world would, to a large
extent, cease and the prosperity of mankind end. There
are railways enough in the United States to make six
tracks around the globe, and every mile was built with
borrowed money on which interest was paid or promised.
In no other way could the savings of many thousands
have been brought together and a capital great enough
formed to construct works of such vast and continental
importance.
It was provided in this same wonderful Canon Law
that a heretic could not be a witness against a Catholic.
The Catholic was at liberty to rob and wrong his fellow
man, provided the fellow man was not a fellow Catholic,
and in a court established by the Vicar of Christ, the
man who had been robbed was not allowed to open his
mouth. A Catholic could enter the house of an un
believer, of a Jew, of a heretic, of a Moor, and before
the eyes of the husband and father murder his wife and
children and the father could not pronounce in the hear
ing of a judge the name of the murderer. The world is
wiser now, and the Canon Law, given to us by infinite
wisdom, has been repealed by the common sense of man.
In this divine code it was provided that to convict a
�44
ROME OR REASON ?
cardinal bishop, seventy-two witnesses were required ; a
cardinal presbyter, forty-four; a cardinal deacon, twentyfour . a sub-deacon, acolyth, exorcist, reader, ostiarus,
seven ; and in the purgation of a bishop, twelve wit
nesses were invariably required; of a presbyter, seven ;
of a deacon, three. These laws, in my judgment, were
made, not by God, but by the clergy.
So, too, in this cruel code it was provided that those
who gave aid, favor, or counsel to excommunicated
persons should be anathema, and that those who talked
with, consulted, or sat at the same table with, or gave
anything in charity to the excommunicated, should be
anathema.
Is it possible that a being of infinite wisdom made
hospitality a crime ? Did he say: “Whoso giveth a cup
of cold water to the excommunicated shall wear forever
a garment of fire ? ” Were not the laws of the Romans
much better ? Besides all this, under the Canon Law
the dead could be tried for heresy, and their estates con
fiscated that is to say, their widowsand orphans robbed.
The most brutal part of the common law of England is
that in relation to the right of woman—all of which was
taken from the Corpus Juris Canonici, “ the law that
came from a higher source than man.”
The only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by
the pious canonists was propter infidelitatem, which was
when one of the parties became Catholic, and would
not live with the other who continued still an unbe
liever. Under this divine statute, a pagan wishing to be
rid of his wife had only to join the Catholic Church,
provided she remained faithful to the religion of her
fathers. Under this divine law, a man marrying a
widow was declared to be a bigamist.
It would require volumes to point out the cruelties,
absurdities, and inconsistencies of the Canon Law. It
has. been thrown away by the world. Every civilised
nation has a code of its own, and the Canon Law is of
interest only to the historian, the antiquary, and the
enemy of theological government.
Under the Canon Law, people were convicted of
being witches and wizards, of holding intercourse with
�ROME OR REASON ?
45
devils. Thousands perished at the stake, having been
convicted of these impossible crimes. Under the Canon
Law, there was such a crime as the suspicion of heresy.
A man or woman could be arrested, charged with being
suspected, and under this Canon Law, flowing from the
intellect of infinite wisdom, the presumption was in favor
of guilt. The suspected had to prove themselves inno
cent. In all civilised courts, the presumption of inno
cence is the shield of the indicted ; but the Canon Law
took away this shield, and put in the hand of the priest
the sword of presumptive guilt.
If the real Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the true
shepherd of the sheep, this fact should be known not
only to the vicar, but to the sheep. A divinely-founded
and guarded church ought to know its own shepherd,
and yet the Catholic sheep have not always been certain
who the shepherd was.
The Council of Pisa, held in 1409, deposed two popes
—rivals—Gregory and Benedict—that is to say, deposed
the actual Vicar of Christ and the pretended. This
action was taken because a council, enlightened by the
Holy Ghost, could not tell the genuine from the counter
feit. The council then elected another Vicar, whose
authority was afterwards denied. Alexander V. died,
and John XXIII. took his place; Gregory XII. insisted
that he was the lawful pope ; John resigned, then he
was deposed, and afterwards imprisoned ; then Gregory
XII. resigned, and Martin V. was elected. The whole
thing reads like the annals of a South American Revo
lution.
The Council of Constance restored, as the Cardinal
declares, the unity of the Church, and brought back the
consolation of the Holy Ghost. Before this great
council John Huss appeared and maintained his own
tenets. The council declared that the Church was not
bound to keep its promise with a heretic. Huss was
condemned and executed on the 6th of July, 1415. His
disciple, Jerome of Prague, recanted; but, having
relapsed, was put to death, May 30, 1416. This cursed
council shed the blood of Huss and Jerome.
The Cardinal appeals to the author of Eccc Homo for
�46
ROME OR REASON ?
the purpose of showing that Christianity is above nature,
and the following passages, among others, are quoted
“ Who can describe that which unites men ? Who
has entered into the formation of speech, which is the
symbol of their union ? Who can describe exhaustively
the origin of civil society ? He who can do these things
can explain the origin of the Christian Church.”
These passages should not have been quoted by the
Cardinal. The author of these passages simply says
that the origin of the Christian Church is no harder to
find and describe than that which unites men ; than
that which has entered into the formation of speech, the
symbol of their union ; no harder to describe than the
origin of civil society, because he says that one who can
describe these can describe the other.
Certainly none of these things are above nature. We
do not need the assistance of the Holy Ghost in these
.matters. We know that men are united by common
interests, common purposes, common dangers—by race,
climate, and education. It is no more wonderful that
people live in families, tribes, communities, and nations,
than that birds, ants, and bees live in flocks and swarms.
If we know anything, we know that language is
natural-—that it is a physical science. But if we take
the ground occupied by the Cardinal, then we insist that
everything that cannot be accounted for by man is
supernatural. Let me ask, by what man ? What
man must we take as the standard ?
Cosmos or
Humboldt, St. Irenaeus or Darwin ? If everything that
we cannot account for is above nature, then ignorance is
the test of the supernatural. The man who is mentally
honest stops where his knowledge stops. At that point
he says that he does not know. Such a man is a philo
sopher. Then the theologian steps forward, denounces
the modesty of the philosopher as blasphemy, and pro
ceeds to tell what is beyond the horizon of the human
intellect.
Could a savage account for the telegraph or the tele
phone by natural causes ? How would he account for
these wonders ? He would account for them precisely
as the Cardinal accounts for the Catholic Church.
�ROME OR REASON ?
47
Bek nping to no rival Church, I have not the slightest
interest in the primacy of Leo XIII., and yet it is to be
regretted that this primacy rests upon such a narrow
■and insecure foundation.
The Cardinal says that “ it will appear almost certain
that the original Greek of St. Irenaeus, which is unfortu
nately lost, contained either rd —pun-eca, or some inflection
of 7rpwT€t'w, which signifies primacy.”
From this it appears that the primacy of the Bishop
of Rome rests on some “inflection” of a Greek word,
and that this supposed inflection was in a letter supposed
to have been written by St. Irenaeus, which has certainly
been lost. Is it possible that the vast fabric of papal
power has this, and only this, for its foundation ? To
this “ inflection ” has it come at last ?
The Cardinal’s case depends upon the intelligence and
veracity of his witnesses. The Fathers of the Church
were utterly incapable of examining a question of fact.
They were all believers in the miraculous. The same is
true of the apostles. If St. John was the author of the
Apocalypse, he was undoubtedly insane. If Polycarp
said the things attributed to him by Catholic writers, he
was certainly in the condition of his master. What is
the testimony of St. John worth in the light of the fol
lowing ? “ Cerinthus, the heretic, was in a bath-house.
St. John and another Christian were about to enter. St.
John cried out : ‘ Let us run away, lest the house fall
upon us while the enemy of truth is in it.’ ” Is it pos
sible that St. John thought that God would kill two
eminent Christians for the purpose of getting even with
one heretic ?
Let us see who Polycarp was. He seems to have
been a prototype of the Catholic Church, as will be seen
from the following statement concerning this Father :
“When any heretical doctrine was spoken in his
presence he would stop his ears.” After this, there can
be no question of his orthodoxy. It is claimed that
Polycarp was a martyr—that a spear was run through
his body, and that from the wound his soul, in the shape
of a bird, flew away. The history of his death is just
as true as the history of his life.
Irenaeus, another witness, took the ground that there
�48
ROME OR REASON’ ?
was to be a millennium, a thousand years of enjoyment
in which celibacy would not be the highest form of
virtue. If he is called as a witness for the purpose of
establishing the divine origin of the Church, and if one
of his “ inflections ” is the basis of papal supremacy, is
the Cardinal also willing to take his testimony as to the
nature of the millennium ?
All the Fathers were infinitely credulous. Every one
of them believed, not only in the miracles said to have
been wrought by Christ, by the apostles, and by other
Christians, but every one of them believed in the Pagan
miracles. All of these Fathers were familiar with
wonders and impossibilities. N othing was so common
with them as to work miracles-, and on many occasions
they not only cured diseases, not only reversed the order
of nature, but succeeded in raising the dead.
It is very hard, indeed, to prove what the apostles
said, or what the Fathers of the Church wrote. There
were many centuries filled with forgeries, many genera
tions in which the cunning hands of ecclesiastics erased,
obliterated, and interpolated the records of the past,
during which they invented books, invented authors, and
quoted from works that never existed.
The testimony of the “Fathers” is without the
slightest value. They believed everything, they examined
nothing. They received as a waste-basket receives.
Whoever accepts their testimony will exclaim with the
Cardinal: “ Happily, men are not saved by logic.”
PUBLISHED
EVERY
THURSDAY.
THE FREETHINKER
One of Liveliest and Most Outspoken Journals
in the World.
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
Price Twopence.
SPECIMEN COPY POST FREE.
Send for a CATALOGUE of the Freethought
Publishing Company’s Publications. Post Free.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 48 p. ; 19 p.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Oct. and Nov. 1888. First published: London: Progressive Publishing Company, 1888. No. 65b in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1903
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N391
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rationalism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church-Controversial Literature
Henry Edward Manning
Marriage
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c79ef029d4d886277e4bca1ffc3eee2f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AooGkGexfYD3mrl6QojRHhDQKCA8CnazM6r45DEpMJeuSrhmCJSmH0alkutwhacpbT%7E7gD0XKKivCl%7EjOXQsayfanZrkqpZI-0WJDo7Zlb2jgDkDYRmRz1M-6jSLatMhROljUbA7yFY1yjpap05cKKdBVVmlYMGwOo9b1RtlEWUvez3ADEo2LIDfxmW0vWGuoV1kePBQzvAdnDwGDD8qq8B9ZFyTMWQ6rJW914RQ7PgRdQSHjLyYZwDWOdZtp94on-GaTradkIwBPxGF5-iuwkIUeR6K%7EzR%7EXcnmaRDGH4Lt-brzwnBpaWjjmSNKgTAiHEKuf1oyKrkOKeNzW-CjUA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b7e86938ab58770f86fa71f55469021e
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECU'
" "''CIETY
ROME OR REASON?
A
REPLY
TO
Cardinal Manning
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
REPRINTED EROM
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW,
■ October and November, 1888.
^onirou:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1888.
�J ONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.,
�ROME, OR REASON?
CARDINAL MANNING.
PART I.
Superstition Nias ears more deaf than adders to the voice
of any true decision.”
A REPLY TO
Cardinal Manning has stated the claims of the Roman
Catholic Church with great clearness, and apparently
without reserve. The age, position and learning of this
man give a certain weight to his words, apart from their
worth. He represents the oldest of the Christian churches
The questions involved are among the most important
that can engage the human mind. No one having the
slightest regard for that superb thing known as intel
lectual honesty, will avoid the issues tendered, or seek in
any way to gain a victory over truth.
. Without candor, discussion, in the highest sense, is
impossible. All have the same interest, whether they
know it or not in the establishment of facts. All have
the same to gain, the same to lose. He loads the dice
against himself who scores a point against the right.
Absolute honesty is to the intellectual perception what
hght is to the eyes. Prejudice and passion cloud the
mind. In each disputant should be blended the advocate
and judge. In this spirit, having in view only the ascertainment
or the truth, let us examine the arguments, or rather the
statements and conclusions, of Cardinal Manning.
The proposition is that “ The Church itself, by its mar
vellous propagation, its eminent sanctity, its inexhaustible
fruitfulness m all good things, its catholic unity and
lnVinC\^e lability, is a vast and perpetual motive of
legationaU irrefragable witness of its own divine
�4
ROME OR REASON.
The reasons given as supporting this proposition are :
That the Catholic Church interpenetrates all the nations
of the civilised world; that it is extra-national and inde
pendent in a supernational unitv ; that it is the same in
every place ; that jt speaks all the languages in the civi
lised world; that it is obedient to one head; that as many
as seven hundred bishops have knelt before the pope ;
that pilgrims from all nations have brought gifts to Rome,
and that all these things set forth in the most self-evident
way the unity and universality of the Roman Church.
It is also asserted that “ men see the Head of the
Church year by year speaking to the nations of the world,
treating with empires, republics and governments ; ” that
“ there is no other man on earth that can so bear him
self,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor from Con
stantinople can such a voice go forth to which rulers and
people listen.”
It is also claimed that the Catholic Church has enlight
ened and purified the world ; that it has given us the
peace and purity of domestic life ; that it has destroyed
idolatry and demonology ; that it gave us a body of law
from a higher source than man ; that it has produced
the civilisation of Christendom ; that the popes were the
greatest of statesmen and rulers ; that celibacy is better
than marriage, and that the revolutions and reformations
of the last three hundred years have been destructive
and calamitous.
We will examine these assertions as well as some
others.
No one will dispute that the Catholic Church is the
best witness of its own existence. The same is true of
every thing that exists; of every church, great and small,
of every man, and of every insect.
But it is contended that the marvellous growth or
propagation of the Church is evidence of its divine
origin. Can it be said that success is supernatural ? All
success in this world is relative. Majorities are not
necessarily right. If anything is known—if anything
can be known—we are sure that very large bodies of men
have frequently been wrong. We believe in what is
called the progress of mankind. Progress, for the most
part, consists in finding new truths and getting rid of old
errors—that is to say, getting nearer and nearer in har
�ROME OR REASON.
5
mony with the facts of nature, seeing with greater clear
ness the conditions of well-being.
There is no nation in which a majority leads the way.
In the progress of mankind, the few have been the nearest
right. There have been centuries in which the light
seemed to emanate only from a handful of men, while
the rest of the world was enveloped in darkness. Some,
great man leads the way—he becomes the morning star,
the prophet of a coming day. Afterwards, many millions
accept his views. But there are still heights above and
beyond ; there are other pioneers, and the old day, in
comparison with the new, becomes a night. So, we can
not say that success demonstrates either divine origin or
supernatural aid.
~
We know, if we know anything, that wisdom has often
been trampled beneath the feet of the multitude. We
know that the torch of science has been blown out by
the breath of the hydra-headed. We know that the
whole intellectual heaven has been darkened again. The
truth or falsity of a proposition cannot be determined by
ascertaining the number of those who assert, or of those
who deny.
If the marvellous propagation of the Catholic Church
proves its divine origin, What shall we say of the mar
vellous propagation of Mohammedanism ?
Nothing can be clearer than that Christianity arose
out of the ruins of the Roman Empire—that is to say,
the rums of Paganism. And it is equally clear that
Mohammedanism arose out of the wreck and ruin of
Catholicism.
- After Mohammed came upon the stage, “ Christianity
was forever expelled from its most glorious seat—from
Palestine, the scene of its most sacred recollections ; from
Asia Minor, that of its first churches; from Egypt
whence issued the great doctrine of Trinitarian Ortho
doxy, and from Carthage, who imposed her belief on
Europe.” Before that time “the ecclesiastical chiefs of
Rome,, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria were en
gaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying out
their purposes by weapons and in ways revolting to the
Conscience of .man. Bishops were concerned in assassina10ns, poisonings, adulteries, blindings, riots, treasons,
civil war. Patriarchs and primates were excommuni
�6
ROME OR REASON.
eating and anathematizing one another in their rivalries
for earthly power ; bribing eunuchs with gold and
courtesans and royal females with concessions of epis
copal love. Among legions of monks who carried terror
into the imperial armies and riot into the great cities
arose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but never a
voice for intellectual liberty or the outraged rights of man.
“ Under these circumstances, amid these atrocities and
crimes, Mohammed arose, and raised his own nation from
Fetichism, the adoration of the meteoric stone, and from
the basest idol worship, and irrevocably wrenched from
Christianity more than half—and that by far the best
half—of her possessions, since it included, the Holy Land,
the birth-place of the Christian faith, and Africa, which
had imparted to it its Latin form ; and now, after a lapse
of more than a thousand years, that continent, and a very
large part of Asia, remain permanently attached to the
Arabian doctrine.”
It may be interesting in this connection to say that the
Mohammedan now proves the divine mission of his
Apostle by appealing to the marvellous propagation of
the faith. If the argument is good in the mouth of a
Catholic, is it not good in the mouth of a Moslem ? Let
us see if it is not better.
According to Cardinal Manning, the Catholic Church
triumphed only over the institutions of men, triumphed
only over religions that had been established by men, by
wicked and ignorant men. But Mohammed triumphed
not only over the religions of men, but over the religion
of God. This ignorant driver of camels, this poor,
unknown, unlettered boy, unassisted by God, unen
lightened by supernatural means, drove the armies of the
true cross before him as the winter’s storm drives withered
leaves. At his name, priests, bishops and cardinals fled
with white faces, popes trembled, and the armies of God,
fighting for the true faith, were conquered on a thousand
fields.
If the success of a church proves its divinity, and after
that anothei’ church arises and defeats the first, what does
that prove ?
Let us put this question in a milder form : Suppose the
second church lives and flourishes in spite of the first,
what does that prove ?
�ROME OR REASON.
7
As a matter of fact, however, no church rises with
everything against it. Something is favorable to it, or it
could not exist. If it succeeds and grows, it is absolutely
certain that the conditions are favorable. If it spreads
rapidly, it simply shows that the conditions are exceed
ingly favorable, and that the forces in opposition are weak
and easily overcome.
Here, in my own country, within a few years, has
arisen a new religion. Its foundations were laid in an
intelligent community, having had the advantages of
what is known as modern civilisation. Yet this new
faith—founded on the grossest absurdities, as gross as we
find in the Scriptures—in spite of all opposition began to
grow, and kept growing. It was subjected to persecution,
and the persecution increased its strength. It was driven
from State to State by the believers in universal love,
until it left what was called civilisation, crossed the wide
plains, and took up its abode on the shores of the Great
Salt Lake. It continued to grow. Its founder, as he
declared, had frequent conversations with God, and
received directions from that source.
Hundreds of
miracles were performed, multitudes upon the desert
were miraculously fed, the sick were cured—the dead
were raised, and the Mormon Church continued to grow,
until now, less than half a century after the death of its
founder, there are several hundred thousand believers in
the new faith.
Do you think that men enough could join this church
to prove the truth of its creed ?
Joseph Smith said that he found certain golden plates
that had been buried for many generations, and upon
these plates, in some unknown language, had been
engraved this new revelation, and I think he insisted
that by the use of miraculous mirrors this language was
translated. If there should be Mormon bishops in the
countries of the world, eighteen hundred years from now,
do you think a cardinal of that faith could prove the
truth of the golden plates simply by the fact that the
faith had spread and that seven hundred bishops had
knelt before the head of that church ?
It seems to me that a “ supernatural ” religion—that it
to say, a religion that is claimed to have been divinely
founded and to be authenticated by miracle, is much
�8
ROME OR REASON.
easier to establish among an ignorant people than any
other, and the more ignorant the people, the easier such
a religion could be established. The reason for this is
plain. All ignorant tribes, all savage men, believe in the
miraculous, in the supernatural.
The conception of
uniformity, of what may be called the eternal consistency
of nature, is an idea far above their comprehension.
They are forced to think in accordance with their minds,
and as a consequence they account for all phenomena by
the acts of superior beings—that is to say, by the super
natural. In other words, that religion having most in
common with the savage, having most that was satis
factory to his mind, or to his lack of mind, would stand
the best chance of success.
It is probably safe to say that at one time, or during
one phase of the development of man, everything was
miraculous. After a time, the mind slowly developing,
certain phenomena, always happening under like con
ditions, were called “natural,” and none suspected any
special interference. The domain of the miraculous grew
less and less—the domain of the natural larger ; that is
to say, the common became the natural, but the uncom
mon was still regarded as the miraculous. The rising
and setting of the sun ceased to excite the wonder of
mankind—there was no miracle about that ; but an
eclipse of the sun was miraculous. Men did not then
know that eclipses are periodical, that they happen with
the same certainty that the sun rises. It took many
observations through many generations to arrive at this
conclusion. Ordinary rains became “ natural,” floods
remained “ miraculous.”
But it can all be summed up in this : The average man
regards the common as natural, the uncommon as super
natural. The educated man—and by that I mean the
developed man—is satisfied that all phenomena are
natural, and that the supernatural does not and can not
exist.
As a rule, an individual is egotistic in the proportion
that he lacks intelligence. The same is true of nations
and races. The barbarian is egotistic enough to suppose
that an Infinite Being is constantly doing something, or
failing to do something, on his account. But as man
rises in the scale of civilisation, as he becomes really
�BOMB OR BEASON.
9
great, he comes to the conclusion that nothing in Nature
happens on his account—that he is hardly great enough
to disturb the motions of the planets.
Let us make an application of this : To me, the success
of Mormonism is no evidence of its truth, because it has
succeeded only with the superstitious. It has been
recruited from communities brutalised by other forms of
superstition. To me, the success of Mohammed does not
tend to show that he was right—for the reason that he
triumphed only over the ignorant, over the superstitious.
The same is true of the Catholic Church. Its seeds were
planted in darkness. It was accepted by the credulous,
by men incapable of reasoning upon such questions. It
did not, it has not, it cannot triumph over the intellectual
world. To count its many millions does not tend to
prove the truth of its creed. On the contrary, a creed
that delights the credulous gives evidence against itself.
Questions of fact or philosophy cannot be settled
simply by numbers. There was a time when the Coper
nican system of astronomy had but few supporters—the
multitude being on. the other side. There was a time
when the rotation of the earth was not believed by the
majority.
Let us press this idea further. There was a time when
Christianity was not in the majority, anywhere. Let us
suppose that the first Christian missionary had met a pre
late of the Pagan faith, and suppose this prelate had
used against the Christian missionary the Cardinal’s
argument—how could the missionary have answered if
the Cardinal’s argument is good ?
But, after all, is the success of the Catholic Church a
marvel ? If this Church is of divine origin, if it has
been under the especial care, protection, and guidance
of an Infinite Being, is not its failure far more wonderful
than its success ? For eighteen centuries it has persecuted
and preached, and the salvation of the world is still
remote.
