1
10
4
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/88d1f77bc6095efd4a2e973a64f23d07.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AHTnk%7EMT8a-JSQnm9GuxKnOt1ouZlzyIyQFWmYRPP-XSOELgOxxmx5Q0WvF5atBH7ToWkGwkMrUtLLDgPy6MN9BZEIR5csbDKHxMOBMkjqRNMR1ucnKgRw%7E3f344mjgIUz9Hm-h3kFQUu3r92CZD6qsA2bQMqxnhqtAEPPR7GrsWseJS0VYTEqcIcEX6PcjhJsPrhcbJ2PtzlY6CVarcOWIN8utrJAlFQgJOtuweQpkXDOP-YJuEDDhvnSYfyVXTHueOwfgqIlkKqf66gRssQQHTH%7E16ZRqFZ97nHGwK52ChyFl4hzop%7EQz7l5y9Lxm9jk7W1TkhC3YVgCoRmDaWzw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c75537de7b46885d2df61634425c4ed5
PDF Text
Text
CT. 492
LIBERAL PROTESTANTISM:
WHAT IS IT?
By J. W.
PUBLISHED
BY THOMAS
*
SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1876.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON :
PRINTED EX 0. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEX STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�LIBERAL PROTESTANTISM :
WHAT IS IT?
---------- 4.----------
HE world has heard a good deal of late years
about Liberal Catholicism; to-day Liberal
Protestantism is the watchword of a party who take
the same position*in regard to orthodox Protestantism
that Alt or Liberal Catholics have assumed towards
the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church.
' ,
Both appear to us to stand in a similarly anomalous
relation to the parent Faith, while desiring to remain,
in bondage to it they mutually eschew and decry its
chief and leading doctrines; these new divisions of
the old armies profess the same end, viz., “ to
mediate between Christendom and Science, to bring
the truth of both into unison, to unveil the errors of
both.”
With the Liberal Catholics the enemy to all pro
gress in the dangerous and damnable paths of scien
tific knowledge is the Pope, who, with his Syllabus
and Vatican decrees, like the fabled Cerberus of old,
guards the fatal tree of knowledge; while with the
Liberal Protestants it is the dogmas and doctrines
embodied in the “ Thirty-nine Articles,” the codifica
tion, in fact, of the Protestant Faith, which bars to
them the Church of their forefathers, and which they
d.esire to open with a new key. In Switzerland and
in France Liberal Protestantism takes the same
ground. In the organ of that party, the Libre Re
cherche, we read, “ The Church, to endure, must
found itself on the unassailable truths of Science
rather than on the illusory ones of Holy Writ.” In
T
�4
Liberal Protestantism :
both countries the party has sustained a severe loss
in the death of its chiefs, Monsieur Athanase
Coquerel and Pastor Heinrich Lang, who held the
pulpit of the famous old St. Peter’s, at Zurich. It
was the University of Zurich which, forty years ago,
signalised itself in the ranks of liberal theology, by
offering its Theological chair to Professor David
Priederich Strauss, who had then startled the ortho
dox world by publishing his ‘ Life of Jesus.’ But
the populace, headed by their clergy, raised such an
outcry against the coming of this “ heretic and un
believer,” that Dr. Strauss never occupied the post
tendered to him by the Great Council of Zurich, and
it is a curious fact that the heirs of that generation
who barred him out have for years crowded the
church of St. Peter’s, to listen to the teaching of
Pastor Lang, whose “heresy and unbelief ” is of a
much deeper dye than that of Strauss. His Liberal
Christianity went no further than “ that you may be
a Christian without believing all the words and rela
tions of the Biblehe only aimed at giving a more
rational reading of the Biblical history of creation
and of the life and works of the founder of Chris
tianity, whereby his enemies declared “ he converted
the Divine Revelation into a book of old fables.”
What would they have said of his successor at Zurich,
this chief of Liberal Protestantism, whose recent
death is so much lamented, and whose theology was
of so liberal a type that he has been accused by Pro
testant and Catholic alike with having “no creed* no
gospel, and almost no God ?” Orthodoxy recognises
nothing of Historical Protestantism, much less Chris
tianity, either liberal or otherwise, in the late Pastor’s
teaching, and his faith was branded as “ a miserable
nonentity,” neither flesh, fowl, nor good red herring.
Dr. Lang’s latest work was an answer to the chal
lenge, “ Is Liberal Protestantism a religion ? ” and as
this is a very interesting question for us in connection
�What is It ?
5
with English Liberal Protestantism, we propose to
explore the tenets and examine by the light of its
credentials this new religion, which is to “mediate
between Christendom and Science, to bring into
unison the truth of both, and to unveil the errors of
both.”
From the Pastor’s book we learn that Liberal Pro
testantism has both “a Creed and a Gospel,” that it
is not wanting in any of those characteristics that
belong to a “ living religion every religion, he main
tains, requires three elements, “ rational dogma, obli
gatory morality, and an enlightened and sacramental
worshipalso, its chief ingredient must be “metaphy
sical,” which Dr. Lang explains as “ Faith in some
thing we cannot see, a firm conviction of the real
nature of the Power that creates and works in the
visible phenomena of the world.”
This glaube or belief in something one cannot see
“is one of the distinguishing elements of true reli
gion,” and he adds, “ The faith once delivered to the
Saints now lies in ruins, a broken statue of a God at
the feet of the men of this generation ; that no such
belief as that of the Gods of Olympus, or of the Jews
in the ‘ Only One,’ is now possible,” and he answers
the lament of the day for its broken idols by bidding
the world “not put its faith in God the Father,” but
in a Being distinct from the world as the “ Eternal
from the changeable,” the “ thought from the brain,”
the “ Spirit from the matter.” This “ God Concep
tion,” according to Dr. Lang, is “ to divide the reli
gion of the future from orthodoxy and miracles on
the one hand, and from unbelief on the other.” It is
hardly necessary to point out the advance here made
in forty years upon the liberal Christianity of Strauss,
which was so savagely rejected by the Zurichers of
that day; and he prophesied wisely when he uttered
these words regarding the inimical clergy who headed
the tumult against him :—“ Let them be as angry as
�6
Liberal Protestantism :
they like, and let them abuse me as much as they
please, they, or their successors, will at last as surely'
be obliged to accommodate themselves, and come
round to our new method, just as any new inventions
in the department of mechanical business must at
last be adopted by those who at first objected to the
inconvenient innovation.” In the person of Pastor
Lang, they not only came round to the “ new method,”
but have advanced so far ahead of their august
pioneer, that to us they have left both the rational
and the logical behind; and we here throw down the
gauntlet to Liberal Protestantism, whether under the
championship of such an eloquent transcendentalist
as the late Dr. Lang, or under its chiefs in Prance
and England. We challenge the rights of this “old
foe with a new face,” to bridge the chasm “between
orthodoxy and unbelief;” challenge its claim on rational
and logical minds, to be accepted as “ true religion
apart from traditional beliefs ;” challenge its power to
work the proposed miracle of “ bringing into unison
Christendom and Science.” The God of Liberal Pro
testantism, like that of the Bible, differs only from
the images of wood and stone of early idolators in
that it is a mental instead of a mechanical creation.