This is the result, and it may be asked
whether it is worth while to try to convert the word to
Catholicism.
Are Catholics better than Protestants ? Are they nearer
honest, nearer just, more charitable ? Are Catholic
nations better than Protestant ? Do the Catholic nations
move in the van of progress? Withintheir jurisdiction
�10
ROME OR REASON.
are life, liberty and property safer than anywhere else ?
Is Spain the first nation of the world ?
Let me ask another question : Are Catholics or Pro
testants better than Freethinkers ? Has the Catholic
Church produced a greater man than Humboldt ? Has
the Protestant produced a greater than Darwin ? Was
not Emerson, so far as purity of life is concerned, the
equal to any true believer? Was Pius IX., or any other
Vicar of Christ, superior to Abraham Lincoln ?
But it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal,
and that its universality demonstrates its divine origin.
According to the Bible, the Apostles were ordered to go
into all the world to preach the gospel—yet not one of
them, nor one of their con verts at any time, nor one of the
Vicars of God, for fifteen hundred years afterward, knew
of the existence of the Western Hemisphere. During all
that time, can it be said that the Catholic Church was
universal ? At the close of the fifteenth century, there
was one-half of the world in which the Catholic faith had
never been preached, and in the other half not one person
in ten had ever heard of it, and of those who had heard
of it, not one in ten believed it. Certainly the Catholic
Church was not then universal.
Is it universal now ? What impression has Catholicism
made upon the many millions of China, of Japan, of
India, of Africa ? Can it truthfully be said that the
Catholic Church is now universal ? When any church
becomes universal, it will be the only church. There
cannot be two universal churches, neither can there be
one universal church and any other.
The Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic
Church is divine, “ by its eminent sanctity and its inex
haustible fruitfulness in all good things.”
And here let me admit that there are many millions of
good Catholics—that is, of good men and women who
are Catholics. It is unnecessary to charge universal
dishonesty or hypocrisy, for the reason that this would
be only a kind of personalitv. Many thousands of heroes
have died in defence of the faith, and millions of Catholics
have killed and been killed for the sake of their religion.
And here it may be well enough to say that martyrdom
does not even tend to prove the truth of a religion. The
man who dies in flames, standing by what he believes to
�ROME OR REASON.
11
be true, establishes, not the truth of what he believes, but
his sincerity.
Without calling in question the intentions of the
Catholic Church, we can ascertain whether it has been
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things,” and whether
it has been “ eminent for its sanctity.”
In the first place, nothing can be better than goodness.
Nothing is more sacred, or can be more sacred, than the
well-being of man. All things that tend to increase or
preserve the happiness of the human race are good—that
is to say, they are sacred. All things that tend to the
destruction of man’s well-being, that tend to his unhappi
ness, are bad, no matter by whom they are taught or
done.
It is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has
taught, and still teaches, that intellectual liberty is dan
gerous—that it should not be allowed. It was driven to
take this position because it had taken another. It
taught, and still teaches, that a certain belief is necessary
to salvation. It has always known that investigation and
inquiry led, oi’ might lead, to doubt ; that doubt leads, or
may lead, to heresy, and that heresy leads to hell. In
other words, the Catholic Church has something more
important than this world, more important than the well
being of man here. It regards this life as an opportunity
for joining that Church, for accepting that creed, and for
the saving of your soul.
If the Catholic Church is right in its premises, it is
right in its conclusion. If it is necessary to believe the
Catholic creed in ordei’ to obtain eternal joy, then, of
course nothing else in this world is, comparatively
speaking, of the slightest importance. Consequently, the
Catholic Church has been, and still is, the enemy of
intellectual freedom, of investigation, of inquiry—in
other words, the enemy of progress in secular things.
The result of this was an effort to compel all men to
accept the belief necessary to salvation. This effort
naturally divided itself into persuasion and persecution.
It will be admitted that the good man is kind, merciful,
charitable, forgiving and just. A church must be judged
by the same standard. Has the Church been merciful ?
Has it been “ fruitful in the good things ” of justice,
charity, and forgiveness ? Can a good man, believing a
�12
ROME OR REASON.
good doctrine, persecute for opinion’s sake ? If the
Church imprisons a man for the expression of an honest
opinion, is it not certain, either that the doctrine of the
Church is wrong, or that the Church is bad ? Both can
not be good. “ Sanctity ” without goodness is impossible.
Thousands of “ saints ” have been the most malicious of
the human race. If the history of the world proves
anything, it proves that the Catholic Church was for many
centuries the most merciless institution that ever existed
among men. I cannot believe that the instruments of
persecution were made and used by the eminently good ;
neither can I believe that honest people were imprisoned,
tortured, and burned at the stake by a Church that was
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things.”
And let me say here that I have no Protestant prejudices
against Catholicism, and have no Catholic prejudices
against.Protestantism. I regard all religions either with
out prejudice or with the same prejudice. They were all,
according to my belief, devised by men, and all have for
a foundation ignorance of this world and fear of the next.
All the gods have been made by men. They are all
equally powerful and equally useless. I like some of
them better than I do others, for the same reason that I
admire some characters in fiction more than I do others.
I prefer Miranda to Caliban, but have not the slightest
idea that either of them existed. So I prefer Jupiter to
Jehovah, although perfectly satisfied that both are myths.
I believe myself to be in a frame of mind to justly and
fairly consider the claims of different religions, believing
as I do that all are wrong, and admitting as I do that there
is some good in all.
When one speaks of the “ inexhaustible fruitfulness in
all good things ” of the Catholic Church, we remember
the horrors and atrocities of the Inquisition—the rewards
offered by the Roman Church for the capture and murder
of honest men. We remember the Dominican Order, the
members of which, upheld by the Vicar of Christ,
pursued the heretics like sleuth hounds, through many
centuries.
The Church, “ inexhaustible in fruitfulness in all good
things,” not only imprisoned and branded and burned the
living, but violated the dead. It robbed graves, to the
-end that it might convict corpses of heresy—to the end
�ROME OR REASON.
13
that it might take from widows their portions and from
orphans their patrimony.
We remember the millions in the darkness of dungeons
—the millions who perished by the sword—the vast
multitudes destroyed in flames—those who were flayed
alive—those who were blinded—those whose tongues
were cut out—those into whose ears were poured molten
lead—those whose eyes were deprived of their lids—
those who were tortured and tormented in every way by
which pain could be inflicted and human nature over
come.
And we remember, too, the exultant cry of the Church
over the bodies of her victims : “Their bodies were
burned here, but their souls are now tortured in hell.”
We remember that the Church, by treachery, bribery,
perjury, and the commission of every possible crime, got
possession and control of Christendom, and we know the
use that was made of this power—that it was used to
brutalise, degrade, stupefy, and “ sanctify ” the children
of men. We know also that the Vicars of Christ were
persecutors for opinion’s sake—that they sought to
destroy the liberty of thought through fear—that they
endeavored to make every brain a Bastille in which the
mind should be a convict—that they endeavored to make
every tongue a prisoner, watched by a familiar of the
Inquisition—and that they threatened punishment here,
imprisonment here, burnings here, and, in the name of
their God, eternal imprisonment and eternal burnings
hereafter.
We know, too, that the Catholic Church was, during all
the years of its power, the enemy of every science. It
preferred magic to medicine, relics to remedies, priests to
physicians. It thought more of astrologers than of
astronomers.
It hated geologists—it persecuted the
chemist, and imprisoned the naturalist, and opposed
every discovery calculated to improve the condition of
mankind.
It is impossible to foi-get the persecutions of the Cathari,
the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Hugue
nots, and of every sect that had the courage to think just
a little for itself. Think of a woman—the mother of a
family—taken from her children and burned, on account
of her view as to the three natures of Jesus Christ. Think
�HOME OR REASON.
14
of the Catholic Church—an institution with a Divine
FonX presided over by the agent of God-punisbmg
a woman for giving a cup of cold water to a
who had been anathematised. Think of this Church,
“ fruitful in all good things,” launching its curse at an
honest man—not only cursing him from the crown of his
head to the soles of his feet with a fiendish
but having at the same time the impudence to call on
God, and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ, and the Virgin
Marv to join in the curse ; and to curse him no _ y
herey’but forever hereafter—calling upon all the saints
and’upon all the redeemed to join in a hallelujah of
cursesP so that earth and heaven should reverbrate with
countless curses launched at a human being simply or
having expressed an honest thought.
,
This Church, so “fruitful in all good things " invented
crimes that it might punish, This Church tried men or
a “suspicion of heresy’’—imprisoned themfoi ^e vice
of being suspected—stripped them of all they bad_ on
earth and allowed them to rot in dungeons, because they
were guilty of the crime of having been suspected. This
W It Vtoo late^to talk about the “invincible stability ” of
the Seventh, in the Eighth, or
in the Ninth centuries. It was not invincible m Germany
in T other’s day. It was not invincible m the Low
Countries. It was not invincible in Scotland, or in
England It was not invincible in France. It is not
invincible in Italy. It is not supreme m any intellectual
centre of the world. It does not .triumph m Paris, or
Berlin • it is not dominant m London, m England ,
neither’ is it triumphant in the United States. It has not
within its fold the philosophers, the statesmen, and the
thinkers who are the leaders of the human race.
It is claimed that Catholicism “ interpenetrates all the
nations of the civilised world,” and that m some it holds
the whole nation in its unity.
.
in
I suppose the Catholic Church is more powerful 1
Spain than in any other nation. The history of this
nation demonstrates the result of Catholic supremacy, the
result of an acknowledgment by a people that a certain
religion is too sacred to be examined.
�ROME OR REASOK.
15
Without attempting in an article of this character to
point out the many causes that contributed to the adoption
of Catholicism by the Spanish people, it is enough to say
that Spain, of all nations, has been and is the most
thoroughly Catholic, and the most thoroughly inter
penetrated and dominated by the spirit of the Church of
Rome.
Spain used the sword of the Church. In the name of
religion it endeavored to conquer the infidel world. It
drove from its territory the Moors, not because they were
bad, not because they were idle and dishonest, but because
they were infidels. It expelled the Jews, not because
they were ignorant or vicious, but because they were
unbelievers. It drove out the Moriscoes, and deliberately
made outcasts of the intelligent, the industrious, the
honest and the useful, because they were not Catholics.
It leaped like a wild beast upon the Low Countries, for
the destruction of Protestantism. It covered the seas
with its fleets, to destroy the intellectual liberty of man.
And not only so—it established the Inquisition within its
borders. It imprisoned the honest, it burned the noble,
and succeeded after many years of devotion to the true
faith, in destroying the industry, the intelligence, the
usefulness, the genius, the nobility and the wealth of a
nation. It became a wreck, a jest of the conquered, and
excited the pity of its former victims.
In this period of degradation, the Catholic Church held
“ the whole nation in its unity.”
At last Spain began to deviate from the path of the
Church. It made a treaty with an infidel power. In 1782
it became humble enough, and wise enough, to be friends
with Turkey. It made treaties with Tripoli and Algiers
and the Barbary States.
It had become too poor to
ransom the prisoners taken by these powers. It began to
appreciate the fact that it could neither conquer nor
convert the world by the sword.
Spain has progressed in the arts and sciences, in all
that tends to enrich and ennoble a nation, in the precise
proportion that she has lost faith in the Catholic Church.
This may be said of every other nation in Christendom'
Torquemada is dead; Castelar is alive. The dungeons of
the Inquisition are empty, and a little light has penetrated
the clouds and mists—not much, but a little. Spain is
�16
ROME OR REASON.
not yet clothed and in her right mind. A few years ago
the cholera visited Madrid and other cities.. Physicians
were mobbed. Processions of saints carried the host
through the streets for the purpose of staying the plague.
The streets were not cleaned ; the sewers were filled.
Filth and faith, old partners, reigned supreme. The
Church, “eminent for its sanctity,” stood in the light and
cast its shadow on the ignorant and the prostrate. The
Church, in its “inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good
things,” allowed its children to perish through ignorance,
and used the diseases it had produced as an instrument
ality to further enslave its votaries and its victims.
No one will deny that many of its priests exhibited
heroism of the highest order in visiting the sick and
administering what are called the consolations of religion
to the dying, and in burying the dead. It i§ necessary
neither to deny nor disparage the self-denial and goodness
of these men. But their religion did more than all other
causes to produce the very evils that called. for the
exhibition of self-denial and heroism. One scientist in
control of Madrid could have prevented the plague. In
such cases, cleanliness is far better than “godliness”;
science is superior to superstition ; drainage much better
than divinity ; therapeutics more excellent than theology.
Goodness is not enough—intelligence is necessary.
Faith is not sufficient, creeds are helpless, and prayers
fmitloss*
It is admitted that the Catholic Church exists in many
nations; that it is dominated, at least in a great degree, by
the Bishop of Rome—that it is international in that sense,
and that in that sense it has what may be. called a
supernationai
xiw same,
“ supernational unity.” The muj-c, however, is true of
the Masonic fraternity. It exists in many nations, but it
is not a national body. It is in the same sense extra
national, in the same sense international, and has in t e
same sense a supernational unity. So the same may be
said of other societies. This, however, does not tend to
prove that anything supernational is supernatural.
It is also admitted that in. faith, worship, ceremonial,
discipline and government, that the Catholic Church is
substantially the same wherever it exists. . This estab
lishes the unity, but not the divinity of the institution.
The church that does not allow investigation, that
�ROME OR REASON.
17
teaches that all doubts are wicked, attains unity through
tyranny—that is, monotony by repression. Wherever
man has had something like freedom differences have
appeared, heresies have taken root, and the divisions have
become permanent. New sects have been born and the
Catholic Church has been weakened. The boast of unity
is the confession of tyranny.
It is insisted that the unity of the Church substantiates
its claim to divine origin. This is asserted over and over
again, in many ways ; and yet in the Cardinal’s article is
found this strange mingling of boast and confession :
Was it only by the human power of man that the unity,
external and internal, which for fourteen hundred years
had been supreme, was once more restored in the Council
of Constance, never to be broken again ? ”
By this it is admitted that the internal and external
unity of the Catholic Church has been broken, and that
it required more than human power to restore it. Then
the boast is made that it will never be broken again. Yet
it is asserted that the internal and external unity of the
Catholic Church is the great fact that demonstrates its
divine origin.
Now if this internal and external unity was broken,
and remained broken for years, there was an interval
during which the Church had no internal or external
unity, and during which the evidence of divine origin
failed. The unity was broken in spite of the Divine
Founder. This is admitted by the use of the word
“ again.” The unbroken unity of the Church is asserted,
and upon this assertion is based the claim of divine
origin ; it is then admitted that the unity was broken.
The argument is then shifted, and the claim is made that
it required more than human power to restore the internal
and external unity of the Church, and that the restora
tion, not the unity, is proof of the divine origin. Is there
any contradiction beyond this ?
Let us state the case in another way. Let us suppose
that a man has a sword which he claims was made by
God, stating that the reason he knows that God made the
sword is that it never had been and never could be
broken. Now if it was afterwards ascertained that it had
been broken, and the owner admitted that it had been,
what would be thought of him if he then took the ground
B
�18
ROME OR REASON.
that it had been welded, and that the welding was the
evidence that it was of divine origin ?
A prophecy is then indulged in, to the effect that the
internal and external unity of the Church can never be
broken again. It is admitted that it was broken, it is
asserted that it was divinely restored, and then’ it is
declared that it is never to be broken again. No reason
is given for this prophecy ; it must be born of the facts
already stated. Put in a form to be easily understood it
is this :
’
We know that the unity of the Church can never be
broken, because the Church is of divine origin.
We know that it was broken; but this does not weaken
the argument, because it was restored by God, and it has
not been broken since.
Therefore, it never can be broken again.
It is stated that the Catholic Church is immutable, and
that its immutability establishes its claim to divine origin.
Was it immutable when its unity, internal and external,
was broken ? Was it precisely the same after its unity
was broken that it was before ? Was it precisely the same
after its unity was divinely restored that it was while
broken? Was it universal while it was without unity?
Which of the fragments was universal—which was
immutable ?
The fact that the Catholic Church is obedient to the
pope, establishes, not the supernatural origin of the
Church, but the mental slavery of its members. It estab
lishes the fact that it is a successful organisation ; that it
is cunningly devised ; that it destroys the mental inde
pendence, and that whoever absolutely submits to its
authority loses the jewel of his soul.
The fact that Catholics are to a great extent obedient to
the pope, establishes nothing except the thoroughness of
the organisation.
.. How was the Roman empire formed ? By what means
did that Great Power hold in bondage the then known
world ? How is it that a despotism is established? How
is it that the few enslave the many ? How is it that the
nobility live on the labor of the peasants ? The answer
is in one word, Organisation. The organised few
triumph over the unorganised many. The few hold the
�ROME OR REASON,
19
sword and the purse. The unorganised are overcome in
detail—terrorised, brutalised, robbed, conquered.
We must remember that when Christianity was estab
lished the world was ignorant, credulous and cruel. The
gospel with its idea of forgiveness, with its heaven and
hell, was suited to the barbarians among whom it was
preached. Let it be understood, once for all, that Christ
had but little to do with Christianity. The people
became convinced—being ignorant, stupid and credulous
—that the Church held the keys of heaven and hell..
The foundation for the most terrible mental tyranny that
has existed among men was in this way laid. The
Catholic Church enslaved to the extent of its power. It
resorted to every possible form of fraud ; it perverted
every good instinct of the human heart ; it rewarded
every vice ; it resorted to every artifice that ingenuity
could devise, to reach the highest round of power. It
tortured the accused to make them confess; it tortured wit
nesses to compel the commission of perjury ; it tortured
children for the purpose of making them convict their
parents; it compelled men to establish their own innocence;
it imprisoned without limit; it had the malicious patience
to wait; it left the accused without trial, and left them
in dungeons until released by death. There is no crime
that the Catholic Church did not commit, no cruelty that
it did not practice, no form of treachery that it did not
reward, and no virtue that it did not persecute. It was
the greatest and most powerful enemy of human rights.
It did all that organisation, cunning, piety, self-denial,
heroism, treachery, zeal and brute force could do to
enslave the children of men. It was the enemy of
intelligence, the assassin of liberty, and the destroyer of
progress. It loaded the noble with chains and-th©
infamous with honors. In one hand it carried the alms
dish, in the other a dagger. It argued with the sword,
persuaded with poison, and convinced with the faggot.
It is impossible to see how the divine origin of a Church
can be established by showing that hundreds of bishops
have visited the pope.
Does the fact that millions of the faithful visit Mecca
establish the truth of the Koran ? Is it a scene for
congratulation when the bishops of thirty nations kneel
before a man ? Is it not humiliating to know that man
�20
ROME OR REASON.
is willing to kneel at the feet of man ? Could a noble
man demand, or joyfully receive, the humiliation of his
fellows ?
As a rule, arrogance and humility go together. He
who in power compels his fellow man to kneel, wili him
self kneel when weak. The tyrant is a cringer in power;
■a cringer is a tyrant out of power. Great men stand face
to face. They meet on equal terms. The cardinal who
kneels in the presence of the pope, wants the bishop to
kneel in his presence ; and the bishop who kneels
■demands that the priest shall kneel to him ; and the priest
who kneels demands that they in lower orders shall
kneel ; and all, from pope to the lowest—that is to say,
from pope to exorcist, from pope to the one in charge of
the bones of saints—all demand that the people, the lay
men, those upon whom they live, shall kneel to them.
The man of free and noble spirit will not kneel.
'Courage has no knees. Fear kneels, or falls upon its
•ashen face.
The cardinal insists that the pope is the Vicar of
Christ, and that all popes have been. What is a Vicar
of Jesus Christ ? He is a substitute in office. He stands
in the place, or occupies the position in relation to the
Church, in relation to the world, that Jesus Christ would
occupy were he the pope at Rome. In other words, he
takes Christ’s place ; so that, according to the doctrine of
the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ himself is present in
the person of the pope.
We all know that a good man may employ a bad agent.
A good king might leave his realm and put in his place a
tyrant and a wretch. The good man, and the good king,
■cannot certainly know what manner of man the agent is
—what kind of person the vicar is—consequently the bad
may be chosen. But if the king appointed a bad vicar,
knowing him to be bad, knowing that he would oppress
the people, knowing that he would imprison and burn
the noble and generous, what excuse can be imagined for
such a king ?
Now if the Church is of divine origin, and if each pope
is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, he must have been chosen
by Jesus Christ ; and when he was chosen, Christ must
have known exactly what* his Vicar would do. Can we
believe that an infinitely wise and good Being would
�ROME OR REASON.
21
choose immoral, dishonest, ignorant, malicious, heartless,
fiendish and inhuman vicars ?
The Cardinal admits that “ the history of Christianity
is the history of the Church, and that the history of the
Church is the history of the Pontiffs,” and he then de
clares that “the greatest statesmen and rulers that the
world has ever seen are the Popes of Rome.”
Let me call attention to a few passages in Draper’s
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe.
“ Constantine was one of the Vicars of Christ. After
wards, Stephen IV. was chosen. The eyes of Constantine
were then put out by Stephen, acting in Christ’s place.
The tongue of the Bishop Theodoras was amputated by
the man who had been substituted for God. This bishop
was left in a dungeon to perish of thirst. Pope Leo III.
was seized in the street and forced into a church, where
the nephews of Pope Adrian attempted to put out his
eyes and cut off his tongue. His successor, Stephen V
was driven ignominiously from Rome. His successor,
Paschal I., was accused of blinding and murdering two
ecclesiastics in the Lateran Palace. John VIII., unable
to resist the Mohammedans, was compelled to pay them
tribute.
“At this time, the Bishop of Naples was in secret
alliance with the Mohammedans, and they divided with
this Catholic bishop the plunder they collected from other
Catholics. This bishop was excommunicated by the
pope ; afterwards he gave him absolution because he be
trayed the chief Mohammedans, and assassinated others.
There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy to murder the pope,
and some of the treasures of the Church were seized, and
the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened with false keys to
admit the Saracens. Pormosus, who had been engaged
in these transactions, who had been excommunicated as
a conspirator for the murder of Pope John, was himself
elected pope in 891. Boniface VI. was his successor.
He had been deposed from the diaconate and from the
priesthood for his immoral and lewd life. Stephen VII.
was the next pope, and he had the dead body of Formosus
taken from the grave, clothed in papal habiliments,
propped up in a chair and tried before a Council. The
corpse was found guilty, three fingers were cut off
and the body cast into the Tiber. Afterwards Stephen
�'22
ROME OR REASON.
VII., this Vicar of Christ, was thrown into prison and
strangled.