There is very little advance from the Being “ who
walked, talked, and even eat ” with sons of men, to
the God “ through whom and at whose bidding evil is
here,” or that “real Power that creates and works in
the visible phenomena of the world,” and reveals to
us, according to Dr. Lang, “ obligatory laws, includ
ing reverence towards God, confidence in Him, and
obedience to His commands.”
It is precisely this momentous knowledge of the
“ real Power that creates and works in the visible
phenomena of this world,” which we hold has never
come to bewildered man either from orthodox or
unorthodox religion ; and if it be a necessary element
of “ true religion ” to declare belief in something we
�What is It f
7
cannot see and know nothing about, how has this
“religion of the future ” anything in common with
relentless and uncompromising science ? Science
that does not say “ Believe,” but bids its disciples
probe, look, examine; such a thing is, not because
a book or a master says so, but such a thing
is because I have seen it, because I have proved
and verified it. What has Christianity based on
dreams and revelations in common with this pitiless
gauger of facts ?
Having deserted the old grounds of Historical
Protestantism, we propose to show that Liberal Pro
testantism has neither a creed nor a gospel in the
acknowledged sense, and that it is rightly charged
with “ stealing a worship and sacraments for which
it has no esteem, and to which it attaches no primi
tive meaning.” Pastor Lang says, in answer to these
charges, that “ he retained the traditional form of
Protestant worship because it is the shell of a moral
and religious kernel of abiding truth : singing, pray
ing, and preaching are the fundamental ingredients
of a public worship.” But what is the abiding truth
symbolised ? and why is public worship to be main
tained when the object of that worship is transformed
from the “Being who hears and answers prayer” to
the cloudy conception which has as little of the an
thropomorphic God as the Eternal has of the change
able—thought has of the brain—Spirit has of matter ?
In an article in the Libre Lecherdie, the organ of
French Liberal Protestantism, we read : “ The dogma
of Revelation is for humanity a perpetual apple of dis
cord and antagonism, an incurable source of hatred
and religious wars.” But if this “ dogma of Revela
tion ” or belief in it is foregone, where is Christianity
and where is Protestantism ?
Mr. Oxenham, known as one of the famous “ Oxford
Perverts,” writing from the orthodox Catholic point
of view, thus treats of “ Eternal Punishment” and
�8
Liberal Protestantism :
“Universalism:”—“Revelation may be accepted or
rejected, but you cannot pick and choose, and take as
much or as little as you like ; a tinkered Christianity
•which is much in fashion in these days, has as little
claim on the judgment of reason as on the obedience
of faith; to reject one point is implicitly to reject the
rest.” With this dictum we perfectly agree, and
“that in rejecting its cardinal points—the ‘super
natural birth of Christ,’ the ‘atonement,’ and the
‘ resurrection’—the entire structure of Christian doc
trine is disorganised which, as Mr. Oxenham re
marks, is “ not an aggregation of atoms but a cohe
rent whole.” The doctrine of “ Universalism” versus
li Eternal Perdition,” “ the hope that good will be the
final goal of ill, at last, far off, at last to all,” is a strong
point with Liberal Protestantism, but however ad
mirable their views are on this point—views in which
of course we share,—they should remember that “this
universal belief in eternal punishment of sixty gene
rations of Christians is based, they have ever been
firmly persuaded, on the express declaration of Christ
himself.” Not only does Liberal Protestantism pull
down this coping-stone of its orthodox creed, but the
key-stone of the arch, “the Trinity,” is with it a dead
letter. The “ God conception” of Dr.- Lang no more
includes “ God the Son” and “ God the Holy Ghost”
than does that of his neighbours in France and
England.
The schism in the JBglise reformee in France, of long
standing, has lately come to a head, and we read that
the “ Liberals,” or “ extreme Left,” have by their
negations virtually left the Church, that the title
Eglise reformee no longer applies to that school headed
by Monsieur Athanase Coquerel. One of the chiefs
of this party, reviewing a “ Synod ” of the Church,
held in 1848, remarks, “at this period the liberal
tendency of the reformed church had not grasped the
logical consequences of its principles; its utmost
�What is It?
9
boldness consisted in rejecting some dogmas such as
the ‘ Trinity,’ ‘ Predestination,’ ‘Original Sin,’ and
‘ Eternal Punishment; ’ it had not fully entered on the
rigorous scientific method of modern times.” But in
the name of logic, common sense and honesty, what
was there left to reject that has a shadow of either
Christianity or Protestantism ? The illustrious Mon
sieur Guizot, who headed the orthodox section, wrote
in regard to the strife, “In the actual state of Pro
testantism, orthodox Protestants ought not to make
precise and formal confession of faith the rule abso
lute of their Church.” Monsieur Guizot was most
anxious to preserve outward unity, and another mem
ber on the same side declared that “it was the unani
mous wish of the Synod that the Protestant Christian
Church should not perish, and the existing schism
was likely to bring about the death of Protestantism.”
A Church that had even the boldness to throw
overboard the “Trinity,” “ Predestination,” “ Original
Sin,” and “ Eternal Punishment,” whether it be the
Eglise reformee of France or England, is dead in the
Protestant Christian sense, has brought about for
itself the death of Protestantism, has no longer any
right to the “ shibboleth ” of a name which it hopes
will distinguish it from that philosophic section of
the world of modern thought which “ has grasped the
logical consequences of its principles,” which has
“ the courage of its opinions,” and, loving truth better
than systems, having cast out “the idols born of mental
prepossessions,” upholds no religious system, but,
questioning that emotional glow concerning the
“Divine and Spiritual” which declares “it knows
God,” with a deeper and truer sense of the mysterious
and unknown, utters this confession of faith : —
“ When I attempt to give the power which I see
manifested in the Universe an objective form, per
sonal or otherwise, it slips away from me, declining
all intellectual manipulation; I dare not call it a
�IO
Liberal Protestantism :
mind, I refuse even to call it a cause ; its mystery
overshadows me, but it remains a mystery ; the objec
tive frames that my neighbours try to make it fit
simply distort and desecrate it.”
We have another indictment against Liberal Pro
testantism, namely, that it is further a misnomer for the
schools either at home or abroad, which having nothing
in common with traditional Christianity, have no plea
for retaining the name of that body of Christians who
in 1529 at the Diet of Spiers assumed it, when enter
ing a solemn “protest ” against the corrupt practices
of that other section of Christians since known as
Roman Catholics. All Christians, be it noted, were
once members of the Primitive Catholic Church of
Christ. But the Protestants of 1529 were not the
first to protest for the rights of conscience; in the
13th century in Languedoc, the sunny land of the
free-hearted Troubadours, arose a note of defiance to
clerical assumption and tyranny. Toulouse became
the head-quarters of this so-called heresy which ended
only in that most dreadful of religious massacres, the
wars of the Albigenses.