“ From 896 to 900, five popes were consecrated. Leo V.,
in less than two months after he became pope, was cast
into prison by Christopher, one of his chaplains. This
Christopher usurped his place, and in a little while was
expelled from Rome by Sergius III., who became pope
in 905. This pope lived in criminal intercourse with the
celebrated Theodora, who with her daughters Marozia
and Theodora, both prostitutes, exercised an extraordi
nary control over him. The love of Theodora was also
shared by John X. She gave him the Archbishopric of
Ravenna, and made him pope in 915. The daughter
of Theodora overthrew this pope. She surprised him
in the Lateran Palace. His brother, Peter, was killed;
the pope was thrown into prison, where he was afterwards
murdered. Afterward, this Marozia, daughter of Theo
dora, made her own son pope, John XI. Many affirmed
that Pope Sergius was his father, but his mother inclined
to attribute him to her husband Alberic, whose brother
Guido she afterwards married. Another of her sons,
Alberic, jealous of his brother, John the Pope, cast him
and their mother into prison. Alberic’s son was then
elected pope as John XII.
“ John was nineteen years old when he became the
Vicar of Christ. His reign was characterised by the most
shocking immoralities, so that the Emperor Otho I. was
compelled by the German clergy to interfere. He was
tried. It appeared that John had received bribes for the
consecration of bishops ; that he had ordained one who
was only ten years old ; that he was charged
with incest, and with so many adulteries that the
Lateran Palace had become a brothel.
He put out
the eyes of one ecclesiastic; he maimed another
—both dying in consequence of their injuries. He was
given to drunkeness and to gambling.
He*was de
posed at last, and Leo VII. elected in his stead. Subse
quently he got the upper hand. He seized his an
tagonists ; he cut off the hand of one, the nose, the finger,
and the tongue of others. His life was eventually
brought to an end by the vengeance of a man whose wife
he had seduced.”
And yet, I admit that the most infamous popes, the
�ROME OR REASON.
S3
most heartless and fiendish bishops, friars, and priests
were models of mercy, charity, and justice when compared
with the orthodox God—with the God they worshipped.
These popes, these bishops, these priests could persecute
only for a few years—they could burn only for a few
moments—but their God threatened to imprison and burn
forever ; and their God is as much worse than they were,
as hell is worse than the Inquisition.
“ John XIII. was strangled in prison. Boniface VII.
imprisoned Benedict VII., and starved him to death.
John XIV. was secretly put to death in the dungeons of
the castle of St. Angelo. The corpse of Boniface was
dragged by the populace through the streets.”
It must be remembered that the popes were assassinated
by Catholics—murdered by the faithful—that one Vicar
of Christ strangled another Vicar of Christ, and that these
men were “ the greatest rulers and the greatest statesmen
of the earth.”
“ Pope John XVI. was seized, his eyes put out, his nose
cut off, his tongue torn from his mouth, and he was sent
through the streets mounted on an ass, with his face to
the tail. Benedict IX., a boy of less than twelve years of
age, was raised to the apostolic throne. One of his suc
cessors, Victor III., declared that the life of Benedict was
so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that he shuddered to
describe it. He ruled like a captain of banditti. The
people, unable to bear longer his adulteries, his homicides
and his abominations, rose against him, and in despair of
maintaining his position, he put up his papacy to auction,
and it was bought by a Presbyter named John, who
became Gregory VI., in the year of grace 1045. Well
may we ask, Were these the Vicegerents of God upon
earth—these, who had truly reached that goal beyond
which the last effort of human wickedness cannot pass ?”
It may be sufficient to say that there is no crime that
man can commit that has not been committed by the
Vicars of Christ. They have inflicted every possible
torture, violated every natural right. Greater monsters
the human race has not produced.
Among the “ some two hundred and fifty-eight ” Vicars
of Christ there were probably some good men. This
would have happened even if the intention had been to
get all bad men, for the reason that man reaches perfec
�24
ROME OR REASON.
tion neither in good nor in evil; but if they were selected
by Christ himself, if they were selected by a Church with
a divine origin and under divine guidance, then there is
no way to account for the selection of a bad one. If one
hypocrite was duly elected pope—one murderer, one
strangler, one starver—this demonstrates that all the popes
were selected by men, and by men only, that the claim
of divine guidance is born of zeal and uttered without
knowledge.
But who were the Vicars of Christ ? How many have
there been ? Cardinal Manning himself does not know.
He is not sure. He says : “ Starting from St. Peter to
Leo XIII., there have been some two hundred and fifty
eight Pontiffs claiming to be recognised by the whole
Catholic unity as successors of St. Peter and Vicars of
Jesus Christ.” Why did he use the word “some"?
Why “ claiming ” ? Does he positively know ? Is it
possible that the present Vicar of Christ is not certain as
to the number of his predecessors ? Is he infallible in
faith and fallible in fact ?
PART II.
“ If we live thus tamely,—
To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet,—
Farewell nobility.”
No one will deny that “the pope speaks to many people
in many nations : that he treats with empires and govern
ments,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor from
Constantinople such a voice goes forth.”
How does the pope speak ? What does he say ?
He speaks against the liberty of man—against the
progress of the human race. He speaks to calumniate
thinkers, and to warn the faithful against the discoveries
of science. He speaks for the destruction of civilisation.
Who listens ? Do astronomers, geologists and scientists
put the hand to the ear fearing that an accent may be
lost ? Does France listen ? Does Italy hear ? Is not the
Church weakest at its centre ? Do those who have raised
�ROME OR REASON.
25
Italy from the dead, and placed her again among the
great nations, pay attention ? Does Great Britain care for
this voice—this moan, this groan—of the Middle Ages ?
Do the words of Leo XIII. impress the intelligence of the
Great Republic ? Can anything be more absurd than for
the vicar of Christ to attack a demonstration of science
with a passage of Scripture, or a quotation from one of
the “ Fathers ” ?
Compare the popes with the kings and queens of
England. Infinite wisdom had but little to do with the
selection of these monarchs, and yet they were far better
than any equal number of consecutive popes. This is
faint praise, even for kings and queens, but it shows that
chance succeeded in getting better rulers for England
than “ Infinite Wisdom ” did for the Church of Rome.
Compare the popes with the presidents of the Republic
elected by the people.
If Adams had murdered
Washington, and Jefferson had imprisoned Adams, and if
Madison had cut out Jefferson’s tongue, and Monroe had
assassinated Madison, and John Quincy Adams had
poisoned Monroe, and General Jackson had hung Adams
and his Cabinet, we might say that presidents had been as
virtuous as popes. But if this had happened, the verdict
of the world would be that the people are not capable of
selecting their presidents.
But this voice from Rome is growing feebler day by
day ; so feeble that the Cardinal admits that the vicar of
God, and the supernatural Church, “ are being tormented
by Falck laws, by Mancini laws and by Crispi laws.” In
other words, this representative of God, this substitute of
Christ, this Church of divine origin, this supernatural
institution—pervaded by the Holy Ghost—are being
“ tormented ” by three politicians. Is it possible that
this patriotic trinity is more powerful than the other ?*
It is claimed that if the Catholic Church “ be only a
human system, built up by the intellect, will and energy
of men, the adversaries must prove it—that the burden is
upon them.”
As a general thing, institutions are natural. If this
Church is supernatural, it is the one exception. The
affirmative is with those who claim that it is of divine
origin. So far as we know, all governments and all
creeds are the work of man. No one believes that Rome
�26
ROME OR REASON.
was a supernatural production, and yet its beginnings
were as small as those of the Catholic Church. Commenc
ing in weakness, Rome grew, and fought, and conquered,
until it was believed that the sky bent above a subjugated
world. And yet all was natural. For every effect there
was an efficient cause.
The Catholic asserts that all other religions have been
produced by man—that Brahminism and Buddhism, the
religion of Isis and Osiris, the marvellous mythologies of
Greece and Rome, were the work of the human mind.
From these religions Catholicism has borrowed. Long
before Catholicism was born, it was believed that women
had borne children whose fathers were gods. The Trinity
was promulgated in Egypt centuries before the birth of
Moses. Celibacy was taught by the ancient Nazarenes
and Essenes, by the priests of Egypt and India, by
mendicant monks, and by the piously insane of many
countries long before the Apostles lived. The Chinese
tell us that “ when there were but one man and one
woman upon the earth, the woman refused to sacrifice
her virginity even to people the globe ; and the gods,
honoring her purity, granted that she should conceive
beneath the gaze of her lover’s eyes, and a virgin mother
became the parent of humanity.
The founders of many religions have insisted that it
was the duty of man to renounce the pleasures of sense,
and millions before our era took the vows of chastity,
poverty and obedience, and most cheerfully lived upon
the labor of others.
The sacraments of baptism and confirmation are far
(older than the Church of Rome. The Eucharist is pagan.
Long before popes began to murder each other, pagans ate
cakes—the flesh of Ceres, and drank wine—the blood of
Bacchus. Holy water flowed in the Ganges and Nile,
priests interceded for the people, and anointed the dying.
It will not do to say that every successful religion that
has taught unnatural doctrines, unnatural practices, must
of necessity have been of divine origin. In most religions
there has been a strange mingling of the good and bad,
of the merciful and cruel, of the loving and malicious.
Buddhism taught the universal brotherhood of man,
insisted on the development of the mind, and this religion
was propagated not by the sword, but by preaching, by
�ROME OR REASON.
27
persuasion and by kindness—yet in many things it wag
contrary to the human will, contrary to the human pas
sions, and contrary to good sense. Buddhism succeeded.
Can we, for this reason, say that it is a supernatural
religion ? Is the unnatural the supernatural ?
It is insisted that, while other churches have changed,
the Catholic Church alone has remained the same, and
that this fact demonstrates its divine origin.
Has the creed of Buddhism changed in three thousand
years ? Is intellectual stagnation a demonstration of
divine origin ? When anything refuses to grow, are we
certain that the seed was planted by God ? If the
Catholic Church is the same to-day that it has been for
many centuries, this proves that there has been no intel
lectual development. If men do not differ upon religious
subjects, it is because they do not think.
Differentiation is the law of growth, of progress. Every
Church must gain or lose ; it cannot remain the same ; it
must decay or grow. The fact that the Catholic Church
has not grown—that it has been petrified from the first—
does not establish divine origin ; itsimply establishes the
fact that it retards the progress of man. Everything in
nature changes—every atom is in motion—every star
moves. Nations, institutions and individuals have youth,
manhood, old age, death. This is and will be true of the
Catholic Church. It was once weak—it grew stronger—
it reached its climax of power—it began to decay—it
never can rise again. It is confronted by the dawn of
Science. In the presence of the nineteenth century it
cowers.
It is not true that “ All natural causes run to disinte
gration.”
Natural causes run to integration as well as to disinte
gration. All growth is integration, and all growth is
natural. All decay is disintegration, and all decay is
natural. Nature builds and nature destroys. When the
acorn grows—when the sunlight and rain fall upon it and
the oak rises—so far as the oak is concerned “ all natural
causes ” do not “ run to disintegration.” But there comes
a time when the oak has reached its limit, and then the
forces of nature run towards disintegration, and finally
the old oak falls. But if the Cardinal is right—if “ all
natural causes run to disintegration,” then every success
�28
ROME OR REASON.
must have been of divine origin, and nothing is natural
but destruction. This is Catholic science : “ All natural
causes run to disintegration.” What do these causes find
to disintegrate ? Nothing that is natural. The fact that
the thing is not disintegrated shows that it was and is of
supernatural origin. According to the Cardinal, the only
business of nature is to disintegrate the supernatural.
To prevent this, the supernatural needs the protection of
the Infinite. According to this doctrine, if anything
lives and grows, it does so in spite of nature. Growth,
then, is not in accordance with, but in opposition to
nature. Every plant is supernatural—it defeats the dis
integrating influences of rain and light. The generalisa
tion of the Cardinal is half the truth. It would be
equally true to say : All natural causes run to integration.
But the whole truth is that growth and decay are equal.
The Cardinal asserts that “ Christendom was created by
the world-wide Church as we see it before our eyes at
this day. Philosophers and statesmen believe it to be the
work of their own hands ; they did not make it, but they
have for three hundred years been unmaking it by refor
mations and revolutions.”
The meaning of this is that Christendom was far better
three hundred years ago than now ; that during these
three centuries Christendom has been going towards
barbarism. It means that the supernatural Church of
God has been a failure for three hundred years ; that it
has been unable to withstand the attacks of philosophers
and statesmen, and that it has been helpless in the midst
of “ reformations and revolutions.”
What was the condition of the world three hundred
years ago, the period, according to the Cardinal, in which
the Church reached the height of its influence and since
which it has been unable to withstand the rising tide of
reformation and the whirlwind of revolution ?
In that blessed time, Phillip II. was king of Spain—he
with the cramped head and the monstrous jaw. Heretics
were hunted like wild and poisonous beasts ; the in?
quisition was firmly established, and priests were busy
with rack and fire. With a zeal born of the hatred of
man and the love of God, the Church with every
instrument of torture, touched every nerve in the human
body.
�ROME OR REASON.
29
In those happy clays the Duke qf Alva was devastating
the homes of Holland ; heretics were buried alive—their
tongues were torn from their mouths, their lids from
their eyes; the Armada was on the sea for the destruction
of the heretics of England, and the Moriscoes—a million
and a half of industrious people—were being driven by
Sword and flame from their homes. The dews had been
expelled from Spain. This Catholic country had suc
ceeded in driving intelligence and industry from its
territory ; and this had been done with cruelty, with a
ferocity, unequalled in the*annals of crime. Nothing
was left but ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, credulity, the
Inquisition, the seven sacraments and the seven deadly
Sins. And yet a Cardinal of the nineteenth century,
living in the land of Shakespeare, regrets the change that
has been wrought by the intellectual efforts, by the dis
coveries, by the inventions and heroism of three hundred
years.
Three hundred years ago, Charles IX., in France, son
of Catherine de Medici, in the year of grace 1572—after
nearly sixteen centuries of Catholic Christianity—after
hundreds of vicars of ^Christ had sat in St. Peter’s chair—
after the’natural passions of man had been “ softened ” by
the creed of Rome—came the Massacre of St. Bartholo
mew, the result of a conspiracy between the Vicar of
Christ, Philip II., Charles IX., and his fiendish mother.
Let the Cardinal read the account of this massacre once
more, and after reading it, imagine that he sees the
gashed and mutilated bodies of thousands of men and
women, and then let him say that he regrets the revolu
tions and reformations of three hundred years.
About three hundred years ago Clement VIII., Vicar of
Christ, acting in God’s place, substitute of the Infinite,
persecuted Giordano Bruno even unto death. This great’
this sublime man, was tried for heresy. He had ventured
to assert the rotary motion of the earth ; he had hazarded
the conjecture that there were in the fields of infinite
space worlds larger and more glorious than ours. For
these low and groveling thoughts, for this contradiction
of the word and vicar of God, this man was imprisoned
for many years. But his noble spirit was not broken,
and finally in the year 1600, by the orders of the infam
ous Vicar, he was chained to the stake. Priests believing
�30
ROME OR REASON.
in the doctrine of universal forgiveness—priests who
when smitten upon one cheek turned the other—carried
with a kind of ferocious joy faggots to the feet of this
incomparable man. These disciples of “Our Lord” were
made joyous as the flames, like serpents, climbed around
the body of Bruno. In a few moments the brave thinker
was dead, and the priests who had burned him fell upon
their knees and asked the infinite God to continue the
blessed work for ever in hell.
There are two things that cannot exist in the same
universe—an infinite God and a martyr.
Does the Cardinal regret that kings and emperors are
not now engaged in the extermination of Protestants ?
Does he regret that dungeons of the Inquisition are no
longer crowded with the best and bravest? Does he
long for the fires of the auto da fe1
?
In coming to a conclusion as to the origin of the
Catholic Church—in determining the truth of the claim
of infallibility—we are not restricted to the physical
achievements of that Church, or to the history of its
propagation, or to the rapidity of its growth.
This Church has a creed ; and if this Church is of
divine origin—if its head is the Vicar of Christ, and, as
such, infallible in matters of faith and morals, this creed
must be true. Let us start with the supposition that God
exists, and that he is infinitely wise, powerful and good—
and this is only a supposition. Now, if the creed is
foolish, absurd and cruel, it cannot be of divine origin.
We find in this creed the following :
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it isnecessary that he hold the Catholic faith.”
It is not necessary, before all things, that he be good,,
honest, merciful, charitable and just. Creed is more im
portant than conduct. The most important of all things
is, that he hold the Catholic faith. There were thousands
of years during which it was not necessary to hold that
faith, because that faith did not exist; and yet during
that time the virtues were just as important as now, just
as important as they ever can be. Millions of the noblest
of the human race never heard of this creed. Millions
of the bravest and best have heard of it, examined, and
rejected it. Millions of the most infamous have believed
it, and because of their belief, or notwithstanding their
�ROME OR REASON.
31
belief^ have murdered millions of their fellows. We
know that men can be, have been, and are just as wicked
with it as without it. We know that it is not necessary
to believe it to be good, loving, tender, noble and self
denying. We admit that millions who have believed it
have also been self-denying and heroic, and that millions,
by such belief, were not prevented from torturing and
destroying the helpless.
Now if all who believed it were good, and all who
rejected it were bad, then there might be some propriety
in saying that “ whoever will be saved, before all things
it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.” But as
the experience of mankind is otherwise, the declaration
becomes absurd, ignorant and cruel.
There is still another clause :
u Which faith, except every one do keep entire and
inviolate, without doubt he shall everlastingly perish.”
We now have both sides of this wonderful truth : The
believer will be saved, the unbeliever will be lost. We
know that faith is not the child or servant of the will.
We know that belief is a conclusion based upon what the
mind supposes to be true. We know that it is not an act
of the will. Nothing can be more absurd than to save a
man because he is not intelligent enough to accept the
truth, and nothing can be more infamous than to damn
a man because he is intelligent enough to reject the false.
It resolves itself into a question of intelligence. If the
creed is true, then a man rejects it because he lacks
intelligence. Is this a crime for which a man should
everlastingly perish ? If the creed is false, then a man
accepts it because he lacks intelligence. In both cases
the crime is exactly the same. If a man is to be damned
for rejecting the truth, certainly he should not be saved
for accepting the false. This one clause demonstrates
that a being of infinite wisdom and goodness did not
write it. It also demonstrates that it was the work of
men who had neither wisdom nor a sense of justice.
What is this Catholic faith that must be held ? It is
this :
■“ That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the
substance.”
Why should an Infinite Being demand worship ? Why
�32
ROME OR REASON.
should one God wish to be worshipped as three ? Why
should three Gods wish to be worshipped as one ? Why
should we pray to one God and think of three, or pray to
three Gods and think of one ? Can this increase the
happiness of the one or of the three ? Is it possible to
think of one as three, or of three as one ? If you think
of three as one, can you think of one as none, or of none
as one ? When you think of three as one, what do you
do with the other two ? You must not “ confound the
persons ”—they must be kept separate. When you think
of one as three, how do you get the other two ? You
must not “divide the substance.” Is it possible to write
greater contradictions than these ?
This creed demonstrates the human origin of the
Catholic Church. Nothing could be more unjust than to
punish man for unbelief—for the expression of honest
thought—for having been guided by his reason—for
having acted in accordance with his best judgment.
Another claim is made, to the effect “ that the Catholic
Church has filled the world with the true knowledge of
the one true God, and that it has destroyed all idols by
light instead of by fire.”
The Catholic Church described the true God as a being
who would inflict eternal pain on his weak and erring
children ; described him as a fickle, quick-tempered,
unreasonable deity, whom honesty enraged, and whom
flattery governed ; one who loved to see fear upon its
knees, ignorance with closed eyes and open mouth ; one
who delighted in useless self-denial, who loved to hear
the sighs and sobs of suffering nuns, as they lay prostrate
on dungeon floors ; one who was delighted when the
husband deserted his family and lived alone in some cave
in the far wilderness, tormented by dreams and driven
to insanity by prayer and penance, by fasting and faith.
According the Catholic Church, the true God enjoyed
the agonies of heretics. He loved the smell of their
burning flesh ; he applauded with wide palms when
philosophers were flayed alive, and to him the auto da fe
was a divine comedy.
The shrieks of wives, the
cries of babes when fathers were being burned,
gave contrast, heightened the effect and filled his cup
with joy. This true God did not know the shape of the
earth he had made, and had forgotten the orbits of the
�BOMB OR REASON.
33
stars. > “ The stream of light which descended from the
beginning” was propagated by faggot to faggot, until
Christendom was filled with the devouring fires of
faith.
It may also be said that the Catholic Church filled the
world with the true knowledge of the one true Devil. It
filled the air with malicious phantoms, crowded innocent
Sleep with leering fiends, and gave the world to the
domination of witches and wizards, spirits and spooks,
goblins and ghosts, and butchered and burned thousandsfor the commission of impossible crimes.
It is contended that: “ In this true knowledge of the
Divine Nature was revealed to man their own relation toa Creator as sons to a Father.”
This tender relation was revealed by the Catholics tothe Pagans, the Arians, the Cathari, the Waldenses, the
Albigenses, the heretics, the Jews, the Moriscoes, the
Protestants—to the natives of the West Indies, of Mexico,
of Peru—to philosophers, patriots and thinkers. All these
victims were taught to regard the true God as a loving
Father, and this lesson was taught with every instrument
of torture—with brandings and burnings, with Sayings and
flames. The world was filled with cruelty and credulity,
ignorance and intolerance and the soil in which all these
horrors grew was the true knowledge of the one true God,,
and the true knowledge of the one true Devil. And yet,
we are compelled to say, that the one true Devil described
by the Catholic Church was not as malevolent as the one
true God.
Is it true that the Catholic Church overthrew idolatry ?
What is idolatry ? What shall we say of the worship of
popes—of the doctrine of the Real presence, of divine
honors paid to saints, of sacred vestments, of holy water,
of consecrated cups and plates, of images and relics, of
amulets and charms ?
The Catholic Church filled the world with the spirit of
idolatry. It abandoned the idea of continuit5r in nature,
it denied the integrity of cause and effect. The govern
ment of the world was the composite result of the caprice
of God, the malice of Satan, the prayers of the faithfulsoftened, it may be, by the charity of Chance. Yet the
Cardinal asserts, without the preface of a smile, that
“ Demonology was overthrown by the Church, with the
•
c
�34
ROME OR REASON,
assistance of forces that were above nature; ” and in the
same breath gives birth to this enlightened statement :
“Beelzebub is not divided against himself.” Is a belief
in Beelzebub a belief in demonology ? Has the Cardinal
forgotten the Council of Nice, held in the year of grace
787, that declared the worship of images to be lawful ?
Did that infallible Council, under the guidance of the
Holy Ghost, destroy idolatry ?
The Cardinal takes the ground that marriage is a sacra
ment, and therefore indissoluble, and he also insists that
celibacy is far better than marriage—holier than a sacra
ment—that marriage is not the highest state, but that
« the state of virginity unto death is thejhighest condition
of man and woman.”
The highest ideal of a family is where all are equal—
where love has superseded authority—where each seeks
the good of all, and where none obey—where no religion
can sunder hearts, and with which no church can in
terfere.
The real marriage is based on mutual affection—the
ceremony is but the outward evidence of the inward
flame. To this contract there are but two parties. The
Church is an impudent intruder. Marriage is made public
to the end that the real contract may be known, so that
the world can see that the parties have been actuated by
the highest and holiest motives that find expression in
the acts of human beings. The man and woman are not
joined together by God, or by the Church, or by the
State. The Church and State may prescribe certain
•ceremonies, certain formalities—but all these are only
•evidence of the existence of a sacred fact in the heaits of
the wedded. The indissolubility of marriage is a dogma
that has filled the lives of millions with agony and tears.
It has given a perpetual excuse for vice and immorality.
Fear has borne children begotten by brutality. ^Countless
women have endured the insults, indignities and cruelties
■of fiendish husbands, because they thought that it was
the will of God. The contract of marriage is the most
important that human beings can make ; but no contract
can be so important as to release one of the parties from
the obligation of performance ; and no contract, whether
made between man and woman, or between them and
God, after a failure of consideration caused by the wilful
�HOME OR REASON.
35
act of the man or woman, can hold and bind the innocent
and honest.
Do the believers in indissoluble marriage treat their
wives better than others ? A little while ago, a woman
said to a man who had raised his hand to strike her :
“ Do not touch me ; you have no right to beat me ; I am
not your wife.”
About a year ago, a husband, whom God in his infinite
wisdom had joined to a loving and patient woman in the
indissoluble sacrament of marriage, becoming enraged,
seized the helpless wife and tore out one of her eyes.
She forgave him. A few weeks ago he deliberately
repeated this frightful crime, leaving his victim totally
blind. Would it not have been better if man, before
the poor woman was blinded, had put asunder whom
God had joined together? Thousands of husbands,
who insist that marriage is indissoluble, are the b eaters
of wives.
The Law of the Church has created neither the purity
nor the peace of domestic life. Back of all churches is
human affection. Back of all theologies is the love of
the human heart. Back of all your priests and creeds is
the adoration of the one woman by the one man, and of
the one man by the one wom'an. Back of your faith is
the fireside, back of your folly is the family • and back
of all your holy mistakes and your sacred absurdities is
the love of husband and wife, of parent and child.
It is not true that neither the Greek nor the Roman
world had any true conception of a home. The splendid
story of Ulysses and Penelope, the parting of Hector and
Andromache, demonstrate that a true conception of
home existed among the Greeks. Before the establish
ment of. Christianity, the Roman matron commanded the
admiration of the then known world. She was free and
noble. The Church degraded woman ; made her the
property of the husband, and trampled her beneath its
brutal feet. The “ fathers ” denounced woman as a perpetual temptation, as the cause of all evil. The Church
worshipped a God who had upheld polygamy, and had
pronounced his curse on woman, and had declared
that she should be the serf of the husband. This Church
followed the teachings of St. Paul. It taught the un
cleanness of marriage, and insisted that all children were
�36
' ROME OR REASON.
conceived in sin. This Church pretended to have been
founded by one who offered a reward in this world, and
eternal joy in the next, to husbands who would forsake
their wives and children and follow him. Did this tend
to the elevation of woman ? Did this detestable doctrine
“create the purity and peace of domestic life’ ? Is it
true that a monk is purer than a good and noble father .
that a nun is holier than a loving mother ?
?
Is there anything deeper and stronger than a mother 8
love ? Is there anything purer, holier than a mother
holding her dimpled babe against her billowed breast ?
The good man is useful, the best man is the most use
ful. Those who fill the nights with barren prayers and
holy hunger, torture themselves for their own good and
not for the benefit of others. They are earning eternal
glory for themselves ; they do not fast for their fellow
men, their selfishness is only equalled by their foolish
ness. Compare the monk in his selfish cell, counting
beads and saying prayers for the purpose of saving his
barren soul, with a husband and father sitting by his
fireside with wife and children. Compare the nun with
the mother and her babe.
Celibacy is the essence of vulgarity. It tries to put a
stain upon motherhood, upon marriage, upon love—that
is to say, upon all that is holiest in the human heart
Take love from the world, and there is nothing left worth
livino- for. The Church has treated this great, this
sublime, this unspeakably holy passion, as though it
polluted the heart. They have placed the love of God
above the love of woman, above the love of man. Human
love is generous and noble. The love of God is selfish,
because man does not love God for God’s sake but for
his own. •
,
i 4.
Yet the Cardinal asserts “ that the change wrought by
Christianity in the social, political and international
relations of the world’’-“that the root of this ethical,
change, private and public, is the Christian home.
A
moment afterwards, this prelate insists that celibacy is
far better than marriage. If the world could be induced
to live in accordance with the “ highest state, this gene
ration would be the last. Why were men and women
created ? Why did not the Catholic God commence with
the sinless and sexless ? The Cardinal ought to take the
�ROME OR REASON.
37
ground that to talk well is good, but that to be dumb is
the highest condition; that hearing is a pleasure, but that
deafness is ecstasy ; and that to think, to reason, is very
well, but that to be a Catholic is far better.
Why should we desire the destruction of human
passions ? Take passions from human beings and what
is left ? The great object should be not to destroy
passions, but to make them obedient to the intellect. To
indulge passion to the utmost is one form of intemper
ance, to destroy passion is another. The reasonable
gratification of passion under the domination of the
intellect is true wisdom and perfect virtue.
The goodness, the sympathy, the self-denial of the nun,
of the monk, all come from the mother instinct, the
father instinct—all were produced by human affection,
by the love of man for woman, of woman for man. Love
is a transfiguration. It ennobles, purifies and glorifies.
In true marriage two hearts burst into flower. Two lives
unite. They melt in music. Every moment is a melody.
Love is a revelation, a creation. From love the world
borrows its beauty and the heavens their glory. Justice,
self-denial, charity and pity are the children of love.
Jjover, wife, mother, husband, father, child, home—these
words shed light—they are the gems of human speech.
Without love all glory fades, the noble falls from life, art
dies, music loses meaning and becomes mere motions of
the air, and virtue ceases to exist.
It is asserted that this life of celibacy is above and
against the tendencies of human nature; and the Cardinal
then asks : “ Who will ascribe this to natural causes,
and, if so, why did it not appear in the first four thousand
years ? ”
If there is in a system of religion a doctrine, a dogma,
or a practice against the tendencies of human nature—if
this religion succeeds, then it is claimed by the Cardinal
that such religion must be of divine origin. Is it “against
the tendencies of human nature ” for a mother to throw
her child into the Ganges to please a supposed God? Yet
a religion that insisted on that sacrifice succeeded, and
has, to-day, more believers than the Catholic Church can
boast.
Religions, like nations and individuals, have always
.gone along the line of least resistance. Nothing has
�38
ROME OR REASON.
“ascended the stream of human license by a power
mightier than nature.” There is no such power. There
never was, there never can be, a miracle. We know that
man is a conditioned being. We know that he is affected
by a change of conditions. If he is ignorant he is super
stitious—that is natural. If his brain is developed, if
he perceives clearly that all things are naturally produced,
he ceases to be superstitious and becomes scientific. He
is not a saint, but a savant—not a priest, but a philo
sopher. He does not worship, he works; he investigates ;
he thinks ; he takes advantage, through intelligence, of
the forces of nature. He is no longer the victim of
appearances, the dupe of his own ignorance, and the
persecutor of his fellow men.
He then knows that it is far better to love his wife
and children than to love God. He then knows that the
love of man for woman, of woman for man, of parent
for child, of child for parent, is far better, far holier
than the love of man for any phantom born of ignorance
and fear.
It is illogical to take the ground that the world was
cruel and ignorant and idolatrous when the Catholic
Church was established, and that because the world is
better now than then, the Church is of divine origin.
What was the world when science came ?
What
was it in the days of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler ?
What was it when printing was invented ? What was it
when the Western World was found ? Would it not be
much easier to prove that science is of divine origin ?
Science does not persecute. It does not shed blood—
it fills the world with light. It cares nothing for heresy;
it developes the mind, and enables man to answer his
own prayers.
Cardinal Manning takes the ground that Jehovah prac
tically abandoned the children of men for four thousand
years, and gave them over to every abomination. He
claims that Christianity came “ in the fulness of time,
and it is then admitted that “ what the fulness of time
may mean is one of the mysteries of times and seasons,
that it is not for us to know.” Having declared that it is
a mystery, and one that we are not to know, the Cardinal
explains it : “ One motive for the long delay of four
thousand years is not far to seek—it gave time, full and
�ROME OR REASON.
39
ample, for the utmost development and consolidation of
all the falsehood and evil of which the intellect and will
of man is capable.”
Is it possible to imagine why an infinitely good and
wise being “ gave time full and ample for the utmost
development and consolidation of falsehood and evil ” ?
Why should an infinitely wise God desire this development
and consolidation ? What would be thought of a father
who should refuse to teach his son and deliberately
allow him to go into every possible excess, to the end
that he might “ develop all the falsehood and evil of
which his intellect and will were capable ”? If a super
natural religion is a necessity, and if without it all men
simply develop and consolidate falsehood and evil, why
was not a supernatural religion given to the first man ?
The Catholic Church, if this be true, should have been
founded in the garden of Eden. Was it not cruel to drown
a world just for the want of a supernatural religion—a
religion that man, by no possibility, could furnish ? Was
there “ husbandry in heaven ” ?
But the Cardinal contradicts himself by not only
admitting, but declaring, that the world had never seen
a legislation so just, so equitable, as that of Rome. Is it
possible that a nation in which falsehood and evil had
reached their highest development was, after all, so wise,
so just, and so equitable ? Was not the civil law far
better than the Mosaic—more philosophical, nearer just?
The civil law was produced without the assistance of God.
According to the Cardinal, it was produced by men in
whom all the falsehood and evil of which they were
capable had been developed and consolidated, while the
cruel and ignorant Mosaic code came from the lips of
infinite wisdom and compassion.
It is declared that the history of Rome shows what man
can do without God, and I assert that the history of the
Inquisition shows what man can do when assisted by a
church of divine origin, presided over by the infallible
vicars of God.
The fact that the early Christians not only believed
incredible things, but persuaded others of their truth, is
regarded by the Cardinal as a miracle. This is only
another phase of the old argument that success is the test
of divine origin. All supernatural religions have been
�40
ROME OR REASON.
founded in precisely the same way. The credulity of
eighteen hundred years ago believed everything except
the truth.
A religion is a growth, and is of necessity adapted in
some degree to the people among whom it grows. It is
shaped and moulded by the general ignorance, the
superstition and credulity of the age in which it lives.
The key is fashioned by the lock. Every religion that
has succeeded has in some way supplied the wants of its
votaries, and has to a certain extent harmonised with
their hopes, their fears, their vices, and their virtues.
If, as the Cardinal says, the religion of Christ is in
absolute harmony with nature, how can it be super
natural ? The Cardinal also declares that. “ the religion
of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral nature
in all nations and all ages to this day.” What becomes of
the argument that Catholicism must be of divine origin
because “ it has ascended the stream of human licence,
contra ictum fluminis, by a power mightier than
nature ” ? If “ it is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations and all ages to this day,” it
has gone with the stream, and not against it. If “ the
religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations,” then the men who have
rejected it are unnatural, and these men have gone against
the stream. How then can it be said that Christianity
has been in changeless opposition to nature as man has
marred it ? To what extent has man marred it ? In spite
of the marring by man, we are told that the reason and
moral nature of all nations in all ages to this day is in
harmony with the religion of Jesus Christ.
Are we justified in saying that the' Catholic Church is
of divine origin because the Pagans failed to destroy it
by persecution ?
We will put the Cardinal’s statement in form :
Paganism failed to destroy.Catholicism by persecutions
therefore Catholicism is of divine origin.
Let us make an application of this logic :
Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution ;
therefore, Catholicism is of divine origin.
Catholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by persecu
tion ; therefore, Protestantism is of divine origin.
�ROME OR REASON.
41
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity; therefore, Infidelity is of divine
origin.
Let us make another application :
Paganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism ;
therefore, Paganism was a false religion.
Catholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestant
ism ; therefore, Catholicism is a false religion.
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity ; therefore, both Catholicism and
Protestantism are false religions.
The Cardinal has another reason for believing the
Catholic Church of divine origin. He declares that the
Canon Law is a creation of wisdom and justice to which
no statutes at large or imperial pandects can bear com
parison “ that the world-wide and secular legislation of
the Church was of a higher character, and that as water
cannot rise above its source, the Church could not, by
mere human wisdom, have corrected and perfected the
imperial law, and therefore its source must have been
higher than the sources of the world.”
When Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law
was supreme. As a matter of fact, the good in the Canon
Law was borrowed—the bad was, for the most part,
original. In my judgment, the legislation of the Repub
lic of the United States is in many respects superior to
that of Rome, and yet we are greatly indebted to the
Common Law ; but it never occurred to me that our
Statutes at Large are divinely inspired.
If the Canon Law is, in fact, the legislation of infinite
wisdom, then it should be a perfect code. Yet, the Canon
Law made it a crime next to robbery and theft to take
interest for money. Without the right to take interest
the business of the world would, to a large extent, cease
and the prosperity of mankind end. There are railways
enough in the United States to make six tracks around
the globe, and every mile was built with borrowed money
on which interest was paid or promised. In no other
way could the savings of many thousands have been
brought together and a capital great enough formed to
construct works of such vast and continental import
ance.
�42
ROME OR REASON.
It was provided in this same wonderful Canon Law
that a heretic could not be a witness against a Catholic.
The Catholic was at liberty to rob and wrong his fellow
man, provided the fellow man was not a fellow Catholic,
and in a court established by the Vicar of Christ, the man
who had been robbed was not allowed to open his mouth.
A Catholic could enter the house of an unbeliever, of a
Jew, of a heretic, of a Moor, and before the eyes of the
husband and father murder his wife and children, and
the father could not pronounce in the hearing of a judge
the name of the murderer. The world is wiser now, and
the Canon Law, given to us by infinite wisdom, has been
repealed by the common sense of man.
In this divine code it was provided that to convict a
cardinal bishop, seventy-two witnesses were required ; a
cardinal presbyter, forty-four ; a cardinal deacon, twentyfour ;' a sub-deacon, acolyth, exorcist, reader, ostiarus,
seven ; and in the purgation of a bishop, twelve witnesses
were invariably required; of a presbyter, seven ; of a
deacon, three. These laws, in my judgment, were made,
not by God, but by the clergy.
So, too, in this cruel code it was provided that those
who gave aid, favor, or counsel, to excommunicated per
sons should be anathema, and that those who talked
with, consulted, or sat at the same table with, or gave
anything in charity to the excommunicated, should be
anathema.
Is it possible that a being of infinite wisdom made
hospitality a crime ? Did he say : “ Whoso giveth a cup
of cold water to the excommunicated shall wear forever a
garment of fire”? Were not the laws of the Romans
much better ? Besides all this, under the Canon Law the
dead could be tried for heresy, and their estates confiscated
—that is to say, their widows and orphans robbed. The
most brutal part of the common law of England is that in
relation to the right of women—all of which was taken
from the Corpus Juris Canonist, “ the law that came
from a higher source than man.”
The only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by the
pious canonists was propter infidelitatem, which was
when one of the parties became Catholic, and would not
live with the other who continued still an unbeliever.
Under this divine statute, a pagan wishing to be rid of
�ROME OR REASON.
43:
his wife had only to join the Catholic Church, provided
she remained faithful to the religion of her fathers.
Under this divine law, a man marrying a widow was
declared to be a bigamist.
It would require volumes to point out the cruelties,
absurdities and inconsistencies of the Canon Law. It'
has been thrown away by the world. Every civilised
nation has a code of its own, and the Canon Law is of
interest only to the historian, the antiquarian, and the
enemy of theological government.
Under the Canon Law, people were convicted of being
witches and wizards, of holding intercourse with devils.
Thousands perished at the stake, having been convicted
of these impossible crimes. Under the Canon Law, there
was such a crime as the suspicion of heresy. A man or
woman could be arrested, charged with being suspected,,
and under this Canon Law, flowing from the intellect of
infinite wisdom, the presumption was in favor of guilt.
The suspected had to prove themselves innocent. In all
civilised courts, the presumption of innocence is theshield of the indicted, but the Canon Law took away this
shield, and put in the hand of the priest the sword of
presumptive guilt.
If the real pope is the vicar of Christ, the true shepherd
of the sheep, this fact should be known not only to the
vicar, but to the sheep. A divinely founded and guarded
church ought to know its own shepherd, and yet the
Catholic sheep have not always been certain who theshepherd was.
The Council of Pisa, held in 1409, deposed two popes—
rivals—Gregory and Benedict—that is to say, deposed
the actual vicar of Christ and the pretended. This action
was taken because a council, enlightened by the Holy
Ghost, could not tell the genuine from the counterfeit.
The council then elected another vicar, whose authority
was afterwards denied. Alexander V. died, and John
XXIII. took his place ; Gregory XII. insisted that he
was the lawful pope ; John resigned, then he was de
posed, and afterwards imprisoned; then Gregory XII.
resigned, and Martin V. was elected. The whole thing
reads like the annals of a South American Revolution.
The Council of Constance restored, as the Cardinal
declares, the unity of the Church, and brought back the
�44
ROME OR REASON.
consolation of the Holy Ghost. Before this great council
John Huss appeared and maintained his own tenets.
The council declared that the Church was not bound to
keep its promise with a heretic. Huss was condemned
and executed on the 6th of July, 1415. His disciple,
Jerome of Prague, recanted, but having relapsed, was put
to death, May 30th, 1416. This cursed council shed the
blood of Huss and Jerome.
The Cardinal appeals to the author of Ecce Homo for
the purpose of showing that Christianity is above nature,
and the following passages, among others, are quoted :
“ Who can describe that which unites men ? Who has
entered into the formation of speech, which is the symbol
of their union ? Who can describe exhaustively the
origin of civil society ? He who can do these things can
explain the origin of the Christian Church.”
These passages should not have been quoted by the
Cardinal. The author of these passages simply says that
the origin of the Christian Church is no harder to find
and describe than that which unites men—than that
which has entered into the formation of speech, the
symbol of their union—no harder to describe than th®
origin of civil society—because he says that one who can
describe these can describe the other.
Certainly none of these things are above nature. We
do not need the assistance of the Holy Ghost in these
matters. We know that men are united by common
interests, common purposes, common dangers—by race,
■climate, and education. It is no more wonderful that
people live in families, tribes, communities and nations,
than that birds, ants, and bees live in flocks and
swarms.
If we know anything we know that language is natural
—that it is a physical science. But if we take the ground
occupied by the Cardinal, then we insist that everything
that cannot be accounted for by man, is supernatural.
Let me ask, by what man ? What man must we take as
the standard ? Cosmas or Humboldt, St. Irenaeus or
Darwin ? If everything that we cannot account for is
above nature, then ignorance is the test of the super
natural. The man who is mentally honest, stops where
his knowledge stops. At that point he says that he does
not know. JSuch a man is a philosopher. Then the
�ROME OR REASON.
45
theologian steps forward, denounces the modesty of the
philosopher as blasphemy, and proceeds to tell what is
beyond the horizon of the human intellect.
■ Could a savage account for the telegraph, or the tele
phone by natural causes? How would he account for
these wonders ? He would account for them precisely
as the Cardinal accounts for the Catholic Church.
Belonging to no rival church, I have not the slightest
interest "in the primacy of Leo XIII., and yet it is to be
regretted that this primacy rests upon such a narrow and
insecure foundation.
The Cardinal says that “ it will appear almost certain
that the original Greek of St. Irenaeus, which is un
fortunately lost, contained either to. 7rpcoTeia, or some
inflection of 7rp<DTeva>, which signifies primacy.”
From this it appears that the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome rests on some “ inflection ” of a Greek word—and
that this supposed inflection was in a letter supposed to
have been written by St. Irenaeus, which has certainly
been lost. Is it possible that the vast fabric of papal
power has this, and only this, for its foundation ? To
this “ inflection ” has it come at last ?
The Cardinal’s case depends upon the intelligence and
veracity of his witnesses. The Fathers of the Church
were utterly incapable of examining a question of fact.
They were all believers in the miraculous. The same is
true of the apostles. If St. John was the author of the
Apocalypse, he was undoubtedly insane. If Polycarp
said the things attributed to him by Catholic writers, he
was certainly in the condition of his master. What is
the testimony of St. John worth in the light of the
following ? “ Cerinthus, the heretic, was in a bath-house.
St. John and another Christian were about to enter. St.
John cried out: ‘ Let us run away, lest the house fall
upon us while the enemy of truth is in it.’ ”
Is it
possible that St. John thought that God would kill two
eminent Christians for the purpose of getting even with
one heretic ?
Let us see who Polycarp was. He seems to have been
a prototype of the Catholic Church, as will be seen from
the following statement concerning this Father: “When
any heretical doctrine was spoken in his presence he
would stop his ears.” After this, there can be no question
�46
ROME OR,REASON.
of his orthodoxy. It is claimed that Polycarp was a
martyr—that a spear was run through his body and
that from the wound his soul, in the shape of a bird, flew
away. The history of his death is just as true as the
history of his life.
Irenaeus, another witness, took the ground that there
was to be a millennium, a thousand years of enjoyment
in which celibacy would not be the highest form of
virtue. If he is called as a witness for the purpose of
establishing the divine origin of the Church, and if oneof his inflections ” is the basis of papal supremacy, is
the Cardinal also willing to take his testimony as to the
nature of the millennium ?
All the Fathers were infinitely credulous. Every one
of them believed, not only in the miracles said to have
been wrought by Christ, by the apostles, and by other
Christians, but every one of them believed in the Pagan
miracles. . All of these Fathers were familiar with won
ders and impossibilities. Nothing was so common with
them as to work miracles, and on many occasions they
not only cured diseases, not only reversed the order of
nature, but succeeded in raising the dead.
It is very hard, indeed, to prove what the apostles said,
or what the Fathers of the Church wrote. There were
many centuries filled with forgeries, many generations in
which the cunning hands of ecclesiastics erased, oblite
rated and interpolated the records of the past, during
which they invented books, invented authors, and quoted
from works that never existed.
The testimony of the “Fathers” is without the slightest
value. They believed everything, they examined nothing.
They received as a waste-basket receives.