It was then that Pope Innocent III., the head of
the Christian Church, gave forth command, “ ravage
every field, slay every human being, strike and spare
not; ” and the Abbe Citeau lamented “ that he had
only been able to cut the throats of 20,000 of his
fellow Christians;” and this, adds the historian, “was
all for the truth as it is in Jesus.” But what has
Liberal Protestantism in common with these early
reformers or Protestants of the 13th or 15th century,
who certainly most emphatically accepted and believed
in Biblical and traditional Christianity ? What would
the martyrs and heroes of the “ Albigensean ” and
“ Waldensean ” Church have said to this utterance of
Liberal Protestantism ? “ Let us cease to make the
Bible the universal absolute oracle, cease to elevate
broken beliefs to the height of divine revelations;
�What is It
F
11
believe me it is only in frankly accepting the acknow
ledged discoveries of science, in taking them for its
starting post of teaching, that the Church will found
itself not on shifting sand but on an immovable rock ;
from that time she will acquire that respected autho
rity which she has in vain sought in the illusory prin
ciples of inspiration of Scripture and Scriptural origin
of dogma.” What would those people who made the
Bible, and the Bible alone, the sheet anchor of their
faith have said to their successors of to-day, who
declare “that the Church to be respected must be
founded on science and not on the Word of God ? ”
How would Beza, Melancthon, Calvin, and the
redoubtable chief of Protestantism, Luther, have
regarded their heirs in the struggle against sacerdo
talism who with one hand depose the Bible and with
the other cast out the Messiah ?
These stern uncompromising defenders of the faith
had only one object in view, namely, to place Jesus
Christ instead of the Pope at the head of the Chris
tian Church. A member of French Liberal Protes
tantism says : “ The great miracle to which all others
are but accessories, is the Incarnation of God in Jesus
Christ and the redeeming sacrifice of the Cross sanc
tioned by the miracle of his corporeal resurrection.
Admit these and you are Christians, deny them, and
you enter the ranks of philosophy and free thought.”
This consistent, rational, and logical view of Chris
tianity we commend generally to the study of Liberal
Protestantism. It seems, however, that it is possible
to Liberal Protestants, while rejecting the miracle
of the “corporeal resurrection of Jesus Christ,” the
only basis for the dogma of immortality, still to hold
fast to a life beyond the grave. With them “ the hope
of immortality is a result of human organisation at
its origin, and of God’s general government of the
world by natural sequence.” We are not sure what
“ the result of human organisation ” means in refer
�12
Liberal Protestantism:
ence to immortality, unless that the love of life being
natural and intuitive, it necessarily follows we shall
live for ever; though, if this were so, “immortality ”
would not follow the law of “ natural selection,” and
“ depend on how the creature is constituted by nature,
trained by circumstances and surroundings, and is
possessed of certain aspirations, desires, and affec
tions nor be special “ to those who are possessed of
spiritual faculties involving a consciousness of a world
unseen, with unlimited capacities for intellectual and
moral progress, and of intense affection for relatives
and friends which can only be satisfied with a con
tinuance in heaven and throughout eternity.”
According to this view immortality will be
restricted to the select few; the danger of such
arguments is seen in the following sentence, which
sums up the writer’s reasons for “ the hope that is in
him.”
“ The love of God, devotion to his will, studious
and painful regard for personal holiness, involving
great self-denial, the love we bear to our families and
friends, all these give promise of a future which can
not well be withheld without compromising the jus
tice and sympathy of God It will redeem man from
despair, it will rescue God’s honour from reproach.”
Now, unless Liberal Protestantism accepts “ that
apple of discord, Revelation,” what'is known of God’s
justice, sympathy, honour ? These are all gratuitous
assumptions, and to arraign this “ unknown Power ”
at the bar of man’s justice seems to us nothing less
than blasphemy against a “Mightier than ourselves.”
Surely Lucretius, the famous philosopher who
made the subject of death and immortality his great
study, had in view some such arguments as the fore
going, when he says : “ The gate of death therefore
is not shut against the mind and soul, and even if
the substance of the mind and the powers of the soul
after they have been separated from our body still
�What is It ?
J3 .
retain their faculties, it is nothing to us who subsist
only as conjointly constituted by an arrangement and
union of body and soul. Nor if time should collect
our material atoms after death and restore them
again as they are now placed, and the light of life be
given back to us, would it yet at all concern us that
this were done when the recollection of our existence
has once been interrupted ? ” And regarding “the
love we bear our families and friends, which gives
promise of a future reunion,” hear Lucretius. “ For
men now say your pleasant home shall no more re
ceive you, nor your excellent wife, nor shall your
dear children run to snatch kisses; unhappily one
adverse day has taken from you, unfortunate man, all
the numerous blessings of life“ in such remarks they
do not add this,” “ nor now, moreover, does any regret
for these things remain with you.” Which truth, if
men would well consider in their thoughts and adhere
to it in their words, they would “ relieve themselves
from much anxiety and fear of mind.” According to
Lucretius, “ the matter of which thou art made is
wanted by nature, that succeeding generations may
grow from it; all which, however, when they have
passed their appointed term of life, will follow thee ;
and so have other generations before these fallen into
destruction, and other generations, not less certainly
than thyself, shall fall. Thus shall one thing never
cease to rise from another, and thus is life given to
none in possession, but to all only for use.” And
thus, we may add, is there “eternal resurrection from
the dead.”
Liberal Protestantism boasts that not only is it a
religion, but “the religion of the future,” which is to
“bridge the chasm between orthodoxy and unbelief;
true religion as distinguished from false, namely, that
which unites the soul to God.” This God who by
one section is described as “ the tendency that makes
for righteousness,” by another, as not only “Father,
�14
Liberal Protestantism :
but Mother,” and by Dr. Lang as “ that something
distinct from the world as ‘ the thought from the
brain.’ ” We agree with a writer in the Libre Lecherche,
who says, “ The more we seek to define the precise
idea of ‘ religion,’ passing in review all that has been
decorated with that title, the more we seem to ap
proach the Tower of Babel at the moment of confu
sion of tongues. The hideous touches the sublime,
and the grotesque mixes with the tragic; if we ex
amine this question by the light of the facts experi
ence offers us, under cover of this fine word we shall
find ourselves greatly embarrassed to reply.” The
author of the Cours d’Histoire, Monsieur Guizot, asks :
“At what does religion aim, of whatever sort it be ?
It pretends to govern the human will and human
passions, and in order to accomplish this task religion
must make itself acceptable to liberty. Religion has
too often mistaken her role, has considered liberty as
an obstacle, not as a means, and has by this error
nearly always ranged itself on the side of power and
despotism against human liberty, looking upon it as
an adversary to vanquish rather than as something
precious to guarantee.” Monsieur Leblois also asks :
“ To what does true religion tend ? to the happiness of
mankind ? She should render individuals, families,
nations happy; it is the light that should shine for
them, the power that should stimulate them to fulfil
their mission in the short passage between life and
death. All religions that do not fulfil these condi
tions for man are a danger.”
This Liberal Protestant, like Monsieur Guizot, has
his ideal religion, and warns his readers “ not to con
found it with the traditional dogmatic system, nor
condemn in the name of religion what is entirely con
trary to it.” And yet we are told by Dr. Lang that
every religion requires three elements, one of which
is “ rational dogma.”
We do not quarrel with Liberal Protestantism for
�What is It 2
15
this programme—“ Point de dogme, point de Cal
vinism, point de confession de foi,” or for propound
ing “ as alone necessary two principles, neither the
Deity of Christ nor original sin, nor expiatory sacri
fice, only l’amour de Dieu et l’amour des hommes.”
But having divested the ancient faith of all its pillars,
having eliminated from Christianity its fundamental
doctrines, we do quarrel with it that, while main
taining these two principles “ as columns of the uni
versal Temple,” it also declares them “ the founda
tion-stones of Christianity.” “ The love of God and
the love of men” are the foundation principles of
Humanitarianism, not Christianism, unless it be the
Christianity of Liberal Protestants !
It is all very well to manipulate a creed to suit
one’s ideas of what it ought to be, but we must again
quote the orthodox Catholic, Mr. Oxenham. “ No
portion of Christian revelation stands alone or can
be ignored, still less denied, without the denial react
ing on other truths intended to be retained.”
Deny “ Eternal Punishment,” and where is the
Atonement ? Deny the “ Resurrection,” and where
is the authority for “ Immortality ?” Deny the
second person of the “ Trinity,” and where is the
first or the third ?
We opened this paper with a problem which, having
failed to solve, we leave for our readers—What is
Liberal Protestantism ?—and record our opinion that,
eschewing all Biblical and Christian dogma and doc
trine, it has “neither a religion, a creed, nor a
gospel.”
FBINTED BY C. W. RBYNELL, LITTLE PVLTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Liberal protestantism: what is it?
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Signed "J.W.". Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT192
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
J.W.
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 (Liberal protestantism: what is it?), 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
Christianity
Conway Tracts
Protestantism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/73b0c8d8ba0d0859f1ea3036a537a55c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=h6PT5pPMJY5AlZYWEIoYym2pDOgAmPUQyqLnGPMkRbsiVq4VLi-xWz%7EdemJsrpiC-fthd0i2XuV9cWNzK14jsXEun8i1p18ORu5LbIRb3yzjb9UhYDh8THhUiGrm8F9Q24k1y3fkQVaYm%7EHlnk6si6bsekhoOeSjlo9IjvMBoeqIHBcz4APnR3bm72ZwYWbr537iAYrJdgZSytpoMIClCAAgWrM%7Es0vFI99NP7eSRNFjBfVYwbSlmrEXsVwB931XvL7zY4yoOMQcR-GR8rnTDpbX0SWOL45nsQGHCKdX7YXJ98bVNyMgebf8ZQSscd%7EPAoUr986GbNIYCTXgH7CJHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f1b8c5aef115b17307681385a03d9ddc
PDF Text
Text
INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY
THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIANITY
AND OF PROTESTANTISM.
BY
JOHN ROBERTSON,
AUTHOR OF “THE FINDING OF THE BOOK.”
“ The Christianity of Christ is not one thing, and human nature another;—
it is human Virtue, human Religion, man in his highest moments; the effect
no less than the cause of human development, and can never fail till man
ceases to be man.”—Theodore Parker.
“ The simple believeth every word; but the prudent man looketh well to
his going.”—Solomon.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
�“Far, very far be it from any devout mind, out of an unwarranted,
unreasonable, and most unnecessary jealousy, to arrest or stay the progress
of inquiry, or look with a timid and suspicious eye on any honest efforts
made to extend and diffuse the knowledge of nature. The. upright search
after truth can never be dangerous to him who lovingly engages in it, or dis
honourable to Him who is the God of truth. All scope is given to inquiry
into all the wonders, whether of the material world without, or of the moral
world within. It is your dignity, and duty so to inquire. You are men,
and you are commanded to be men in understanding. As men, you may
assert your privilege of investigating all the works of your Creator; and in
doing so, you are to follow truth whithersoever it may lead. You are not
constituted the judges of consequences and results. Your business is with the
facts and principles of truth itself. You are not to determine what should
be, or what might be,—you are to discover what is. This is the course be
coming alike the power and the infirmity of reason. Within this limit you
tread surely and safely. Cast aside, then, all alarm as to what may follow
from, your inquiries. Only prosecute these inquiries with due caution, and
put them fairly and faithfully together, so as to ascertain real facts and
draw none but legitimate conclusions. And we may fearlessly ran the
hazard of any inferences which they may suggest, confident that they will
all tend to shed new light and lustre on the wisdom in which the Lord hath
made all his manifold works.”—Dr Candlish, in “Reason and Revelation,"
pp. 139, 140.
“ Every one declares against blindness, and yet who almost is not fond of
that which dims his sight, and keeps the clear light out of his mind, which
should lead him into truth and knowledge? False or doubtful positions,
relied upon as unquestionable maxims, keep those in the dark from truth
who build on them. Such are usually the prejudices imbibed from educa
tion, party, reverence, fashion, interest, &c. This is the mote which every
one sees in his brother’s eye, but never regards the beam in his own. For
who is there almost that is ever brought fairly to examine his own prin
ciples, and see whether they are such as will bear the trial? But yet this
should be one of the first things every one should set about, and be scrupul
ous in, who would rightly conduct his understanding in the search of truth
and knowledge.”—John Locke.
�INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY
THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIANITY
AND OF PROTESTANTISM.
--------- ♦---------
PROPOSE an experiment. Before reading my
next sentence, I invite those who favour me with
their attention to write down, or to think out, as I
have just now been trying to do, such a general defi
nition and explanation of the word Priest, as shall
*
fairly describe, and apply to, most or all of the dif
ferent varieties of men, to whom the word is appli
cable.
Those who have done so may now compare their
definition with mine, and see whether they at all
agree or totally differ, and whether they contradict
or supplement each other.
The definition which I propose is, that a priest is
an officer or minister of a traditional or authorita
tive, and national or corporate, religious institution;
and, as such, his distinctive mission is to be an
exponent or advocate of a religious system or creed,
I
* “ Our word Priest is corrupted of Presbyter. Our
ancestors, the Saxons, first used Preostre, whence by further
contraction came Preste and Priest. The high and low
Dutch have Priester; the French Prestre; the Italian
Prete; but the Spaniard only speaks full Presbytero.”—
Packardson's English Dictionary.
�4
Reason and the Bible.
inculcating the belief or observance of certain dogmas
or ceremonies, as the fundamental and indispensable
condition of merit, privilege, and welfare, here or
hereafter.
The language of the consistent priest is never—
‘ Come, up hither. Open your eyes, look around, and
behold and judge for yourselves, as I judge for
myself, the goodness, the truth, and the reality, or
the wickedness, the falsehood, and the delusion of
those things to which I shall direct your attention,
and which I shall endeavour to make you understand.’