Whoever
accepts their testimony will exclaim with the Cardinal :
“ Happily, men are not saved by logic.”
���
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 46 p. ; 18 p.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Oct. and Nov. 1888. No. 65a in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N390
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rationalism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Catholic Church-Controversial Literature
Henry Edward Manning
Marriage
NSS
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/36b191bff154175293704b613caa9ccb.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=oP8DnJ3smmCEUR9slIko8zcV2o91l%7EdsDiR6oBxbZxD-YnKd1mJ9sdEI95yVVgPYYXXolX%7EDbNyaeZB-XamL4RA0WjcILbUED8jK0GHkvhgqTOhGlwrdayeBu-DC%7ErXRJMIBfaTyk7r-64wW7VwOQD5xMFDDyjG3pkCgJYP-n4yrUHXkwSMdBuXRWduKjJZP5D8EN2wBUJUsMiC1nkv3kUdd8Th0cyJhONGftxtVHZsRWpnGxyYCcZpac%7ERX7A222MmEISR8LW9i0ymu2LfjslVVsueNrHwLIcmHM8AQHDbTfos1MpdZxLljEIkTHPfVApsbab1ZXtM8XvBb6d-fcg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d30e8ffe6ea57deac682ed3a7ee1bf13
PDF Text
Text
CT 431
THE
BEAUTIES
OF
THE PRAYER-BOOK.
PAET
PUBLISHED
II.
BY THOMAS
SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1876..
Price Sixpence.
�4
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
them, and therefore celebrates the service with much
of the ancient pomp ; while the other furiously rejects
this so-called idolatry, and makes the service as bare
and as simple as possible. Both parties can claim
parts of the Communion Office as upholding their
special views, for the English service has passed
through much of tinkering from High and Low, and
retains the marks of the alterations that have been
made by each.
To those outside the Church this office has particu
lar attraction, as being, in a special manner, a link
between the past and the present, and being full of
traces of the ancient religion of the world, that catho
lic sun-worship of which Christianity is a modernised
revival. From the Nicene Creed, in which Jesus is
described as “ God of God, Light of Light, very God
of very God, Begotten not made, Being of one sub
stance with the Father, By Whom all things were
made ”—from this point we breathe the full atmo
sphere of the elder world, and find ourselves engaged
■in the worship of that Light of Light, who, being the
image of the invisible God, the first-born of every
creature, has for ages and ages been adored as incar
nate in Mithra, in Christna, in Osiris, in Christ. We
give thanks for “the redemption of the world by the
death and passion of ‘ the Sun-Saviour, who suffered
on the Cross for us,’ who lay in darkness and in the
shadow of death
we praise Him who fills heaven
and earth with His glory, and who rose as “ the Pas
chal Lamb,” and has “ taken away the sin of the
world,” bearing away in the sign of the Lamb the
darkness and dreariness of the winter; we remember
the Holy Ghost, the fresh spring wind, who, “as it
had been a mighty wind,” came to bring us “out of
darkness ” into “ the clear light ” of the sun; then
we see the priest, with his face turned to the sun
rising, take the bread and wine, the symbols of the
God, and bless them for the food of men, these sym
�The Communion Service.
$
bols being changed into the very substance of the
deity, for are they not, in very truth, of him alone ?
“ How naturally does the eternal work of the sun, daily
renewed, express itself in such lines as
‘ Into bread his heat is turned,
Into generous wine his light.’
And imagining the sun as a person, the change to
‘flesh’ and ‘blood’ becomes inevitable; while the
fact that the solar forces are actually changed into
food, without forfeiting their solar character, finds
expression in the doctrines of transubstantiation and
the real presence.” (‘Keys of the Creeds,’ page 91.)
After this union with the Deity, by partaking of his
very self, we praise once more the “ Lamb of God
that takest away the sins of the world,” and is “ most
high in the glory of God the Father.” The resem
blance is made the nearer in the churches where much
of ceremony is found (although noticeable in all, since
that resemblance is stereotyped in the formulas them
selves ; but in the more elaborate performances the
old rites are more clearly apparent) in the tonsured
head of the priest, in the suns often embroidered on
vestment and on altar-cloth, in the rays that surround
the sacred monogram on the vessels, in the cross im
printed on the bread, and marking each utensil, in the
lighted candles, in the grape-vine chiselled on the
chalice—in all these, and in many another symbol,
we read the whole story of the Sun-god, written in
hieroglyphics as easily decipherable by the initiated as
is the testimony of the rocks by the geologian.
But passing by this antiquarian side of the Office,
we will examine it as a service suitable for the use of
educated and thoughtful people at the present time.
The Rubric which precedes the Office is one of those
unfortunate rules which are obsolete as regards their
practice, and yet which—from their preservation—■
appear to simple-minded parsons to be intended to
be enforced, whereby the said parsons fall into the
�6
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
clutches of the law, and suffer grievously. “ An open
and notorious evil-liver ” must not be permitted to
come to the Lord’s Table, and this expression sepms
to be explained in the Exhortation in the Office,
wherein we read: “if any of you be a blasphemer of
God, an hinderer or slanderer of His word, an adul
terer, or be in malice, or envy, or in any other
grievous crime, repent you of your sins, or else come
not to that holy Table; lest, after the taking of that
holy Sacrament, the devil enter into you, as he entered
into Judas, and fill you full of all iniquities, and
bring you to destruction both of body and soul.”
In a late case, the Sacrament was refused to one who
disbelieved in the devil and who slandered God’s
word, on those very grounds, and it would seem to
be an act of Christian charity so to deny it; for
surely to say that part of God’s word is “ contrary to
religion and decency” must be to slander it, if words
have any meaning, and people who do not believe in
the devil ought hardly to be sharers in a rite after
which the devil will enter into them with such melan
choly consequences. It would seem more consistent
either to alter the formulas or else to carry them out;
true, one clergyman wrote that the responsibility lay
with the unworthy recipient who “ did nothing else
but increase ” his “ damnation,” but it is scarcely a
pleasing notion that the clergyman should stand in
viting people to the Lord’s table and, coolly handing
to one of those who accept, the body of Christ,
say, “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve
thy body and soul unto everlasting life,” when he
means—in the delicate language used by the abovementioned clergyman—“ The Body of our Lord Jesus
Christ damn thy body and soul unto everlasting
death.” No one but a clergyman could dream of so
offensive a proceeding, and, to those who believe, one
so terribly awful.
The Ten Commandments which stand in the fore-
�The Communion Service.
7
front of the service are very much out of place as
regards some of them, to say nothing of the want
of truthfulness in the assertion, that “ God spake
these words,” &c. In the second we are forbidden
to make any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing, a command which would destroy all art, and
which no member of the congregation can have the
smallest notion of obeying. The Jews, who made
the cherubim over the ark, upon which God sat, are
popularly supposed not to have disobeyed this command,
because the cherubim were not the likeness of any
thing in heaven, earth, or water : they were, like
unicorns, creatures undiscovered and undiscoverable.
Yet in direct opposition to this command, Solomon
made brazen oxen to support his sea of brass (1
Kings vii. 25, 29), and lions on the steps of his
ivory throne (1 Kings x. 19, 20) ; and God himself is
said to have ordered Moses to make a Brazen Serpent.
God is described, in this same Commandment, as
“ a jealous God ”— which is decidedly immoral
and unpleasant—who visits “ the sins of the fathers
upon the children, unto the third and fourth gene
ration of them that hate me;” the justice of this
is so obvious that no comment on it is necessary.
The fourth Commandment is another which no one
dreams of attending to ; in the first place, we do
not keep the seventh day at all, and in the second,
our man-servant, our maid-servant, and our cattle
do all manner of work on the day we keep as
the Sabbath. Further, who in the present day be
lieves that “ in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the
seventh day; ” geology, astronomy, ethnology have
taught us otherwise, and, among those who repeat
the response to this commandment in a London
church, not one could probably be found who believes
it to be true. The fifth Commandment is equally out
of place, for dutiful children do not live any longer
�8
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
than undutiful. The remainder touch simple moral
duties, enforced by all creeds alike, and are notice
able for their omissions and not for their commis
sions : the insertion of the Buddhist Commandment
against intoxication, for instance, would be an im
provement, although such a commandment is natu
rally not to be found in the case of so gross and
sensual a people as the ancient Jews. The alterna
tive prayers for the Queen, which follow next, are
only worth noting, because the first enshrines the
doctrine of divine right, which is long since dead and
buried, except in church; and the other says “ that
the hearts of Kings are in thy rule and governance,”
and suggests the thought that, if this be so, it is
better to be out of that “rule and governance,” the
effects on the hearts of Kings not having been speci
ally attractive. The Nicene Creed comes next, and
is open to the objections before made against the
Apostles’ Creed ; the last clauses relating to the Holy
Ghost are historically interesting, since the “ and the
Son ” forms the Filioque which severed Eastern from
Western Christendom ; “ Who with the Father and
*
the Son together” ought to be “worshipped and
glorified,” would be more true to fact than “is,”
since the Holy Ghost is sadly ignored by modern
Christendom, and has a very small share of either
* A short, but very graphic account of the shameful transac
tion by which the Filioque clause was, so to speak, smuggled
into the Nicene Creed, is to be found in the first ten or twelve
pages of the shilling pamphlet written by Edmund S. Ffoulkes,
B.D., entitled “The Church’s Creed, or the Crown’s Creed,”
published by J. T. Hayes, Ly all-place, Eaton-square, Lon
don. The following short prayer, ‘ ‘ Mentes nostras, quaasumus, Domine, Paraclitus, qui a te procedit, illuminet: et
inducat in omnem, sicut tuus promisit Filius, veritatem ” (i-’ide
Praeparatio ad Missam, in the “Missale Romanum”), clearly
proves, too, that the Church of Rome once held that the Holy
Ghost only proceeded from the Father, as the Dominus in it
can only refer to the Father.
�The Communion Service.
9
prayers or hymns: yet he is the husband of the
Virgin Mary, and the Father of Jesus Christ; he is,
therefore, a very important, though puzzling, person
in the Godhead, being the Father of him from whom
he himself proceeds: this is a mystery, and can only
be understood by faith. The texts that follow are
remarkable for their ingenious selection : “ Who goeth
a warfare,” &c. (1 Cor. ix. 7) ; “If we have sown,”
&c. (1 Cor. ix. 9) ; “ Do ye not know,” &c. (1 Cor. ix.
13) ; “He that soweth little” (2 Cor. ix. 6); “Let
him that is taught” (Gal. vi. 6). The pervading selfish
ness of motive is also worth noting : Give now in order
that ye may get hereafter ; “Never turn thy face from
any poor man, and then the face of the Lord shall not be
turned away from thee“ He that hath pity upon the
poor lendeth unto the Lord: and look,what he layeth out,
it shall be paid him again;” “If thou hast much, give
plenteously; if thou hast little, do thy diligence
gladly to give of that little ; for so gathered thou thyself
a good reward in the day of necessity.”* No free, glad
giving here ; no willing, joyful aid to a poorer brother,
because he needs what I can give; no ready offer of
the cup of cold water, simply because the thirsty is
there and wants the refreshment; ever the hateful
whisper comes : “ thou shall in no wise lose thy
reward.” These time-serving offerings are then pre
sented to God by being placed “ upon the holy Table,”
and we then get another prayer for Queen, Christian
Kings, authorities, Bishops and people in general,
concluding with thanks for the dead, not a cheerful
subject to bless God for, if there chance to be pre
sent any mourner whose heart is sore with the loss of
As if the clergy, with very few exceptions, are not suffi
ciently provided for by the tithes, &c., without having to go
a-begging like either Buddhist or Roman Catholic monks, to
both of whom P.P. and P.M. are not inappropriately applied
(Professors of Poverty and Practisers of Mendicancy).
�IO
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
a beloved one. At this point the service is supposed
to end, when no celebration of the Holy Communion
is intended, and here we find two Exhortations, or
notices of celebration, from the first of which we have
already quoted : in the second, we cannot help re
*
marking the undignified position in which God is
placed; it is a “grievous and unkind thing” not to
come to a rich feast when invited thereto, wherefore
we are to fear lest by withdrawing ourselves from
this holy Supper, we “provoke God’s indignation
against ” us. “ Consider with yourselves how great
injury ye do unto God what a very curious expres
sion. Is God thus at the mercy of man ? Surely, then,
of all living Beings the lot of God must be the sad
dest, if his happiness and his glory are in the hands
of each man and woman ; the greater his knowledge
the greater the misery, and as his knowledge is per
fect, and the vast majority of human kind know and
care nothing about him, his wretchedness must be
complete. All things being ready, the clergyman
begins by another Exhortation, of somewhat
threatening character : “ So is the danger great if we
receive the same unworthily. For then we are guilty
of the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour; we
cat and drink our own damnation, not considering
the Lord’s Body; we kindle God’s wrath against us ;
we provoke him to plague us with divers diseases, and
sundry kinds of death.” (Surely we cannot be
plagued with more than one kind of death at
once, and we can’t die sundry times, even after the
Communion.) One almost wonders why anyone
accepts this very threatening invitation, even though
* It is, however, only just to say that that portion of it con
tained between “ The Way and Means thereto, ” and “ Offences
at God’s Hands,” is one of the best bits in the whole PrayerBook, and which far surpasses the generality of sermons one
hears afterwards.
�The Communion Service.
11
there are advantages promised to “meet partakers.”
The High Church party have indeed the right to talk
much of the real presence, since ordinary bread and
wine have none of these fearful penalties attached to
the eating and drinking, and some curious change
must have taken place in them before all these terrible
consequences can ensue. What would happen if some
consecrated bread and wine chanced to be left by mis
take, and a stray comer into the vestry eat it unknow
ingly F One thinks of Anne Askew, who, told that
a mouse eating a crumb fallen from the Host would
infallibly be damned, replied, “ Alack, poor mouse ! ”
Then follows a Confession of the most cringing kind,
fit only for the lips of some coward suppliant crouch
ing at the feet of an Eastern monarch; it is marvel
lous that free English men and women can frame
their lips into phrases of such utter abasement, even
to a God ; manliness in religion is sorely needed,
unless, indeed, God be something smaller than man,
and be pleased with a degradation painful to human
eyes. The prayer of consecration is the central point
of the ordinance; of old they prayed for the descent
of the Holy Ghost on the elements, “ for whatsoever the
Holy Ghost toucheth is sanctified and clean”—it is not
explained how the Holy Ghost, being omnipresent,
manages to avoid touching everything—and now the
priest asks that in receiving the bread and wine we
“ may be partakers of” Christ’s Body and Blood, and
repeats the words, “ This is my Body,” “ This is my
Blood,” laying his hand alternately over the bread
and the wine; now if this means anything, if it is not
mere mockery, it means that after tfie consecration the
bread and wine are other than they were before ; if
it does not mean this, the whole prayer is simply
a farce, a piece of acting scarcely decent under the
circumstances. But flesh and blood ! Putting aside
the extreme repulsiveness of the idea, the coarseness
of the act, the utter unpleasantness of eating flesh
�12
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
and drinking blood, all of which has become non
disgusting by habit and fashion, and the distasteful
ness of which can scarcely be realised by any believer
—putting aside all this, is there any change in th©
bread and wine ? Examine it; analyse it; test it in
any and every fashion; still it answers back to the
questioner, “ bread and wine.” Are our senses de
ceived ? Then try a hundred different persons; all
cannot be deceived alike. Unless every result of
experience is untrustworthy, we have here to do with
bread and wine, and with nothing more. “ But faith
is needed.” Ah yes ! There is the secret: no flesh
and blood without faith ; no miracle without credu
lity. Miracle-working priests are only successful
among credulously-disposed people; miracles can only
be received by those who think it less likely that Na
ture should speak falsely than that man should deceive;
those who believe in this change through consecration
cannot be touched by argument; they have closed,
their eyes that they may not see, their ears that they
may not hear ; no knowledge can reach them, for they
have shut the gateways whereby it could enter, they
are literally dead in their superstition, buried beneath
the stone of their faith. The reception of the Body
and Blood of Christ being over, the people having
knelt to eat and drink, as is only right when eating
and drinking Christ (John vi. 57), the Lord’s Prayer
is said for the second time, a prayer and thanksgiving
follows, confined to “we and all thy whole Church,”
for the spirit is the same as that of the prayer of
Christ, “ I pray not for the world, but forthem whom
thou hast given me” (John xvii. 9), and then the
service winds up with the Gloria in Bxcelsis and the
Benediction. Such is the“bounden duty and ser
vice” offered by the Church to God, the service of
which the central act must be either a farce or a
falsehood, and therefore insulting to the God to
whom it is offered. Regarded as a service to Godz
�The Baptismal Offices.
13
the whole Communion Office is objectionable in the
highest degree ; regarded as an antiquarian survival,
it is very interesting and instructive ; it is surely time
that it should be put in its right place, and that its
true origin should be recognised. The day is gone by
for these barbarous, though poetic, ceremonials ; the
“flesh and blood,” which was a bold figure for the
heat and light of the sun, becomes coarse when joined
in thought to a human being; ceremonies that fitted
the childhood of the world are out of place in its man
hood, as the play that is graceful in the child would
be despicable in the man ; these rites are the baby
clothes of the world, and cannot be stretched to fit
the stalwart limbs of its maturer age, cannot add
grace to its form, or dignity to its graver walk.
THE BAPTISMAL OFFICES.
For all purposes of criticism the Offices for “ Public
Baptism of Infants, to be used in the Church,” for
“ Private Baptism of Children in houses,” and“ Bap
tism to such as are of riper years, and able to answer
for themselves,” may be treated as one and the same,
the leading idea of each service being identical; this
idea is put forward clearly and distinctly in the pre
face to the Office: “ Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all
men are conceived and born in sin; and that our
Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the king
dom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew
of water and of the Holy Ghost; I beseech you to
call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus
Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to
this Child that thing which by nature he cannot
have.” According to the doctrine of the Church,
then, baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation:
None can enter . . . except he be . . . born
�14
rlhe Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
anew of water thus peals out the doom of condem
nation on the whole human race, save that fragment
of it which is sprinkled from the Christian font;
there is no evasion possible here; no exception made
in favour of heathen peoples; no mercy allowed to
those who have no opportunity of baptism • none can
enter save through “ the laver of regeneration.” Can
any words be too strong whereby to denounce a doc
trine so shameful, an injustice so glaring ? A child is
born into the world; it is no fault of his that he is
conceived in sin; it is no fault of his that he is born
in sin ; his consent was not asked before he was
ushered into the world; no offer was made to him
which he could reject of this terrible gift of a con
demned life; flung is he, without his knowledge,
without his will, into a world lying under the curse
of God, a child of wrath, and heir of damnation.
“ By nature he cannot have.” Then why should God
be wrath with him because he hath not ? The whole
arrangement is of God’s own making. He fore
ordained the birth ; he gave the life; the helpless,
unconscious infant lies there, the work of his own
hands; good or bad, he is responsible for it; heir of
love or of wrath, he has made it what it is ; as wholly
is it his doing as the unconscious vessel is the doing
of the potter; as reasonably may God be angry with
the child as the potter swear at the clay he has clum
sily moulded : if the vessel be bad, blame the potter ;
if the creature be bad, blame the Creator. The con
gregation pray that God 11 of his bounteous mercy,”
“ for thine infinite mercies,” will save the child, “ that
he, being delivered from thy wrath,” may be blessed.
It is no question of mercy we have to do with here ;
it is a question of simple justice, and nothing more ;
if God, for his own “ good pleasure,” or in the pursu
ance of the designs of his infinite wisdom, has placed
this unfortunate child in so terrible a position, he is
bound by every tie of justice, by every sacred claim
�The Baptismal Offices.
15
of right, to deliver the blameless victim, and to place
him where he shall have a fair chance of well-being.
“It is certain by God’s Word,” says the Rubric,
“ that children which are baptized, dying before they
commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.” And
those which are not baptized ? The Holy Roman
Church sends these into a cheerful place called Limbo,
and the baby-souls wander about in chill twilight,
cursed with immortality, shut out for ever from the
joys of Paradise. Many readers will remember
Lowell’s pathetic poem on this subject, and the
ghastly baptism; they will also know into what de
vious paths of argumentative indecency that Church
has wandered in deciding upon the fate of unbaptized
infants;—how, when mothers have died in childbirth,
the yet unborn children have been baptized to save
them from the terrible doom pronounced upon them
by their Rather in heaven, even before they saw the
light;—how it has been said that in cases where
mother and child cannot both be saved the mother
should be sacrificed that the child may not die un
baptized. Into the details of these arguments we
cannot enter; they are only fit for orthodox Chris
tians, in whose pages they may read them who list.
Truly, the Lord is a jealous God, visiting the sins of
the fathers upon the children, since unborn children
are condemned for the untimely death of their mother,
and unbaptized infants for the carelessness of their
parents or nurses. Of course the majority of English
clergymen believe nothing of this kind; but then
why do they read a service which implies it ? Why
do they use words in a non-natural sense ? Why do
they put off their honesty when they put on their
surplices ? And why will the laity not give utterance
to their thoughts on these and all such objectionable
parts of the Service ? In the Office for Adults, as
regards the necessity of the Sacrament, the words
come in : “ where it may be hadbut the phrase reads
�i€
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
as though it had been written in the margin by some
kindly soul, and had from thence crept into the text,
for it is in direct opposition to the whole argument of
the address wherein it occurs, and to the rest of the
office, as also to the other two offices for infants. The
stress laid upon right baptism, i.e., baptism with
water, accompanied by the “ name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” appears specially
in the office to follow the private baptism of a child,
should the child live; for the Rubric directs that if
there be any doubt of the use of the water and the
formula, “ which are essential parts of Baptism,” the
priest shall perform the baptismal ceremony, saying,
“ If thou art not already baptized, I baptize thee,” &c.
Surely such care and pains to ensure correct baptism
speak with sufficient plainness as to the importance
attached by the Church to this initiatory rite; this
importance she gives to it in other places : none, un
baptized, must approach her altar to take the “ bread
of lifenone, unbaptized, must be buried by her
ministers, “ in sure and certain hope of the Resur
rection to eternal life.” The baptized are within the
ark of the Church ; the unbaptized are struggling in
the waves of God’s wrath outside; no hand can be
outstretched to save them; they are strangers, aliens,
to the covenant of promise; they are without hope.
The whole office for infants reads like a play: the
clergyman asks that the infant “may receive remis
sion of his sinswhat sins ? The people are ad
monished “ that they defer not the Baptism of their
children longer than the first or second Sunday next
after their birth.” What sins can a baby a week old
have committed ? from what sins can he need re
lease ? for what sins can he ask forgiveness ? And
yet, here is a whole congregation prostrate before
Almighty God, praying that a tiny long-robed baby
may be forgiven, may be pardoned his sins of—
coming into the world when God sent him! The
�The Baptismal Offices.