But his language is, ‘ Stand down. If you wish to be
regarded as a brother, and as a worthy member of
the church or of the community, you must not place
any reliance on the guidance of your own reason in
those matters which I instruct you to regard as
settled by the supreme authority; nor must you take
the liberty to investigate for yourself the evidences
of correctness and reality; but you must be content
to receive, with faithful and entire submission of the
intellect, the doctrines, the ceremonies, or the book,
which I hold out to you authoritatively as the revealed
Will or Word of God; and you must, in like manner,
faithfully accept and adhere to that interpretation or
application of what God has revealed, which has
been sanctioned by the traditions of the institution,
or by the institution itself, whose officer I am, as the
only true interpretation or application thereof, and
therefore as the rule and guide of your belief, wor
ship, and life.’ *
Reason is never invited by the priest to criticize,
test, and candidly weigh the evidence for and against
the authority to which he appeals. That authority
* “ The whole order of the clergy are appointed by God to
pray for others, to be ministers of his priesthood, to be
followers of his advocation, to stand between God and the
people, and to present to God all their needs, and all their
desires. Bishop Taylor, Sermon 6.
�Reason and the Bible.
5
is assumed to be supreme, and therefore above reason,
and beyond the reach of argument, commanding
absolutely the believing assent, with or without the
rational verdict, of all men to whom it comes, and in
some cases not even hesitating to doom, for their
unbelief, those who never heard of it.
*
The one fundamental argument of the priest, on
which his entire system of belief is based, is—Thus
saith the Oracle, or, Thus it is written. The truthful
ness of the oracle or of the writing, as well as of the
priestly or traditional interpretation, is postulated,
not proved. The priest does not profess to have,
but professes not to require, for himself or for
others, such evidence and arguments in support of
what he inculcates, as to secure the ratifying and
approving verdict of the unprejudiced inquiring
mind. His appeal is not primarily to the reason
and conscience of men, but to their prejudices and
emotions, such as those which arise from the influ
ence of traditions and customs, or from habitual
veneration and attachment to some external symbol
or standard of authority, such as a Church, a Pope,
an oracle, an image, or a book. He may, indeed,
welcome with approval, and may even condescend to
employ, a selection of evidences and arguments in sup
port of the supreme authority to which he appeals j
but such support is only regarded at the most as
secondary and subsidiary, and is never represented
by the consistent priest as the primary and essential
basis, on which to found and establish the supremacy
What are they that imbrace the gospell but sonnes of
God ? AV hat are churches but his families ? Seeing there
fore wee receive the adoption and state of sonnes by their ministrie whom God hath chosen out for that purpose, seeing also
that when, we are the sonnes of God, our continuance is still
vnder their care which were our progenitors, what better
title could there bee given them than the reuerend name
of presbyters, or fatherly guidesZfooto- Eccl. Pol.,
b. v., s. 78.
�6
Reason and the Bible.
of his authoritative standard or oracle. To find or
exhibit any evidence or argument against the genuine
ness of this assumed supremacy, is by the priest ac
cordingly denounced as a moral delinquency, a sacri
lege or blasphemy, not to be met with rational
reply and confutation, but to be simply abhorred and
condemned as treason against the Supreme.
The assertion of some supreme external standard
or symbol of authority, being thus the distinc
tive and fundamental doctrine of every priest, it
follows unavoidably that he practically assumes infal
libility for himself, or for the institution whose views
he expresses ; because he requires his assertion to be
believed without being tested, by the submission, and
not by the free action and verdict of reason, and be
cause he ignores or denies the right of reason to
investigate and to weigh impartially the evidence
and arguments on all sides, and so to judge of the
truth or falsehood—the certainty or uncertainty of
the supreme authority asserted by him. It is mani
fest that the supreme authority, thus dogmatically
and authoritatively ascribed to a book or to anything
external and apart from individual reason, not being
based upon the free appreciation of its intrinsic and
demonstrable merits and evidences, is practically
and truly based upon some other assumed authority,
to which reason is required to bow. It is impos
sible to get out of the dilemma, however much
sophistry may be employed to disguise it. The
man who declares to other men that a book or other
external thing is a revelation, and that its autho
rity is above reason, practically claims for himself
infallibility and supreme authority on that point, and,
by necessary logical implication, on all points.
If the supreme authority of the book, or other ex
ternal thing, is based on the manifest or provable
truthfulness and harmony of all that it attests, or
upon the clearness and completeness of all the evi
�Reason and the Bible.
7
dence regarding it, then reason must be invited and
employed to scrutinize its purport and its claims, in
order that these qualities may be ascertained and re
cognised. But if all such rational tests be rejected,
there is only one other ground that can possibly be
taken, and that is an appeal to another external autho
rity for support to the first. The claims of the high
est authority must either rest upon the manifestation
to reason of its evidence and merits, or else upon an
other authority behind it; and, in either case, that
which is appealed to must be at least equal in dignity
to that which it has to sustain. Perfection cannot be
rationally inferred where imperfection is discerned;
neither can infallibility be sufficiently attested by
aught that is fallible, nor supreme authority by aught
that is not itself supreme.
I conceive that thus far these remarks and reflec
tions have been so framed as to be fairly applicable
to the priests of many and widely different religions,
ancient and modern, as well as to those of popular
Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant. But my
readers will, of course, have understood that I have
kept the priests of Protestantism especially in view.
The modern Protestant Christian Churches, though
in many speculative inferences and doctrines widely
differing from each other, are generally understood
and represented as, all alike, asserting, appealing to, and
resting on, the infallibility or supreme authority of
the Bible, while renouncing all pretensions to infalli
bility of their own, as Churches or as men. None of
them, so far as I can learn, has ever ventured formally
to declare that the authority of the Church or of tradi
tion, as embodied in the “ Articles of Religion,” the
“Confession of Faith,” or any other “Ecclesiastical
Standard,” is sufficient to establish, and to impose
upon the human conscience, the duty of believing the
infallibility or supreme authority of the Bible,
or indeed the duty of believing any doctrine
�8
Reason and the Bible.
whatever. On the contrary, it is expressly declared
by every Protestant Church, that no Church is
infallible,—that Synods and Councils have erred,
and are Hable to err, from which the inference is
direct and inevitable, that any doctrine, resting
merely on such authority, ought to be held subject to
the free investigation, reconsideration, and inde
pendent judgment, not only of all succeeding synods
and councils, but of every individual who has light
enough to discern the vast difference, which dis
tinguishes faith in God and in truth from faith in
the faith of other men. And yet, with gross inconsis
tency and self-contradiction, partly in the several
ecclesiastical “ Standards,” but much more glaringly
in the ministrations of very many priests, the idea is
constantly inculcated, and therefore of course it
is widely entertained, that the traditional dogmas
of the Churches are indisputable and infallible, at
least on those points which are considered funda
mental and essential, and especially on this point, viz.
the supreme authority of the Bible; and that it is
blasphemous presumption for any inquirer to subject
their assertion on this point to rational investigation,
and to the free judgment of his individual reason.