17
ceremony would be ludicrous were it not so pitifuh
And supposing that the infant does need forgive
ness, and has sins to be washed away, why should a
few drops of water, sprinkled on the face—or bonnet—
of the baby, or even the immersion of his body in the
font, wash away the sins of his soul ? The water is
''sanctified;” we pray : “ Sanctify this water to the
mystical washing away of sin.” As the hymn sweetly
puts it:
“ The water in this font
Is water, by gross mortals eyed;
But, seen by faith, ’tis blood
Out of a dear friend’s side. ”
Blood once more I how Christians cling to the re
volting imagery of a bygone and barbarous age of
gross conceptions. And, applied by faith, it cleanses
the soul of the child from sin. Well, the whole thing
is consistent: the invisible soul is washed from in- visible sin by invisible blood, and to all outward
appearance the child remains after baptism exactly
what it was before—except it chance to get inflam
mation of the lungs, as we have known happen, from
*
High Church free use of water, which is, perhaps, thepromised baptism of fire. The promises of the spon
sors are in full accordance with the rest of the ser
vices ; promises made by other people, in the child’s
name, as to his future conduct, over which they have
no control. The baby renounces the devil and all his
belongings, believes the Apostles’ Creed, and answers
“ that is my desire,” when asked if he will be bap
tized; all which "is very pretty acting,” but jars
somewhat on the feeling of reality which ought surely
to characterize a believer’s intercourse with his God.
The child being baptized and signed with the Cross,,
"is regenerate,” according to the declaration of the
priest. Some contend that the Church of England
does not teach baptismal regeneration, but it is hard
to see how any one can read this service, and then
B
�18
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
deny the teaching; it is clearer and fuller than is the
teaching of her voice upon most subjects. The cere
mony of baptism and the idea of regeneration are
both derived from the sun-worship of which so many
traces have already been pointed out: the worshippers
of Mithra practised baptism, and it is common to the
various phases of the solar faith. Regeneration, in
some parts, especially in India, was obtained in a
different fashion : a hole through a rock, or a narrow
passage between two, was the sacred spot, and a
worshipper, squeezing himself through such an open
ing, was regenerated, and was, by this literal repre
sentation of birth, born a second time, born into a
new life, and the sins of the former life were no longer
accounted to him. Many such holes are still pre
served and revered in India, and there can be little
doubt that the ancient Druidic remains bear traces of
being adapted for this same ceremony, although a
natural fissure appears ever to have been accounted
the most sacred.
*
One ought scarcely to leave unnoted the preamble
to the first prayer in the baptismal service: “ Who of
thy great mercy didst save Noah and his family in
the ark from perishing by water; and also didst
safely lead the children of Israel thy people through
the Red Sea, figuring thereby thy holy baptism ; and
by the baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ,
in the river Jordan, didst sanctify water to the mys
tical washing of sin.” In the two first examples
given the choice of the Church appears to be pecu
liarly unfortunate, as in each case water was the ele
ment to be escaped from, and it was a source of death,
not of life; perhaps, though, there is a subtle meaning
* Even in this country, at Brimham Rocks, near Ripon, in
Yorkshire, the dead form of the custom is, or was, until very
lately, kept up by the guide sending all visitors, who chose to
avail themselves of the privilege, through such a fissure.
�The Order of Confirmation.'
19
in the Red Sea, it points to the blood of Christ: but
then, again, the Red Sea drowned people, and surely
the anti-type is not so dangerous as that ? It must
be a mystery. It would be interesting to know how
many of the educated clergymen who read this prayer
believe in the story of the Noachian deluge, and of
the miraculous passage of the Red Sea; and further,
how many of them believe that God, by these fables,
figured his holy baptism. Will the nineteenth cen
tury ever summon up energy enough to shake off
these remnants of a dead superstition, and be honest
enough to stop using a form of words which is no
longer a vehicle of belief ? When the Prayer Book
was compiled these words had a meaning; to-day
they have none. Shall not a second Reformation
sweep away these dead beliefs, even as the first swept
away for its own age the phrases which represented
an earlier and coarser creed ?
THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION.
These signs shall follow them that believe : In
my name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak
with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and
if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they
shall recover.’’ In those remarkable days the “order
of Confirmation ” might have been in consonance
with its surroundings, a state of things which is very
far from being its present position. Mr. Spurgeon,
writing for the benefit of street preachers, lately
pointed out very sensibly that as the Holy Ghost no
longer gave, the gift of tongues, they had “better
stick to their grammars,” and in these degenerate
�20
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
days honest effort is likely to show results more
satisfactory than those which ensue from the laying
on of Bishops’ hands. When the Apostles performed
this ceremony which the Bishop now performs after
their example, definite proofs of its efficacy were said
to have been seen ; so much so, indeed, that Simon,
the sorcerer, wished to invest some money in heavenly
securities, so that “ on whomsoever I lay hands he
may receive the Holy Ghost.” A Simon would mani
festly never be found nowadays ready to pay a
Bishop for the power of causing the effects of Con
firmation. So far as the carnal eye can see, the
white-robed, veiled young ladies, and the shamefaced
black-coated boys, who throng the church on a Con
firmation day, return from the altar very much the
same as they went up to it: no one begins to speak
with tongues ; if they did, the beadle would probably
interfere and quench the Spirit with the greatest
promptitude. They are supposed to have received
some special gifts : “ the spirit of wisdom and under
standing ; the spirit of counsel and ghostly strength;
the spirit of knowledge and true godliness and in
addition to these six spirits, there is one more : “ the
spirit of thy holy fear.” No less than seven spirits,
then, enter these lads and lasses. Wisdom and under
standing are easily perceptible : are they wiser after
Confirmation than they were before ? do they under
stand more rapidly? do they know more ? if there be no
perceptible difference is the presence of theHoly Spirit
of none effect ? if of none effect, can his presence be of
any use, of the very smallest advantage ? if of no use,
why make all this parade about giving a thing whose
gift makes the recipient no richer than he was be
fore ? Besides, what certainty can there be that the
Holy Ghost is given at all ? Allowing—what seems
to an outsider a gross piece of irreverence—that the
Holy Ghost is in the fingers of the Bishop to be given
away when it suits the Bishop’s convenience, or is in
�The Order of Confirmation.
21
a sort of reservoir, of which the Bishop turns the tap
and lets the stream of grace descend—allowing all
this as possible, ought not some “ sign to follow
them that believe ? ” How can we be sure that the
Bishop is not an impostor, going through a conjurer’s
gestures and mutterings, and no magic results accru
ing ? If, in the ordinary course of daily life, any one
came and offered us some valuable things he said that
he possessed, and then went through the form of
giving them to us, saying: “Here they are; guard
and preserve them for the rest of your life
and the
outstretched hand contained nothing at all, and we
found ourselves with nothing in our grasp, should we
be content with his assurance that we had really got
them, although we might not be able to see them, and
we ought to have sufficient faith to take his word for
it ? Should we not utterly refuse to believe that we
had received anything unless we had some proof of
having done so, and were in some way the better or
the worse for it ? The truth is that people’s religion
is, to them, a matter of such small importance that
they do not trouble themselves about proof—Faith is
enough to comfort them; the six week-days require
their brains, their efforts, their thought: the Sunday
is the Lord’s day, and he must see to it: earth needs
all their earnest attention, but heaven must take care
of itself; the validity of an earthly title is important,
and the confirmation of a right to inherit property in
this world is eagerly welcomed, but the Confir
mation to a heavenly inheritance is a mere farce,
which it is the fashion to go through about the age
of fifteen, but which is only a fashion, the confirma
tion of a faith in nothing in particular to an invisible
heritage of nothing at all.
�22
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
THE FORM OF THE SOLEMNIZATION OF
MATRIMONY.
One of the most curious blunders regarding or
thodox Christianity is, that it has tended to the
elevation of woman. As a matter of fact, the Eastern
ideas about women are embodied in Christianity, and
these ideas are essentially degraded and degrading.
From the time when Paul bade women obey their
husbands, Augustine’s mother was beaten, unresisting,
by Augustine’s father, and Jerome fled from woman’s
charms, and monks declaimed against the daughters
of Eve, down to the present day, when Peter’s
authority is used against woman suffrage, Christianity
has consistently regarded woman as a creature to be
subject to man, because, being deceived, she was first
in transgression. The Church service for matrimony
is redolent of this barbarous idea, relic of a time
when men seized wives by force, or else purchased;
them, so that the wives became, in literal fact, the
property of their husbands. We learn that matri
mony was “ instituted of God in the time of man’s
innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that
is between Christ and his Church.” It would be
interesting to know how many of those joined by the
Church believe in the Paradise story of man’s inno
cency and fall. It seems that Christ has adorned the
holy estate by his first miracle in Cana; but the
adornment is rather of a dubious character, when we
reflect that the probable effect of the miracle would
be a scene somewhat too gay, from the enormous
quantity of wine made by Christ for men who already
had “ well drunk.” Christ’s approval of marriage
may well be considered doubtful when we remember
that a virgin was chosen as his mother, that he him
self remained unmarried, and that he distinctly places
celibacy higher than marriage in Matt. xix. 11, 12,
�The Solemnization of Matrimony.
23
where he urges: “ he that is able to receive it let
him receive it.” St. Paul also, though he allows it
to his converts, advises virginity in preference : “ I
say to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them
if they abide even as I;” “he that giveth her
not in marriage doeth better ” (see throughout
1 Cor. vii.) The reasons given for marriage are
surely misplaced; last of all, it is said that mar
riage is “ ordained for the mutual society, help,
and comfort that the one ought to have of the
other;” this, instead of “ thirdly,” ought to be
“ first.” “ As a remedy against sin and to avoid
fornication, that such persons as have not the gift
of continency might marry,” is not a reason very
honourable to the marriage estate, nor very delicate
to read out before a mixed congregation to a young
bride and bridegroom; so strongly objectionable is
the heedless coarseness of this preface felt to be that
in many churches it is entirely omitted, although it
is retained—as are all remains of a coarser age—in
the Prayer-Book as published by authority. The
promise exchanged between the contracting parties is
of far too sweeping a character, and is immoral, be
cause promising what may be beyond the powers of
the promisers to perform ; “ to love” “ so long as ye
both shall live,” and “ till death us do part,” is a
pledge far too wide; love does not stay by promis
ing, nor is love a feeling which can be made to order.
A promise to live always together might be made,
although that would be unwise in this changing
world, and the endless processes in the Divorce Court
are a satire on this so-called joined by God; “ what
God hath joined together” man does continually “put
asunder,” and it would be wiser to adapt the service
to the altered circumstances of the times in which we
live. The promise of obedience and service on the
woman’s part should also be eliminated, and the con
tract should be a simple promise of fidelity between
�24
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
two equal friends. The declaration of the man as he
places the ring on the woman’s finger is as archaic as
the rest of this fossil service, and about as true: “With
all my worldly goods I thee endow,” says the man,
when, as a matter of fact, he becomes possessed of all
his wife’s property and she does not become possessed
of his. One of the concluding prayers is a delightful
specimen of Prayer-Book science : “ 0 God, who of
thy mighty power hast made all things of'nothing.”
What was the general aspect of affairs when there
was “ nothing ?” how did something emerge where
“ nothing was before ? if God filled all space, was
he “nothing?” is the existence of nothing a con
*
ceivable idea ? can people think of nothing except
when they don’t think at all ? “ who also (after other
things set in order) didst appoint that out of man
(created after thine own image and similitude) woman
should take her beginning“ out of man,” that is
out of one of man’s ribs ; has any one tried to picture
the scene : Almighty God, who has no body nor parts,
taking one of Adam’s ribs, and closing up the flesh,
and “ out of the rib made he a woman.” God, a pure
spirit, holding a man’s rib, not in his hands, for he
has none, and “ making” a woman out of it, fashion
ing the rib into skull, and arms, and ribs, and legs.
Can a more ludicrous position be imagined; and
Adam ? What became of his internal economy ? was
he made originally with a rib too much, to provide
against the emergency, or did he go, for the rest of
his life, with a rib too little ? And the Church of
England endorses this ridiculous old-world fable.
Man was created “ after thine own image and simili
tude.” What is the image of God? He is a spirit
and has no similitude. If man is made in his image,
God must be a celestial man, and cannot possibly be
omnipresent. Besides in Genesis i. 27, where it is
stated that “ God created man in his own image,” it
distinctly goes on to declare : “ in the image of God
�The Solemnization of Matrimony.
25
created he him; male and female created he them.
Thus the woman is made in God’s image as much
as the man, and God’s image is “ male and
female.” All students know that the ancient ideas
of God give him this double nature, and that
no trinity is complete without the addition of
the female element; but the pious compilers of the
Prayer-Book did not probably intend thus to trans
plant the simple old nature-worship into their mar
riage office. Once more we hear of Adam and Eve
in the next prayer, and we cannot help thinking that,
considering all the trouble Eve brought upon her
husband by her flirtation with the serpent, she is
made rather too prominent a figure in the marriage
service. The ceremony winds up with a long ex
hortation, made of quotations from the Epistles, on
the duties of husbands and wives. Husbands are to
love their wives because Christ loved a church—a
reason that does not seem specially d propos, as
husbands are not required to die for their wives or to
present them to themselves glorious wives, not having
spot or wrinkle or any such thing (!); nor would most
husbands desire that their wives’ conversation should
be “ coupled with fear.” Why should women be taught
thus to abase themselves ? They are promised as a
reward that they shall be the daughters of Sarah ; but
that is no great privilege, nor are English wives likely
to call their husbands “lord;” if they did not adorn
themselves with plaited hair and pretty apparel, their
husbands would be sure to grumble, and the only de
fence that can be made for this absurd exhortation is
that nobody ever listens to it.
_ Among the various reforms needed in the Mar
riage. Laws one imperatively necessary is that all
marriages should be made civil contracts—that is,
that the contract which is made by citizens of the
State, and which affects the interests of the State,
should be entered into before a secular State official;
�26.
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
if after that the parties desired a religious ceremony,
they could go through any arrangements they pleased
in their own churches and chapels, but the civil con
tract should be compulsory and should be the only one
recognised by the law. Of course the Church might
maintain its peculiar marriage as long as it chose, but
it would probably soon pass out of fashion if it were
not acknowledged as binding by the State.
THE ORDER FOR THE VISITATION- OF THE
SICK.
Of all the services in the Prayer-Book this
is, perhaps, the most striking relic of barbarism,
the most completely at variance with sound and
reasonable thought. The clergyman entering into
a house of sickness, and as he enters the sick man’s
room and catches- sight of him, kneeling down and
exclaiming, as though horror-stricken : “ Remember
not, Lord, our iniquities, nor the iniquities of our
forefathers; spare us, good Lord, spare Thy people
whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy most precious
blood, and be not angry with us for ever.” This
clergyman reminds one of nothing so much as of one
of Job’s friends, who appear to have been an even
more painful infliction than Job’s boils. The sick
ness, the patient is told, “ is God’s visitation,” and
“for what cause soever this sickness is sent unto
you : whether it be to try your faith for the example
of others, .... or else it be sent unto you to correct
and amend in you whatsoever doth offend the eyes
of your heavenly Father; know you certainly, that
if you truly repent you of your sins, and bear your
sickness patiently, .... it shall turn to your profit,
and help you forward in the right way that leadeth
�The Visitation of the Sick.
27
unto everlasting life.” One might question the
justice of Almighty God if the theory be correct that
the sickness may be sent “ to try your patience for
the example of others ; ” why should one unfortunate
victim be tormented simply that others may have
the advantage of seeing how well he bears it ? If
we are to endeavour to conform ourselves to the
image of God, then it would seem that we should be
doing right if we racked our neighbours occasionally
to “ try their patience for the example of others.”
And is the idea of God a reverent one F What
should we think of an earthly father who tortured
one of his children in order to teach the others how
to bear pain F if we should condemn the earthly
father as wickedly cruel, why should the same action
be righteous when done by the Father in heaven F
If we accept the second reason given for the sickness,
it is difficult to see the rationale of it. Why should
illness of the body correct illness of the mind ; does
pain cure fretfulness, or fever increase truthfulness F
Is not sickness likely rather to bring out and
strengthen mental faults than to weaken them F
And how far is it true that sickness is, in any sense, the
visitation of God for moral delinquencies ? Is it not
true, on the contrary, that a man may lie, rob, cheat,
slander, tyrannise, and yet, if he observe the laws of
health, may remain in robust vigour, while an
upright, sincere, honest and truthful man, disregard
ing those same laws, may be miserably feeble and
suffer an early death F Is it, or is it not a fact, that
in the Middle Ages, when people prayed much and
studied little, when the peasant went to the shrine for a
cure instead of to the doctor, when sanitary science was
unknown, and cleanliness was a virtue undreamed of,
—is it, or is it not true, that pestilence and black death
then swept off their thousands, while these terrible
scourges have been practically driven away in modern
times by proper attention to sanitary measures, by
�2$
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
improved drainage and greater cleanliness of living ?
How can that be a visitation of God for moral
transgressions, which can be prevented by man if he
attends to physical laws ? Is man’s power greater
than God’s, and can he thus play with the thunder
bolts of the divine displeasure ? The clergyman
prays that “the sense of his weakness may add
strength to his faith ; ” what fine irony is here, as body
and mind grow weak faith grows strong ; as a man
is less able to think, he becomes more ready to believe.
It is impossible to pass, without a word of censure,
over the passage in the exhortation, taken from the
Epistle to the Hebrews, which says, “ for they
(fathers of our flesh) verily for a few days chastened
us after their own pleasure.” Good earthly fathers,
do not chasten their children for their own amuse
ment, while God does it “for our profit ; ” on the
contrary, they do it for the improvement of their
children, while God alone, if there be a hell, tortures
his children for his own pleasure and for no gain to
them. The succeeding portion of the Exhortation,
that, “ our way to eternal joy is to suffer here
with Christ,” is full of that sad asceticism which
has done so much to darken the world since
the birth of Christ; men have been so engaged in
looking for the “eternal joy” that they have let
pass unnoted the misery here; they have been so
busy planting flowers in heaven that they have let
weeds grow here ; yes, and they have rejoiced in the
misery and in the weeds, because they were only
strangers and pilgrims, 'and the tribulation, which
was but temporal, increased the weight of the glory
that was eternal. Thus has Christianity blighted
the flowers of this world, and entwined the brows of
its followers with wreaths of thorns. The concluding
portion of the exhortation deals with the duty of
self-examination and self-accusation, that you may
““not be accused and condemned in that fearful
�The Visitation of the Sick,
29
judgment.” Very -wholesome teaching for a sick
man; sickness always makes a person morbid, and
the Church steps in to encourage the unwholesome
feeling ; sickness always makes a person timid and
unnerved, and the Church steps in to talk about a
“ fearful judgment,” and bewilders and stuns the con
fused brain by the terrible pictures called up to the
mind by the thought of the last day.
But worse follows; for after the sick person has
said that be stedfastly believes the creed, the clergy
man is bidden by the rubric to “ examine whether he
repent him truly of his sins, and be in charity with
all the world.” Imagine a sick person being worried
by an examination of this kind, putting aside the
gross impertinence of the whole affair. Further, “ the
minister should not omit earnestly to move such
persons as are of ability to be liberal to the poor.”
When every one remembers the terrible scandals of
by-gone days, -when priests drew into the net of the
Church the goods of the dying, using threat of hell
and promise of heaven to win that which should have
been left for the widow and the orphan, one marvels
that such a rubric should be left to recall the rapa
ciousness and the greed of the Church, and to invite
priests to grasp at the wealth slipping out of dying
hands. And here the sick person is to “ be moved
to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his
conscience troubled with any weighty matter, and the
priest is bidden to absolve him, for Christ having
“left power to his Church to absolve by his authority
committed to me,” says the priest, “I absolve thee.”
Confession ; delegated authority ; priestly absolution ;
such is the doctrine of the Church of England : all
the untold abominations of the confessional are
involved in this rubric and sentence, for if the man
can absolve a man at one time, he can do it at
another; the precious power should surely not be
left unused and wasted; whenever sin presses, behold
�jo
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
the remedy, and thus we are launched and in full
sail. But never in England shall the confessional
again flourish; never again shall English women
he corrupted by the foul questions of the priests ;
never again shall Englishmen have their mental
vigour and virility destroyed by such degradation.
Let the Church fall that countenances such an
accursed thing, and leave English purity and English
■courage to grow and flourish unchecked.
The devil is in great force in this service, as is
only right in a so generally barbarous an office:
*l Let the enemy have no advantage of him“ de
fend him from the danger of the enemy “renew in
him whatsoever hath been decayed by the fraud and
malice of the devil;” “the wiles of Satan;” “deliver
him from fear of the enemy ;” all this must convey to
the sick person a cheerful idea of the devil lingering
about his bed, and trying to get hold of him before it
is too late to drag him down to hell.
Is there any meaning at all in the expression : “ the
Almighty Lord ... to whom all things in heaven,
in earth, and under the earth do bow and obey ?”
Where is “ under the earth ?” The sun is under some
part of the earth to some people at any given
time; the stars are under, or above, according to the
point of view from which they are looked at; of course
the expression is only a survival from a time when
the earth was flat and the bottomless pit was under
it, only it seems a pity to continue to use expressions
which have lost all their meaning and are now
thoroughly ridiculous. People seem to think that
any old things are good enough for God’s service.
The last two prayers are remarkable chiefly far
their melancholy and craven tone towards God : “ we
humbly commend,” “most humbly beseeching thee.”
Surely God is not supposed to be an Eastern despot,
desiring this kind of cringing at his feet. Yet the
“ Prayer for persons troubled in mind or in eonsci-
�The Burial of the Dead.
31
ence ” is one pitiful wail, as though only by passionate
entreaty could God be moved to mercy, and he were
longing to strike, and with difficulty withheld from
avenging himself. When will men learn to stand
upright on their feet, instead of thus crouching on
their knees ? when will they learn to strive to live
nobly, and then to fear no celestial anger, either in
life or in death ?
THE ORDER EOR THE BURIAL OF THE
DEAD.
It is a little difficult to write a critical notice of a
funeral office, simply because people’s feelings are so
much bound up in it that any criticism seems a cruelty,
and any interference seems an impertinence. Round
the open grave all controversy should be hushed, that
no jarring sounds may mingle with the sobs of the
mourners, and no quarrels wring the torn hearts
of the survivors. Our criticism of this office, then,
will be brief and grave.
The opening verses strike us first as manifestly
inappropriate: “ Whosoever liveth and believeth in
me shall never die;” yet the dead is then being car
ried to his last home, and the words seem a mockery
spoken in face of a corpse. In the Fourth Gospel they
preface the raising of Lazarus, and of course are then
very significant, but to-day no power raises our dead,
no voice of Jesus says to the mourners, “ Weep not.”
The second verse from Job is—as is well known—an
utter mistranslation: “without my flesh ” would be
nearer the truth than “ in my flesh,” and “ worms ”
and “ body ” are not mentioned in the original at all.
It seems a pity that in such solemn moments known
falsehoods should be used.
�32
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
The whole argument in the 15th chap, of I Corin
thians is the reverse of convincing. Christ is not
the first fruits of them that slept. A dead man had
been raised by touching the bones of Elisha (II Kingsxiii. 21). Elisha, in his lifetime, had raised the dead
son of the Shunamite (II Kings iv.) ; Elijah, before
him, had raised the son of the widow of Zarephath
(I Kings xvii) ; Christ had raised Lazarus, the daugh
ter of Jairus, and the son of the widow of Main. In
no sense, then, if the Scriptures of the Christians
be true, can it be said that Christ has become the first
fruits, the first begotten from the dead. “ For since
by man came death ”; but death did not come by
man; myriads of ages before man was in the world
animals were born, lived, and died, and they have left
their fossilised remains to prove the falsity of the
popular belief. We notice also that “flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” If this be so,
what becomes of “the resurrection of the flesh,”
spoken of in the Baptismal and Visitation Offices ?
What has become of the “flesh and bones” which
Christ had after his resurrection and with which,
according to the 4th Article, he has gone into heaven ?
Cannot Christ “inherit the kingom of God”? It is
hard to see how, in any sense, the resurrection of
Christ can be taken as a proof of the resurrection of
man. Christ was only dead 36 or 37 hours before he
is said to have risen again; there was no time for
bodily decay, no time for corruption to destroy his
frame: how could the restoration to life of a man
whose body was in perfect preservation prove the
possibility of the resurrection of the bodies which
have long since been resolved into their constituent
elements, and have gone to form other bodies, and to
give shape to other modes of existence ? People talk
in such superior fashion of the resurrection that they
never stoop to remember its necessary details, or to
think where is to be found sufficient matter where
�The Burial of the Dead.
33
with to clothe all the human souls on the resurrection
morn. The bodies of the dead make the earth more
productive ; they nourish vegetable existence ; trans
formed into grass they feed the sheep and the cattle;
transformed into these they sustain human beings;
transformed into these they form new bodies once
more, and pass from birth to death, and from death
to birth again, a perfect circle of life, transmuted
by Nature’s alchemy from form to form. No man has
a freehold of his body; he possesses only a life-tenancy,
and then it passes into other hands. The melancholy
dirge which succeeds this chapter sounds like a wail of
despair:, man “hath but a short time to live and is full
of misery. He cometh up and is cut down like a flower;
he fleeth as it were a shadow, and never continueth in
one stay.” Can any teaching be more utterly unwhole
some ? It is the confession of the most complete help
lessness, the recognition of the futility of toil. And
then the agonised pleading: “ 0 Lord God most holy, 0
Lord most mighty, 0 holy and most merciful Saviour,
deliver us not into the bitter pains of eternal death.”
But if he be most merciful, whence all this need of
weeping and wailing ? If he be most merciful, what
danger can there be of the bitter pains of eternal
death ? And again the cry rises: “ Shut not thy merci
ful ears to our prayer; but spare us, Lord most holy,
O God most mighty, 0 holy and merciful Saviour,
thou most worthy Judge Eternal, suffer us not, at
our last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from
thee.” It is nothing but the wail of humanity, face
to face with the agony of death, feeling its utter help
lessness before the great enemy, and clinging to any
straw which may float within reach of the drowning
grasp; it is the horror of Life facing Death, a horror
that seems felt only by the fully living and not by
the dying; it is the recoil of vigorous vitality from
the silence and chillness of the tomb.
After this comes a sudden change of tone, and the
�34
The Beauties of the Prayer-Book.
mourners are told of God’s “great mercy” in taking
the departed, and of the “ burden of the flesh,” and
they are bidden to give “ hearty thanks” for the dead
being delivered “ out of the miseries of this sinful
world.’ Can anything be more unreal ? There is
not one mourner there who desires to share in the
great mercy, who wants to be freed from the burden
of the flesh, or desires deliverance from the miseries
of this world. Why should people thus play a farce
beside the grave ? . Do they expect God to believe
them, or to be deceived by such hypocrisy ?
It is urged by some that the Church cannot have a
“ sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal
life” as regards some of those whom she buries with
this service; and it is manifest that, if the Bible be
true, drunkards and others who are to be cast into
the lake of fire, can scarcely rise to eternal life at the
same time, and therefore the Church has no right to
express a hope where God has pronounced condemna
tion. The Rubric only shuts out of the hope the un
baptized, the excommunicated, and the suicide; all
others have a right to burial at her hands, and to the
hope of a joyful resurrection, in spite of the Bible.
We may hope that the day will soon come when
people may die in England and may be buried in
peace without this cry of pain and superstition over
their graves. Wherever cemeteries are within rea
sonable distance the Rationalist may now be buried,
lovingly and reverently, without the echo of that in
which he disbelieved during life sounding over his
grave ; but throughout many small towns and country
villages the Burial Service of the Church is practically
obligatory, and is enforced by clerical bigotry. But
the passing knell of the Establishment sounds clearer
and clearer, and soon those who have rejected her
services in life shall be free from her ministrations at
the tomb.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The beauties of the prayer-book. Part II
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 34 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Published anonymously. Author is Annie Besant. Attribution 'My Path to Atheism'. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
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
CT191
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 beauties of the prayer-book. Part II), 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
Church of England
Religious Practice
Baptism
Book of Common Prayer
Church of England
Communion
Confirmation
Conway Tracts
Funeral services
Marriage
Prayer
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9ef2513a32470b055f47e0c750360aad.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=tH7QbOizPXyFDL4KdV0HaudwrfMJYRS-RwcWQzzqNrNx5sM41GIlly%7ENZr-yM12nyiP6f%7EJptgzldw3Fdd4XPjgsclgEuJDq1bBSgKhjQKtOJv4A13h7UfqiWnLj8yOlh32zjRYGURHvH8li623NKveTzcexJwvgjHB8Csuiquv4NWMWEtUF93BH92fk2n%7EB5Mb7NHj8cO-nR6VNDthJulxZbivXy%7EAAZdD-TTGuTlzNRD5%7EjNyuH-7QJwVIxytnayqSqhzLGfeIhvgfdAxNEmaTPtUZxnLeL5AIL5r8eRZ5HS4JuR-WO4ogXC1TqThZ6Ay4cSU6u4A8syHOjqrGrg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3023519d8f803c92f8f5911fd745827d
PDF Text
Text
THE SUBJECTION OF WOMEN.
*
BY AUGUSTE
COMTE.
< BOUT the close of the year 1841 a correspondence Began be/
tween Mr. John Stuart Mill and M. Auguste Comte. It be/ \ came at once very cordial and friendly and continued so for
some years. Mr. Mill accepted the method formulated by M.
Comte in the “ Cours de Philosophie positive.” This acceptance was
complete and remains so up to the present. Agreement on this point
is the first and most essential; without it nothing can be accom
plished ; with it, everything. But while such was his relation to the
method, it was wholly different as to the doctrine. Mr. Mill reserved
this for future contemplation. Very much of it reflection and more
extended observation have shown him to be well-founded, and to that
part of it he has given his most unqualified adhesion. We may cite,
among other things, M. Comte’s view of human evolution; of the
philosophical limits of the sciences; and of their concatenation into a
series, which are perhaps the most important of “ positive ” doctrines.
There were other points, however, on which the English philosopher
dissented—a dissent prolonged up to the present time. Such are the
study of economic conditions as a separate science—the present politi
cal economy; the study of the intellectual functions apart from their
cerebral organs—the present psychology ; and the social condition of
women.
Mr. Mill has very recently devoted an entire work, or rather pam
phlet, to the advocacy of his views on the relations of the sexes, with
reference both to the family and to the social organism. Very few (we
think) can read the letters, here for the first time presented to the
English speaking public, without perceiving that “ The Subjection-of
Women”! embodies, in great part, a substantial, if not an exact re
production of the opinions and arguments communicated so many
years ago to M. Comte. As far as the constitution of th'e positive
philosophy is concerned, this question is of wholly minor importance;
it can be decided either way without affecting its integrity. It is, how
ever, the fundamental question in social statics without which that
half of the science of sociology cannot be constituted; while the lively
* Discussion with Mr. J. S. Mill on the social condition of women,
f London, 1869 ; and New York, 1870.
22
�172
THE
SUBJECTION
OF
WOMEN.
sension about the condition and social destination of women, the more
suitable does it appear to me to characterize profoundly the deplorable
mental anarchy of our time, by showing the difficulty of a sufficient
present convergence even among the minds of the elite, between whom
there already exists, beside native sympathy, a logical harmony so pro
found as ours, and which, nevertheless, diverges, at least for the moment,
on one of the most fundamental questions which sociology can agitate;
upon the principal elementary base, to speak correctly, of all true so
cial hierarchy. Such a spectacle might even be enough to inspire a
kind of philosophical despair upon the final impossibility, as the relig
ious spirits pretend, of constituting a true intellectual concord upon
purely rational bases, if on the other hand a profound habitual estima
tion of our mental state, and even a sufficient personal experience, did
not tend to clearly convince me that the present position of your mind
constitutes in this respect only a necessarily temporary phase, the last
indirect reflection of the great negative transition. All thinkers who
seriously love women otherwise than as charming toys, have, in our
day, passed, I believe, through an analogous situation; on my own part,
I recollect very well the time when the strange work of Miss Mary
*
Wollstonecraft (before she espoused Godwin) produced a very strong
impression upon me. It was even chiefly by laboring to elucidate for
others the true elementary notions of domestic order, that I put my
mind, about twenty years, irrevocably beyond the pale of all similar
surprises of sentiment. I have no doubt that my special estimation of
this fundamental principle in the work which I am about commencing,
will suffice to dissipate, in this relation, all your uncertainties, if, before
this moment, your own meditations 'do not. essentially antedate this
important demonstration, on which we can prematurely talk a little in
our fraternal interview. In resuming summarily the indications of
your last letter, I hope that our spontaneous concert is less distant than
I at first feared. Although acknowledging the anatomical diversities
which more than anything else separate the feminine organism from
the great human type,f I think you have not allowed them a strong
enough physiological participation, while you have perhaps exaggerated
the possible influence of exercise, which, before everything, necessarily
supposes a suitable constitution. If, according to your hypothesis, our
cerebral apparatus never reached its adult state, all the exercise imag
inable would not render it susceptible of the high elaborations that it
ends by admitting of; and it is to this that I attribute the avortement,
too frequent in our day, of many unhappy youths who are exercised at
tasks repulsive to their age. Women are in the same category. In a
methodical discussion, I will have little to add to your judicious esti*“A Vindication of the Rights of Women, with strictures on political and moral
subjects.” London, 1792.
t As Littre remarks, this expression is not well chosen; “ human nature has no
human type which is independent of woman. The human ty pe can never, physically
or morally, be conceived but as double; it comprises two inseparable parts.”
�THE
SUBJECTION
OF
WOMEN.
173
naation of the normal limits of their faculties; but I find that you do
not attach sufficient importance to the real consequences of such native
inferiority. Their characteristic inaptitude for abstraction and construc
tion, the almost complete impossibility of rejecting emotional inspiration
in rational operations, though their passions are in general more gen
erous, must continue to indefinitely interdict them from all immediate
supreme direction of human affairs, not only in science or philosophy
as you allow, but also in esthetic life and even in practical life, as well
industrial as military, in which the spirit of consequence (de suite)
constitutes assuredly the principal condition of prolonged success. I
believe that women are as improper to direct any great commercial or
manufacturing enterprise as any important military operation; with
stronger reason are they radically incapable of all government, even
domestic, but only of secondary administration. In any case, neither
direction nor execution being suitable to them, they are essentially re
served for consultation and modification, in which their passive position
permits them to utilize very happily their sagacity and their character
istic * actuality.’ I have been able to observe very closely the feminine
organism, even in many eminent exceptions. I can further, on this
subject, mention my own wife, who, without having happily written
anything, at least up to the present, really possesses more mental force
than the greater number of the most justly praised persons of her sex.
I have everywhere found the essential characters of this type, a very
insufficient aptitude for the generalization of relations, and for persist
ence in deductions as well as in the preponderance of reason over pas
sion. All the cases of this kind are, in my eyes, too frequent and too
pronounced, to permit the imputation of difference of results chiefly
to diversity of education; for I have met with the same essential attri
butes where the whole surrounding influences had certainly tended to de
velop as far as possible an entirely different disposition. After all, is it
not otherwise in many respects a final advantage rather than a real incon
venience for women, to have been saved from this disastrous education
of words and entities which, during the great modem transition, has
replaced ancient military education ? As to the Fine Arts especially,
is it not evident that for two or three centuries, many women have
been very happily situated and trained for the cultivation, without ever
having been able, nevertheless, to produce anything truly great—no
more in music or painting than in poetry ? By a more profound es
timation of the whole field, one is, I think, led to recognize that this
social order so much execrated is radically arranged, on the contrary,
Sb as to essentially favor the proper scope of feminine qualities. Des
tined, beyond the maternal functions, to spontaneously constitute the
domestic auxilaries of all spiritual power, in supporting by sentiment
the practical influence of intelligence to modify morally the natural
reign of material force, women, are more and more placed in the condi
tions most proper for this important mission, by their isolation itself
�174
-THE
SUBJECTION
OF
WOMEN.
from active specialties which facilitates a judicious exercise of their
kind and moderating influence, at the same time that their own inter
ests are thus connected necessarily with the triumph of universal mo
rality. If it were possible that their position could change in this
respect and that they could become the equals of men instead of their
companions, I believe that the qualities which you justly attribute to
them would be much less developed. Their small instantaneous sagac
ity would become, for example, almost sterile, as soon as, ceasing to be
passive without being indifferent, they would have to conceive and di
rect, in place of regarding and counselling without serious responsi
bility. Besides, for truly positive philosophers, who know how, in all
cases, our systematic influence must be limited to wisely modify the ex
ercise of natural laws, without ever thinking of radically changing
their character and direction proper, the immense experience al
ready accomplished, in this respect, by the whole of humanity must
be, it seems to me, fully decisive; for we know the philosophical
worth of the theatrical declamations on the pretended abuse of force
on the part of the males. Although anatomical estimation has not
yet sufficiently established the explicit demonstration of the organic
superiority of our own species over the rest of animality, which has,
indeed, only very recently become possible, physiological research has
left no doubt upon the point, according to the single fact of the
progressive ascendancy obtained by man.
It is nearly the same in the question of sexes, though to a much less
degree; for how can the constant social subordination of the female sex
be otherwise explained ? The singular emaute organized in our day for
the benefit of women, but not by them, will certainly in the end only
add confirmation to this universal experience, although this grave in
cident of our anarchy may otherwise for the moment produce deplora
ble consequences, either private or public. The mass of our species
was for ages everywhere plunged in a social condition much inferior in
every way to that over which some now lament in women; but it has
been, since the beginning of the Middle Ages, gradually abandoned
among the most advanced peoples, because this collective subjection, a
temporary condition of ancient sociability, did not really belong to any
organic difference between the dominant and the dominated
*
But, .
on the contrary, the social subordination of women will be necessarily
indefinite, although progressively conformed to the normal universal
type, because it directly reposes upon a natural inferiority which
nothing can destroy, and which is even more pronounced among men
than among the other superior animals. By rendering women con
tinuously more suitable to their true general destination, I am con
vinced that the modern regeneration will more completely recall them
to their eminently domestic life, from which the disorder inseparable
See, on this illustration relative to the question of serfdom and slavery further
on in the third letter, p.
�THE
SUB JE C T T 0 N
OF
WOMEN.
175
from the great modern transition has, I think, momentarily turned
their attention in divers secondary respects. The natural movement
of our industry certainly tends to gradually turn over to men profes. sions for a long time carried on by women, and this spontaneous dispo
sition is, in my eyes, only one example of the growing tendency of our
sociability, to interdict women from all occupations which are not suf
ficiently reconcilable with their domestic destination, the importance
of which will become more and more preponderant. This is very far,
as you are aware, from interdicting them from a great and useful
indirect participation in the entire social movement, which could have
| never been conducted by them alone, even as to the essential scope of
opinions and manners which specially interest them. Every other
mode of conceiving their status and consequently their duties and
ours, will really be as contrary at the least to their own good as to uni
versal harmony. If from the attitude of woman’s protector, men enter
a situation of rivalry toward her, she will become, I believe, very un
happy through the necessary impossibility in which she will soon find
herself of sustaining such a competition, directly contrary to the con
ditions of her existence. I believe, therefore that those who sincerely
*
love her, who ardently desire the most complete evolution possible of
the faculties and functions properly belonging to her, must desire that
these anarchical utopias may never be tried?’
The third letter in this ensemble, and the last we shall give, is dated
Paris, November 14th, 1843. It is as follows: “Having now resumed
my daily occupations, I hasten to reply to your important letter of
October 30th before commencing my small work upon the ‘Ecole poly
technique,’ which, as it would take me a fortnight, would delay too
K long a response which I regard as the present termination of our great
biologico-sociological discussion. The general impression left upon
my mind by this letter, leads me, indeed, to think that this discussion
has now reached as far as it could with any utility be pushed; in
short, that there would at present be more inconvenience than advan
tage in further prolonging it, and it seems to me from your closing
words, that, at base, you are not far removed from the same opinion.
Without your divers arguments on this subject having in any way
shaken or even modified any of my previous convictions, they have
proved to me that the time has not yet come for seeing you arrive at
the fundamental truths upon this capital point which I have for a long
time received, but leave me, nevertheless, in all its fullness, the hope
that your further meditations may end by leading you also to the
same conclusion. In our present position we agree neither upon the
principles nor even the facts which must indispensably contribute
to the decision; and, consequently, it becomes proper not to finally
close the discussion, but to indefinitely suspend it, until such time as
on one side or the other the conditions of a useful resumption are found
effectively fulfilled. Still, I think I ought, for the last time, to take up
�176
THE
SUBJECTION
OF
WOMEN.
summarily the principal articles of your letter, in order the better to
characterize as I have not hitherto been able to do so, the essential
points of opposition, at once logical and scientific, thus established
between us in this respect.
“ In the beginning, I share essentially your logical opinion as to the
superior difficulty now offered by questions of social statics as compared
with dynamical questions. However, although the positive elaboration
of the latter is now much more mature, at the same time that it is
happily more urgent, I believe it possible to demonstrate immediately
the principal bases of static Sociology, and I expect to give an example
of it in the methodical treatise which I will commence at the end of
the present winter. I even think that without this preliminary condi
tion the dynamical theory would not have sufficient rationality. I can
now feel bold, as, for my own mind, this preamble has been accom
plished for many years, although I have not hitherto been able to
sufficiently develop this order of convictions so as to have them prop
erly shared by other thinkers. Owing to the fact that the fundamental
laws of existence can never be really suspended, it is very difficult to
clearly distinguish their continuous influence in the study of the
phenomena of activity; but this is not, however, impossible, as we can
do so by properly .estimating what is common to all the essential cases
offered by them. Besides, I believe that the preliminary light shed by
pure Biology, and which then has, especially in the present question, a
superior importance, is. now much more advanced than you seem ready
to admit, despite the little satisfactory state of our biological studies.
Doubtless, as you say, in reacting against the philosophical aberrations
of the last century, contemporary thinkers have been at times led to
exaggerate in the opposite direction. Thus Gall, in worthily upholding
the preponderant influence of the primordial organism, has too much
neglected that of education so abusively extolled by Helvetius. But,
though the truth is assuredly between the two, it is far, in my opinion,
from consisting in the exact balance {juste milien), and is found much
nearer the present opinion than the preceding. It was very natural to
at first estimate the external influences as plainer, and thi§ is what
the eighteenth century has everywhere done on all biological subjects
in which the notions of the medium are always shown before that of
the organism. But this is surely not the normal state of biological ’
philosophy, in which the organic conditions must certainly prevail;
since it is the organism and not the medium that makes us men rather
than monkeys or dogs, and which even determines our special mode
of humanity to a degree much more circumscribed than is commonly
believed. Under the logical aspect, by applying the natural march
that your valuable treatise has so judiciously characterized as the
Method of Residues, we cannot, it seems to me, especially in such
*
* See “ Mill’s Logic,” Vol. Ill, chap. viii. 3d London Ed. (1851) Vol. I, pp. 404, 405.
�THE
SUBJECTION
OF
WOMEN.
177
complex subjects, regard as indifferent the order of partial subtractions
which ought always to be followed out as far as possible according to
the decreasing importance that a primary general estimation sponta
neously awards to the diverse determinable influences; in short, that in
biological researches we ought most frequently to reverse the order which
you believe always preferable, viz., from the external to the internal.
u I regret exceedingly that the grave defects of co-ordination inherent
in Gall’s work should have so shocked a mind as methodical as yours, thus
hindering you hitherto from appreciating the fundamental reality of
his essential demonstrations, abstraction made of all irrational or prema
ture localization. You may, perhaps, in this respect be less dissatisfied
with his great early work, (Analogicpt physiologie du systeme nerveux
en general et du cerveau en particulier, in 4to,) although it is probably
too anatomical for your purpose. But the same fundamental ideas
are presented in better logical form in the more systematic works of
Spurzheim, that is to say, Observations sur la phrenologie, Essai philosophique sur les facultes morales et intellectuelles, the work upon
Education, and even that relating to insanity, which constitute in all
only four thin octavo volumes, easily read in one or two weeks.
Without the subordination of . sexes being directly examined there,
we can, however, regard this doctrine as having already sufficiently
established, as far, at least, as Biology can do so, the fundamental
principle of the domestic hierarchy. Before philosophical Biology
had properly arisen under Vicq. d’Azyr and Bichat, and altogether
independently of cerebral physiology, an estimable work, though not
very eminent, still deserving to be read, had already attempted to
found this principle upon the single preponderant consideration of
physical destination; it is a small treatise of a Montpellier physician,
(Roussel), entitled Systemephysique et morale de la femme, published in
1775, under the scientific impulsion of the labors of Borden, the great
precursor of Bichat. Comparative Biology seems to me, further, to
leave no real doubt on this subject. In following, for instance, M. de
Blainville’s lectures, though he had in yiew no thesis whatsoever on
this question, one cannot fail, to perceive arise from the ensemble of
the studies on animals, the general law of the superiority of the mas
culine sex in all the higher part of the living hierarchy; we will have
to descend among the invertebrates in order to find, and still very
rarely, notable exceptions to this great organic rule, which presents
besides the diversity of the sexes as increasing with the degree of
organization. I am, therefore, far from agreeing to abandon biological
considerations, although I regard the sociological appreciation as being
able without other aid to directly establish this important hotion; but
biological inspirations must then serve to properly direct sociological
speculations, which, in this respect, as in all other elementary ones,
seem to me ought to offer only a sort of philosophical prolongation of
-the great biological theorems.