*
They who are fallible are continually asserting that
the Bible is the holy, authoritative, infallible, Word
of God; and that no man is at liberty to form a dif* “Orthodoxy, finding itself unsafe in the domains of
argument, flies towards those of moral sentiments ; and just
at the moment when it might be expected to surrender, it
turns sharply round, and boldly charges reason with sin.
This is an alarming charge. Before this moral discovery, we
exerted our reason to the utmost of our power, confident
that we had no spiritual danger to fear : now, most unfortu
nately, we are made to suspect that our sin may be great in
proportion to the power of our arguments. What indeed, in
common language, we call pride, is usually connected with
power, and the existence of the latter is for most people, a
pretty strong presumption of the presence of the former.
It must therefore happen, that, when reason is accused of
�Reason and the Bible.
9
ferent opinion, nor has a right to investigate, nor
freely to discuss the evidence for and against their
assertion-, but that every man is bound to submit his
reason to that supreme authority above reason, which
they assert that the Bible rightfully claims and pos
sesses. Those who do so are driven to employ any
amount of sophistry to conceal from others and per
haps even from themselves the plain logical fact, that
to assert in this absolute way the infallibility or
supremacy of the Bible, and the imperative duty of
human reason bowing to its teaching, is really and
practically to assert the infallibility or supreme au
thority of the Church, or of the man, by whom such
assertion is made.
This absurd and self-condemned position appears
to be at present held, in some degree, by every Pro
testant Church. But far beyond the comparatively
mild and half-concealed absurdity of any Protestant
Confession, very many of those clergymen and clerical
men, who delight to be called “ orthodox,” habitually
state and vindicate this “ Gospel of Unreason ” in all
its barefaced breadth of boldness and inconsistency.
The attempt has indeed been often made, by rea
soning against reason, to reconcile freedom of thought
with intellectual submission to the Bible; “to re
concile Reason and the Bible,” by so displaying and
enhancing all available internal and external evi
dence in support of the Bible, and by so ignoring
pride, the charge will appear .already more than half sub
stantiated, if reason has been too hard for the opponents.
Power of any kind, unless it can reward and punish to a cer
tain degree, is not an enviable possession. I have no doubt
that if a sin, to be called pride of sight, had been as neces
sary to some influential class, as the pride of reason is to
the orthodox parties all over the world; every long and
sharp-sighted man, who wished to live in peace, and avoid
the scandal of discovering things which his neighbours either
could or would not see, would now be obliged to wear
spectacles.”—Observations on Heresy and Orthodoxy, by the
Rev. Jos. Blanco White.
�IO
Reason and the Bible.
and disparaging, or endeavouring to explain away,
all internal and external evidence of an opposite
kind, as to make it appear to many superficial thinkers,
or too willing believers, that the whole is in harmony
with every part, that all its doctrines and statements
are in perfect accordance with the evidence and
with each other, and that all the relative evidence
will bear the strictest investigation, being such as,
when justly weighed, will carry complete conviction
to every honest candid mind, appealing to the serious,
upright exercise of unprejudiced human reason, and
thus meriting and commanding the approving and
ratifying verdict of all but those who are too stupid
or too wicked to give it proper attention.
So long as the belief in the Bible was an honest
and sincere belief, such was the reasoning, variously
illustrated, by which that belief was sustained and
propagated. Such is the language of the- “ Articles,”
and especially of the “ Confession of Faith” :—
Confession i. 5. “ We may be moved and induced by
the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend
esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the
matter, the efficacy of the- doctrine, the majesty of the
style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole
(which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it
makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other
incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof,
are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
itself to be the Word of God.”
Such was the language of the Reformers in the six
teenth century, and of the great Protestant divines
in the seventeenth. Listen to Richard Hooker, one
of the most learned and gifted theological writers of
the post-Reformation period :—
“ Judge you of that which I speak, saith the apostle.
In vain it were to speak anything of God, but that by
reason, men are able somewhat to judge of what they hear,
and by discourse to- discern how consonant it is to truth.
Scripture, indeed, teacheth things above nature, things
�Reason and the Bible.
11
which our reason, by itself, could not reach unto. Yet
those also we believe, knowing by reason that the Scrip
ture is the Word of God............. A number there are who
think they cannot admire as they ought the power and
authority of the Word of God, if in things divine they
should attribute any force to man’s reason ; for which
cause they never use reason so willingly as to disgrace
reason............... By these and the like disputes, an opinion
hath spread itself very far in the world, as if the way to
be ripe in faith were to be raw in wit and judgment; as
if reason were an enemy unto religion, childish simplicity
the mother of ghostly and divine wisdom.”
Or let us consult, upon this subject, William Chil
lingworth, author of the famous work entitled “ The
Beligion of the Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation,”
published in 1637, and of the still more famous say
ing which is so often quoted: “ The Bible, and the
Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants ” :—
“ But you that would not have men follow their reason,
what would you have them follow ? their passions, or
pluck out their eyes and go blindfold ? No, you say ; you
would have them follow authority. In God’s name, let
them : we also would have them follow authority; for it
is upon the authority of universal tradition that we would
have them believe Scripture. But then, as for the authority
which you would have them follow, you will let them see
reason why they should follow it. And is not this to go a
little about—to leave reason for a short turn, and then to
come to it again, and to do that which you condemn in
others ? It being, indeed, A plain impossibility for any
MAN TO ■ SUBMIT HIS REASON BUT TO REASON ; for he that
doth it to authority must of necessity think himself to
have greater reason to believe that authority.”
It is not likely to be denied that these specimens
fairly and fitly represent the distinctive views and
teachings of the Beformers and early Protestant
divines, on reason as the basis of all religious belief,
and on the complete harmony which they conceived
to exist between reason and the Bible. Assuming,
as we well may, that their language is honest and
�12
Reason and the Bible.
sincere, and that they meant exactly what they have
said, it is clear that, as held by them, theirs was a
reasonable faith, and that they did not feel called
upon to settle any visible conflict between the claims
of reason and those of the Bible, nor experience any
difficulty in harmonizing these with each other, and
putting faith in both. Their religious belief was by
them identified with their intellectual conclusion re
garding the authority of the Bible; so that their
utterances on the subject express both the conviction
of their hearts and the rational judgment of their
minds. The same kind of reasoning may even now
be heard from some believers, in whose experience
these two things still go together, and from some
others who wish to make it appear that they find it so.
But the conflict which then slumbered, being
apparently unsuspected by religious men in those
days, has been since then steadily growing in urgency
and importance, exactly in proportion to the increas
ing diffusion of knowledge and general progress of
intelligence, until it has now become difficult to
find an intelligent thinking man who believes, as
the Reformers did, in both Reason and the Bible,
as harmonizing together, and mutually supporting
each other. The conflict has, in recent times, and
especially of late, become so manifest and notorious,
that a profession of faith, in the old alliance or com
promise of the two rival claims, now suggests ignor
ance, imbecility, or wilful deception; and the ordinary
experience of an inquirer is accordingly very different
from what it formerly was, for he finds that the
question fronting him no longer admits of any but
an alternative and one-sided solution ; so that, if he
does not shirk it altogether, and remain indifferent
or in suspense, he must decide for himself whether
his reason shall be subjected to the Bible, or whether
the Bible shall be subjected to his reason.
The reconciliation of the two is a task very seldom
�Reason and the Bible.
13
now undertaken for the public, or accomplished by
individuals for themselves, except by the uninformed,
the shallow-minded/ or the unthinking. Easy-going,
peace-loving clergymen may sometimes still be heard
trying it in the pulpit; but it has almost ceased to
appear in print, the advocates on both sides appear
ing to be nearly unanimous on this one point, that
such an undertaking is now hopelessly difficult, and
that a genuine reconciliation is henceforth impossible,
on any conditions short of the subjection of one
claimant to the supremacy of the other.
It is, therefore, not my purpose to enter here upon
an examination of the various methods of reconcilia
tion which have been suggested. Some of them are
utterly absurd, and even ridiculous; and it is safe to
say that none of them can have any plausibility be
yond what may be purchased by the free employment
of sophistry and assumption, tricks which, until
recent times, were comparatively safe from detection
and exposure, though it is gradually becoming more
difficult and more hazardous to employ them.
One of the latest and ablest attempts of this kind,
that of the late Dean Alford, in his “New Testament
for English Readers,” which may fairly be regarded as
embodying the best and most plausible features of all
previous attempts to effect the desired reconciliation,
has been most skilfully and completely sifted and
exploded in previous pamphlets of this series, which
probably most of my readers have seen, and which
any of them may easily procure.
*
My intention is to deal here only with the plead
ings and pretensions of those more numerous (at
least in Scotland), and in their own way more con
sistent, advocates of the Bible, who apparently do
not believe, as the old Protestant divines and the
* “Commentators and Hierophants,” Parts I. and II.
price Sixpence each. See list on the last page of this
pamphlet.
�14
Reason and the Bible.
Westminster Assembly did, in the possibility and
duty of the reconciliation, and who do not even seem
to desire it, preferring to insist, .as honest true Pro
testants never did, upon the absolute surrender and
submission of Reason to the Bible.
Those who hold the views which these advocates
express have, apparently without knowing it, as
completely departed in one direction from the stand
point of the men of the Reformation, as those who
require the submission of the Bible to Reason have
departed from it in another and opposite direction.
Both parties alike have felt compelled to settle the
question one way or another. Neither party has
found it possible to harmonize the conflicting claims,
nor to find any satisfaction in compromising them.
The one party has decided one way, and the other
another way, that question which the Reformers did
not take up, and did not feel called upon to settle.
Let neither of these parties be deluded with the idea
that they are maintaining the standpoint of the Re
formers with regard to the Bible. That standpoint
was, as they clearly tell us, the then generally admitted
harmony and agreement of Reason and the Bible. If we
only try seriously to imagine such men as the old
Protestant Reformers compelled, as both of the parties
in question have been compelled, to abandon that
standpoint, to acknowledge the irreconcilable anta
gonism of the two, and to take the one side or the
other, by deciding for themselves whether their reason
should submit to be judged by the Bible, or the
Bible to be judged by their reason ; we can scarcely
fail to understand which side ought to be taken by
true Protestants now, and which side savours more of
the old Popish superstition.
It has of late been remarked by many, that, instead
of grappling with, and undertaking to refute, in the
pulpit or in the press, any or all of the really formid
�Reason and the Bible.
15
able and increasing arguments of objectors,—those
who maintain the traditional dogma, that the Bible
is the Word of God, have for some time past, almost
without exception, been timidly affecting to treat
the arguments with silent contempt, while at the
same time treating the persons, by whom these argu
ments are urged, with wrathful condemnation instead
of any reply.
It is usual for them to say that none of these
arguments or objections are new, which, nevertheless,
some of them are, though surely age alone is no dis
honour ; and that they have all been, long ago, hun
dreds of times, satisfactorily answered. The ex
planation of which appears to be, that when the
minds of men were more easily satisfied with such
answers as might still be given, there was no lack of
satisfactory answers. Whether this sufficiently ex
plains it or not, the phenomenon is notorious, that
the arguments of the objectors are from day to day
becoming more general, more formidable, and more
convincing than ever; while the arguments in reply,
as distinguished from the mere denunciations by the
maintainers, are becoming more and more obsolete,
impotent, and worthless; so much so, that they seem
to have very much escaped the notice or memory of
both parties alike. Unquestionably, however, there
have been, and must have been, plenty of “ sound
orthodox” arguments and replies, which may have
done good service to their employers in their own
day and generation, though these might now have an
effect quite opposed to that which they were formerly
understood to have; because the question now agi
tating men’s minds is comparatively A new question,
to which the old arguments and replies cannot be
easily adapted, having been originally addressed to
the reason; whereas men would now employ them
to reason against reason—a peculiarly delicate task !
There was a time when a very distinguished
�16
Reason and the Bible.
Father of the Church, the earliest distinct witness
for the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, could
argue with acceptance that there must be four Gos
pels, and only four, because—there were four winds,
and four elements, and four beasts in the vision of
Ezekiel! Such an argument is of no use now.
There was a time, not so long ago, when it was
generally considered satisfactory to argue that, as
God’s ancient people were commanded to extirpate
heretics, and to destroy them utterly, so it was
clearly the duty of God’s people still to do the same
thing; and the stake, or the dungeon, or some suffi
cient penalty, was deemed by Catholics and Protes
tants alike, as it had been deemed by the Jews of
old, the most appropriate answer to all sorts of ob
jections. Such arguments are now out of date, at
least in this part of the world.
There has been a time, not yet gone by, though
we may hope that it is now gradually passing away,
when, beyond “ the three mechanical P’s,” the whole
idea of ordinary education has been, to furnish the
mind of the pupil with a complete panoply of stereo
typed ideas and ready-made conclusions, handed
down by tradition, regarding every branch of know
ledge, as well as regarding religion and the Bible.
It is only now, or of late years, that the idea has
begun to prevail, and no doubt is very rapidly
spreading, that, instead of merely cramming the
mind with assertions and dogmas, the far nobler
aim of education ought to be, the instruction and
training of each individual in the separate personal
use of his own mental faculties, by calling these
faculties constantly into exercise upon his own ex
perience and observation, as well as upon all his
lessons and studies, which for children ought to be
selected and directed by teachers or guardians,
having the principle of intellectual liberty rooted
in their hearts, and keeping that principle steadily
in view.
�Reason and the Bible.
17
The foremost educationists are now striving to1
discover the most effectual methods of accustoming
the young mind to think, to reflect, to investigate,
to compare, and to test everything for itself, search
ing everywhere, and always, for truthfulness and
reality, so that it may learn to know and understand
the certainty, or the certain doubtfulness, of every
thing in which it is instructed; and, above all, that
it may, as it ripens, become acquainted with its own
natural inherent right to judge for itself of the good
or evil, the truth or falsehood, the certainty or un
certainty of everything to which its attention may
be directed; of which right, at least in several of its
most important applications, the vast majority of
minds have hitherto been trained in profound prac
tical ignorance, thinly veiled, if veiled at all, by a
few fine-sounding phrases about the reverence or
respect due to this or that authority.