23
�178
THE
SUBJECTION
OF
WOMEN.
“ As to the sociological appreciation separately regarded, I cannot
agree with you that the English medium is more favorable to the
mental and moral development of women than the French. Ab
straction made of all national vanity, of which you know me certainly
to be very independent, I believe, on the contrary, that the ladies of
France should be more developed from this very cause, that they live
in, more oomplete society with men. This diversity between us is
otherwise only a consequence of another more general, consisting in
the fact that the social constitution appears to you to have been
hitherto unfavorable to feminine development, while it seems to me
very proper for cultivating the qualities proper for women. As to the
rest, I am nowise competent to contest your observation upon English
households. But I believe that in it you confound too much simple
domestic administration with the true general government of the
family. In all Occidental Europe, I believe that, as in England,
households are administered by the women; but everywhere also,
save individual anomalies, it is the men who govern the common
affairs of the family. .
“1 cannot at all accept your comparison of the condition of women
to that of any sort of slaves. I have indicated this analogy only to
prevent a natural enough objection, tending to indirectly invalidate my
conclusion upon the passage from fact to principle. But, on a direct
comparison of the two cases, it seems to me that, since the establish
ment of monogamy, and especially in modern sociability, the term ‘ser
vitude’ is extremely vicious when meant to characterize the social
state of our gentle partners, and consequently I can nowise accept the
historical parallelism upon the simultaneous variations of two situations
so radically heterogeneous. Sale and non-possession are the principal
characters of all slavery—they have certainly never been applicable to
the occidentals of the last five centuries.
*
“ As to the progress which, for a century, is gradually working for
feminine emancipation, I do not at all believe in it, either as a fact or
as a principle. Our female authors seem to me no way superior, in
reality, to Mme. de Sevigne, Mme. de la Fayette, ,Mme. de Motteville,
and other remarkable ladies of the seventeenth century. I cannot
decide, whether it is otherwise in England. The woman who, under
a man’s name, (George Sand,) has now become so celebrated among us,
appears to me, at base, very inferior, not only in propriety, but even in
feminine originality, to the greater number of these estimable types.
* See remarks above, p. 174, and also “The Subjection of Women,” 2d London
Ed., pp. 8, 9,18, ff., and 28. Mr. Mill here traces pathetically, nay, almost tragically,
the parallelistn mentioned by M. Comte. One thought suggested itself while
reading it: Why slave-masters who were apparently as much interested as hus
bands in having their slaves docile, etc., did not try the same means to accomplish
this end as Mr. Mill asserts husbands to have done? Should his genesis of the
present condition of women prove true, of which certain damaging omissions
make us afraid, we would recommend it to Mr. Darwin as the most long-continued
and successful piece of artificial “ selection ” to be anywhere found.—Tr.
�THE
SUBJECTION
OF
WOMEN.
179
I do not see, in reality, any other notable increase than that of the
number and material fecundity of these authoresses, as Moli&re prob
ably foresaw; but I am doubtful whether any true progress is shown in
it. This movement consists chiefly in a growing intemperance, which
appears to me a sad but very natural consequence (or rather face) of
our universal mental anarchy since the inevitable decay of the frail
bases that theology had provisionally supplied to the entirety of great
moral and social notions. Beside this part of the negative disturbance
having been found especially favored by energetic passions, it has had
only to contend against perhaps the weakest part of theological socia
bility; for what can. be more illusory than to found the, domestic
hierarchy upon Adam’s supernumerary rib ? Is it astonishing, that
principles so lightly constituted, have not been able to resist the shock
of impassioned anarchy? But their momentary discredit really proves
no more than the necessity for better establishing them. Under this
relation the deplorable discussions thus raised, although yet essentially
deprived of logical reasonableness, besides being unhappily inevitable,
are at least useful, in obliging us to more profoundly fathom the in
timate motives of this indispensable domestic co-ordination. The
present emeuts of women, or rather of some womejn, will in the end
have no other result than that of presenting experimentally the insur
mountable reality of the fundamental principle of such subordination,
which must then. react profoundly upon all the other parts of social
economy; but this useful conclusion will be found purchased at the
price of much public and private misery, which a more philosophical
advance would have shunned were such rationality now possible. If
this disastrous social equality of the two sexes were ever really at
tempted, it would immediately radically disturb the conditions of
existence of the sex that some desire thus to favor, and with regard to
which the present protection, that must alone be completed by regu
lating it, would then be converted into a competition impossible to
habitually sustain. Such an assimilation will otherwise tend morally
to destroy the principal charm which now draws us towards women,
and which resulting from a sufficient harmony between social diversity
and organic diversity, supposes women to be in an essentially passive
and speculative situation that can in no way hinder their just partici
pation in all great social sympathies. If such a principle of repulsion
could be pushed to its extreme natural limit, I venture to affirm that it
will appear directly opposed to the reproduction of our species, which
restores, in this respect, the biological point of view, more intimately
connected there than elsewhere with the sociological.
“ All this may perhaps appear to you very extended for a discussion
which I regarded as provisionally terminated ; but for this very reason
I undertook to better characterize our principal dissidences. For the
rest, although without present result, I am far from regretting that you
have begun it, for it will assist me considerably in properly feeling the
�180
THE
’
SUBJECTION
OF
WOMEN.
A
essential points to be especially insisted upon in my forthcoming
treatise, in my attempt at a static demonstration of a principle which,
despite its eminently elementary nature, is yet so profoundly misunder
stood by so superior and so well-prepared a mind. Permit me, how
ever, to hope, according to my own previous experience, that this
situation of your judgment constitutes really only a last transient
phase of the great negative transition belonging to our age.”*
° Mr. Mill has forcibly called attention (work cited, p. 99) to a fact which
deserves Careful study. After acknowledging that no woman had been a Homer,
an Aristotle, or a Michael Angelo, he remarks: “ It is a curious consideration, that
the only things which the existing law excludes women from doing, are the things
^fliich they have proved they are able to do. * * * Their vocation for govern
ment has made its way and become conspicuous through the very few opportunities
which have been given, while in the lines of distinction, which apparently were
freely open to them, they have by no means so eminently distinguished them
selves.” From the way Mr. Mill puts it, the distinction seems well founded, and
on further reflection, seems one of the most “ curious ” things in the world. That
exercise and freedom should in woman’s case act the very reverse of what they do
among men, seems to go far to substantiate M. Comte’s doctrine of fundamental
difference between the sexes. While it seems in the nature of a standing “ miracle”
to know how a state could have originated or how it could be kept up that inter
dicts beings from their real natural vocation. If I understand the English philoso
pher correctly, it might be wholesome for women to have an edict on our statute
books against writing poetry or painting; if it could act as political proscription
seemingly does, all should hope for the early arrival of the day.—Tr.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The subjection of women
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Comte, Auguste
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: New York
Collation: [169]-180 p. ; 26 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From Modern Thinker, no. 1, 1870. "Discussion with Mr J.S. Mill on the social condition of women". Based on correspondence between Comte and Mill that began at the end of 1841. Includes bibliographical references. Printed on blue paper.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[American News Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1870]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5422
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (The subjection of women), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Subject
The topic of the resource
Women's rights
Conway Tracts
John Stuart Mill
Marriage
Women
Women-Social Conditions
Women's Emancipation
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/685f748d3e0e7eefc68421600dae611a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=E%7El6HNaqypEZ1M-lyjmqhxUCxDwbBpJrWU7zzXnKwUZCkldcVMNAGVsQ9AqSgD0KNeCo%7EgCq9DEdOmIj2juB10iuDPcJsk81OGIYyZP76l-mMt-rH2FwY0OysW2Lre8YTcRZMQG5%7E6Cn-B2E7XRar4WopPQEXGSaTTXO3xFjHzGRqOZWWbzFVCJix9VHzIwX2kD3Wb5zvR7rbqzG3oiAIrcJQbPMHa59OHDsQL2EMGGjptK7CHoA4wJzB-p2rHG4982v3WQiFQ3TNR7TZEBYyDuAi94OFkXFWV8qv4AtP5wXKa2OMK-oOk92RxAdF%7E5hvMrZbkx%7EUU%7EQuWFHJx5fLw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6e1b705c10f3993e898fb2c27327c3e5
PDF Text
Text
THE WEDDING
DAME WINDSOR’S,
AND
W THAT WAS SAID ABOUT IT BY
IN
RELATIONS AND FRIENDS,
AND BY THE
ZI OYS OF St. STEPHEN’S SCHOOL.
i«*8t !
W iJfDON : A. RITCHIE, 15, WINE OFFICE COURT, FLEET STREET.
Price Sixpence.
?
�J. COEN, PRINTER,
15, WINE OFFICE COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON.
------ y
when I first saw the vessel?
cg-crnx uvu<nu ax
�Webbing nt Same Wxnbsof s.
GrH
WHAT RELATIONS SAID ABOUT IT.
3N ame
Windsor is a widow, a little over fifty, of ample
fd rtune, and possessor of several spacious houses.
r|er husband, good soul, who was universally re
31! jected,
died suddenly, to the deep regret of every-
.1 le, and left her with a family of nine children, five
idi ‘which are daughters, two of them being unmarried,
?
e 1 'er eldest daughter, who was greatly esteemed, on
in<
ccount of her comeliness and graces, was united,
91
|me years since, to a fine German, who lives in a
71
driving hotel in Berlin, the sign of which has been
b
|tely altered from the “ King William ” to the
aißi IKaiser,” and which change of style is expected, at
a early period, when the present landlord, who is an
|d man, dies, to prove highly advantageous to the
'¿w occupier.
1 Two other daughters, Alice and Helen, are also
3.”i
S:
�1
o
3
n:
4
married to Germans, whose incomes, although liberal, U.P'1
are not equal to that of the former, nor are theiri Ldh
future promotions in life anything so promising.
.] L-j ■
Mrs. Windsor’s eldest son, who has a large yearly ufi?
income in his own right in some tin mines, which
were profitably worked during the young man’s;
minority by his prudent father, inherited a consider^ y N
able fortune when he came of age. This lucky fello^j
was married, about eight years since, to a handsoma Lj®
li
Danish lady, which event gave great satisfaction at
I
the time, as the young girl came from an old stock,
ir.
o
b
t
b
e
>>
?
3
e
•(
t
and was mighty winning in her behaviour both to
rich and poor.
Teddy, for that is the young man’s
4*
name, is likewise heir to three rich domains, and will, [¿i
be more looked up to when he comes into that ancieni tn
property.
He has seen much of the world, having
gone round it with observant guides, and has picked be
up varied knowledge.
Few men, it is said, can, hn
01
better understand a genuine cigar, and his experience jgqx
of fire-engines is also great, as he rarely fails to enjoy
a run upon them, with some smart mates, when a big h ■
run.
1t
* blaze illumines the town where he lives.
Now, one evening, Mrs. Windsor, who was desirous
|l
> when I first saw the vessel.”
I"
�5
getting her single children off her hands, being
amn one with her eldest unmarried daughter, Louise, at
0
•ii Leir own house in the north, at a place called Bahl
fi 'orrell, she spake motherly unto the lass regarding
li. ■ 3r affections towards a young man of those parts,
Ij.
o ha had beguiled the damsel’s heart, and whose
d afl sits had been much encouraged by the glad dame
t mention thereof, the innocent girl coloured up,
Epd hid her blushing face on her mother’s bosom,
)|hereat the maternal dame kindly hinted that her
rt ild was quite free to marry the honest Gael, if such
rfere her real wishes, and she graciously gave her
¿nsent to the match,
The whole of the family, at
•me and abroad, were at once made acquainted with
te proposed wedding, the news of which was ill
ovtifceived by some of them, because of their very high
hfwate.
The brother-in-law at Berlin, thought, for
q I? part, that the young lass would do better by belirij
ming the wife of one of his kinsmen, especially as
fwq
3 own expectations of a rise were very great; how-
ff-J
er, he would not strongly urge against the wedding,
such were the wish of the two people, and Mrs.
»¿bl indsor approved of the same.
3.”—
.
Si
�o
6
Teddy thought the choice of a more distinguished 1..4.
fl
partner advisable, but, lighting a fresh Havannah,
3
said ma might advise about the matter as she pleased: [
so he left them, to look after his horses and to attend
I *
to his book at the club.
Alf, on being spoken to about it, didn’t see wb !
1
/I
Louie shouldn’t marry who she liked, provided hi li,„ j
I
was really a proper fellow, and likely to make : :..i>
hi
Y
ir
o
kind husband, as he was sure Archy would, and hi H .
■ r *
hoped when the couple put out to sea, the sails o b
matrimony would swell with many a pleasant gale. I
j
Leo said he preferred a match of the kind, ant , .
b
thought mother would be more liked by everybody | ..
■ t
b
le
»
?
P
for letting Master Lome come into the family, whc |.
he was sure, would make his sister happy, and wha 1 ,
I r'
else had they to care about.
Little Beatry almost jumped for joy, and said sh j
was so glad ma would let Louie have Archie ; i ;
>e
r<
a
would be so nice to have them living in England, a 1
?;
their new house.
«
Q.
a
i
she would not lose her, but be able to go often t
Cousin George, who is blind, got some one to wr|
a note for him, which he sent from abroad, bearing| |
F
d
■ti________ _________________ ,
s when I first saw the vessel.”
�-b®«d abbed-out Hanover stamp.
In it he was rather
psihij molding about the affair; but as he had lately lost a
'.av/d town, and was vexed, considering himself cruelly
iteqi nposed upon by friends who, he thought, should
juve treated him better, Mrs. Windsor and her family
et down his disfavour to Louie’s wedding to bad
iesq.d emper, so they took no heed of his cold words.
ynA
Another cousin George—he of Cambridge—hap-
Ao in lened to drop in while the affair was being talked
"''M
>ver, with his red coat rather splashed, for he had just
g...nej )een seeing his soldiers do their work in the Park,
gd u )n being spoken to about the suit, he gave it his
•(insj iearty approval, and thought it high time such silly
ifoiid lotions of shutting out certain people from the family
p-rel were done .away with. He had kicked against such a
do* foolish rule himself, and in defying people’s remarks
.. bfi had found no reason to repent of his course; and
why shouldn’t Louie be as happy with a Scotch
noiva swain as with any foreign fellow with a sounding
hibI name that meant nothing.
He knew the boy, and
jodlliked his good sense, which would always carry him
hoi well through the world, and prove creditable to
in ou Louie.
�0
Aunt Augusta was too infirm to come, but she
wrote, saying that in her young days such things
were deemed shocking.
However, as times are sol
altered now, she would not dream of hindering the
5
new idea, the more so as her niece, Mrs. Windsor,
had determined on setting the change.
/I
1
?”•
i?'
ip
se
1H
ja
a-,
_a
:
a
th.
sa
>i
»e
as when I first saw the vessel.”
�9
YHAT
THE . FAMILY
ADVISERS
SAID
ABOUT IT.
ft]
.as Irs. Windsor, who is a model of household order,
jiu< rould not seriously move about her daughter’s pro-
.o^gosed wedding without consulting certain family
dvisers, whose opinions thereon should finally decide
d a er how to act.
She therefore bade Some men of
he ood repute and knowledge to come down to her
hiA welling on an island at the edge of the sea, where
?
ight confer with her and advise on the matter
hey miL
ri
nq h lat pressed upon her heart.
- sill Then certain prudent chiefs assembled at her house,
J ad, after listening to her words, they counselled
illy thereon.
An elder, named Hatherley, deeply
h rJ i,rned in the law, spake of the practices of times
»st, and declared that no statute in the books of the
n
j a1 ws of the land hindered the marriage; but rather,
• odi
thought, were it to be contracted between the
a srsons proposed, it would bring felicity to them, and
s.”-
�10
command favour with all people. A councillor nameJ
Gladstone next gave utterance, and would have
waxed into a flow of artful words, but that the occa
sion needed only his mind to be declared in simple
speech.
The virtues of Mrs. Windsor’s daughter, he
said, claimed the best of husbands, and that maternal
solicitude and sagacity which had caused those mani
fold virtues and graces to bud and ripen, were the
surest guarantees that a match so wisely arrangea
should continue auspicious to the end.
Ko legal
prohibition against it existed, and Mrs. Windsor, by
sanctioningthe same, would complete her daughter’l
happiness, and revive her own popularity.
The !
chief, Granville, with rare gentleness of tongue and
manner, said he knew the laddie well, and had
marked his shrewdness and good parts.
He felt !
assured that if Mrs. Windsor desired him for a sori j
in-law, no loss of dignity or respect towards he) i
would follow on that account; indeed, by grafting st I
honourable a branch to her own ancient stock, everl I
one would be pleased, and regard her more affec t
tionately.
After several others had all likewise spoken, on
when I first saw the vessel.”
�11
■iirtgi]
blister Lowe, who is keeper of the treasure-chest,
boied
Littered to the same purpose.
rZ" -ua
toair will need a little money wherewith to keep house
Besides, he said, the
'“mofhonestly, and I will speak to my good master, Mister
7 JlulBull, who will not in the least begrudge to give them
eilthe few thousands that I shall name, so that they
Sh^Jmay lack nought to support their state decently and
rtj)ai?}freflect his honour.
£)
e.”—
Sh
�12
WHAT WAS SAID BY DECENT CITIZENS
AND SOME CHURLS.
i
The intended wedding, being well bruited abroad
was in all men’s moutbs, who spake of it one to the
ii
r
,r
o
other, wishing Dame Windsor’s daughter abundant
joy to the end of her days.
In the highway which is called Parliament-street,
in the City of Westminster, a citizen thereof, and a
b
t
f
e
?
p
5
se
ri
a
7;
.«<
man of much substance, meeting one of his fellows,]
also of ample means, being a tradesman of the Wests
End, bade him good day, and pointed out to him
certain M.P.’s who were driving to the House to
speechify and to say “Aye” for a proposed yearfy
gfant to Miss Windsor, the young lady about to be
married.
He then talked of the matter, assured that
the Members would with one consent agree to the
moderate dotation, for that the damsel deserved the
same, and that they would the more heartily bestow
h
a
i
if
;d
----is when I first saw the vessel.”
�13
ifi because her mother had wisely set aside a perverse
e tie on her child’s behalf.
f
“Tea, and a right thing, too,” answered the
stener, “ for the swain is reported well worthy of
fist > fair a bride ; besides, ’tis a good sign when custom,
Gfflj
lb4 unded in pride, loses its force, having only age to
mo ¡commend it.
As well preserve a dung-heap on a
Wife ithway, because it was made by Caesar’s horse.
way with nuisances, say I, whether they encumber
Ind or weigh heavily upon man.
JOJ
By-the-bye, it is
pmoured that Mrs. Windsor is coming more amongst
L ; and I’m sure that her wonted face will bring
imshine to us again, and waken shouts that had wellj 4'
igh died away.”
| When these men of quality had parted, a labourer,
ib.
b
fending to his work along the flags, overtook another,
■hose pipe gave forth a cloud wreathing behind over
is shoulder.
Then the former asked for a light, and
iiey two went on, forgetting care in their smoking,
¿id filling the wind with the smell of their tobacco.
4T 1
-11.. I
i “ It gives me joy, mate, to see thee journeying to
4j ■job.
Is it for long F”
I “ Nay, only for a week, to make gas-piping for the
V 1
»/A J
e.”—
_
Si
�3
jy
14
flare that will light the shops at night, when the grand f
!
■y
wedding comes off.”
“ Of Mrs. Windsor’s daughter ?”
“ Yes ! and rarely for better purpose did fiery stars ,
turn the dark streets into day, to amuse the crowds,
than will the glowing ciphers kindled everywhere on
that coming occasion.
Why, I’ll burn a tallow-wicJ
myself to tell the world that another ban is blotted j
i
from the earth.”
“ Eh ! they’re going to vote her a round sum to
night at the House yonder, and I only wish that all]
r
)
>
t
the money they gave went to as good a use.
It’s
quite time that husbands for Dame Windsor’s single)I
daughters were found at home, without hunting fori
them in the land of sour krout.”
“ But one Taylor is going to pitch in against the
. i
grant.”
“ He ain’t got the pluck; and if he had he’d be
laughed down, as he ought to.
Let him slip intJ
real abuses, and he’s my man; but as for goinJ
|
agin that, why he’s as mischievous as the brawlera
who pretend to be working men; but who filch
their living from simpletons by spouting.”
t____
when I first saw the vessel.”
u.
�F
15
>’ “ At any rate Dame Windsor has touched the
>[ n^ ight key in this instance, which pleases everybody.
a '¿J1 inly she should begin to come out more, to enliven
[at# ne folks a bit, and set some trade moving.”
1'idZI
^slg
fiilT
Here the men ceased to discourse, having come to
place where their feet should turn opposite ways.
Thus the whole populace talked of the marriage,
h nd rejoiced much that Dame Windsor esteemed her
[aughter’s welfare beyond the tyrannous whim of
t'A
EQxds ashion.
inff
But certain obscure Odgerites, noisy and churlish
-wol
fellows, whom few men heeded, strove to stir up the
n nultitude against the reasonable dowry that John
Bull, in the largeness of his heart, was bent upon
giving to the bride.
These disturbers lifted up their
n Voices in pot-houses, while they swilled with the hire
iXlj
juggled from the pockets of the simple; yet their
¡iiivyavings were not regarded by peaceable folks, who
■wlreverenced Dame Windsor the more for her sound
iWit and love for her daughter, in that she might
mlinarry the man of her own choice, and one of her own
a country.
So the brawlers, whose tongues were as brands,
GB
�sank into limbo, and there was mirth throughout the
land, the rich and the poor loyally beseeching a life
long blessing on the wedding of Dame Windsor’s
daughter.
J. Cocn, Printer, 15, Wine-Office-Court, Fleet-street, London.
I first saw the vessel.”
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The wedding at Dame Windsor's and what was said about it by relations and friends, and by the boys of St. Stephen's School
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by J. Coen, Fleet Street, London. A satire on the wedding of Princess Louise Caroline Alberta to the Marquess of Lorne (later 9th Duke of Argyll). Text partially obscured by binding.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
A. Ritchie
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5453
Subject
The topic of the resource
Monarchy
Marriage
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 (The wedding at Dame Windsor's and what was said about it by relations and friends, and by the boys of St. Stephen's School), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Louise Caroline Alberta
Marriage
Monarchy
Princess of Great Britain
Satire
Weddings