There cannot be a doubt about it, that a great
change in this direction, is coming gradually over
the whole united nation. There is at present a very
distinct prospect and intention of improvement. We
really do seem to be making a fresh start onwards
towards liberty and light. It is indeed both a grand
and a true thing to say, in the prophetic words of
our greatest orator,. John Bright,—“ I think I see,,
as it were, above the hill-tops of time, the glimmer
ing of the dawn of a better day, for the people and
the country that I love so well! ” It may seem rather
sanguine, but no longer seems chimerical, to hope
that even a middle-aged man may live to see the'
children of the people trained, each in the knowledge
and use of his or her birthright as one of God’s chil
dren,—the birthright of liberty,—complete freedom
of reason tod of conscience,—the very liberty which
the “Sons of God ” and “ enlightened ones ” have in
all ages striven, and often sacrificed themselves in
the attempt, to make mankind understand and use
B
�18
Reason and the Bible.
as their own. This is at once the scientific and the
truly Protestant, because truly Christian idea of edu
cation,—the education of the future,—a religious,
moral, and intellectual education.
Surely it would be an evidence of blind delusion,
or else of gross presumption and falsehood, were any
man to say that this aspiration is evil, or to condemn
it with opprobrious epithets as scepticism and infi
delity. It is the result and expression of Faith,—
religious faith in God, in Goodness, and in Truth, as
revealed to the inquiring mind, chiefly through the
contrasts drawn and discerned, between these intel
lectual conceptions on the one hand, and atheism,
idolatry, falsehood, or evil, on the other, by the free
and serious exercise of Reason—God’s gift for man’s
guidance, the conscientious verdict of which may
well be called, figuratively, “the Word of God” to
each individual. As to the duty or advantage of
faith in the faith of other men, whether these men be
the ancient authors of the Bible, or their more un
reasonable modern expounders, call me sceptic, or
infidel if you will:—only let the distinction which is
here drawn be clearly understood.
We may read the 145th Psalm, for example, with
intense appreciation of the sublime religious thought
which its stanzas express, and our minds may well
be filled with admiration and delight, especially when
due emphasis is laid upon the word “ ALL,” which
frequently recurs and appears to be the key-note of
the piece. If there be anything in the Psalm, such as
the phrase at the close of the 19th verse,—“ All. the
wicked will he destroy,”—which may seem to jar against
or contradict the rest, surely we may freely try to
interpret for ourselves the mind of the poet, so as to
harmonize the apparent discord, as by reflecting that
he has just before expressed his faith in God, as good
to ALL, upholding ALL that fall, and raising up ALL those
that be bowed down, and that therefore the meaning
�Reason and the Bible.
19
of what is said about the wicked must be, that God
will destroy or bring to an end all their wicked
ness, and thus raise up all those whom even their
own wickedness has caused to fall or to be bowed
down, so that there shall be no more any wicked.
Such liberties are taken by all commentators on the
Bible, under the guise of interpretation; but in
reality it is putting one set of words in place of
another ; and we may just as consistently altogether
reject the jarring note, either because we may not be
able to harmonize it with the rest, or because we may
find that its acceptance would upset all our ideas of
intellectual and moral perfection of character, as at
tributed to the “ Father of the spirits of all flesh/’ and
that it is therefore incredible or unintelligible to us.
This Psalm in a high degree, like every other lesson
in its own degree, becomes a revelation to our minds,
just in proportion to the clearness and force of the
free judicial verdict, which our reason and conscience
may be thereby stimulated and assisted to arrive at
regarding those matters which, to our minds, it illus
trates, or brings before our view.
Let us never forget, what it is mere priestcraft to
deny, that it is every man’s inalienable right, and his
duty, so far as it may be opportunely in his power,
as a man, as a Christian, and as a Protestant, to in
vestigate, examine, and judge every portion of the
Bible, as well as every other item of his information
and experience, and to arrive at his own individual
conclusions, with entire fulness of mental freedom.
The serious, honest, and deliberate exercise of this
freedom, is at least one true and real meaning of the
figurative phrase,—“ Faith in the Word of God,”__
which is a quite intelligible way of expressing a re
ligious. man’s experience of it ■ as are also the less
figurative phrases,
true wisdom,” “good under
standing,
liberation of the intellect,” “ rational
belief.”
�20
Reason and the Bible.
It is not improbable that some may condemn these
views, or protest against them, as seeming “ to exalt
reason to the place of God;" but the position here
maintained is merely that Reason is the faculty or
instrument with which God has endowed us, by the
proper personal use of which, alone, it is possible for
any of us to convert information and experience into
sound knowledge about anything whatever.
Those who may say that it is “ spiritual pride” and
“presumption” thus to test everything by the verdict
of Reason, ought to be reminded that, in so far as
Reason may be set aside, the only other test which
can possibly be substituted for it is that of our own
sentiments or emotions, such as veneration, esteem,
attachment, or fear; and this ought to make them
pause and reflect, before venturing to affirm that such
things as these ought to control our Reason, instead
of being regulated and controlled thereby; because,
in the clear and strong words of Archbishop Whately,
the humiliation of Reason which they require “ is a
prostration, not of ourselves before God, but of one
part of ourselves before another part; and there is
surely at least as much presumption in measuring
everything by our own feelings, fancies, and preju
dices, as by our own reasonings.” *
It is beyond a question, that there has of late been
a vast increase of open and avowed opposition to the
dogma, that the Bible, in all its parts and in all its
words, is the Word of God; and, though it is of
course less manifest, it is nearly as certain, that doubt,
unbelief, and silent opposition have increased to an
immeasurably greater extent.
It is also perfectly well known, and quite indisput
able, that the argumentative strength of the opposition
has of late been displayed with very much greater
vigour, fulness, and effect than it ever was in this
* Whately’s Notes to Bacon’s Essay on Truth.
�Reason and the Bible.
21
country before ; partly by the production of new evi
dence, criticism, and arguments ; but chiefly by the
more frequent and more extended publication, read
ing, hearing, and especially understanding, of the old.
With regard to the extent of publication, reading,
and hearing, however, it must be admitted that the
advocates of the dogma have hitherto had, and still
have, an immense advantage over their opponents.
Indeed, they may be said to have had, until recent
years, almost the entire influence of the pulpit, the
press, and the school, on their side ; and the rule is
clearly still the same, although the exceptions are
becoming more numerous. It is only in the matter
of understanding that the strength of the opposition
will bear any comparison; and were it not for this,
the Bible party would have no cause for their present
uneasiness and alarm. The assailants of the dogma
are constantly producing evidence and arguments,
which men can understand and feel the force of;
whereas the very few so-called replies, and the very
many assertions and so-called reasonings, of the de
fenders, are either not understood, or else understood
to be powerless.
It would be cumbrous, and it is not my plan, to
introduce here any quotations or reproductions of
the abundant evidence and arguments, which go to
prove that the dogma is false. Most of my readers
are, probably, in some measure acquainted with them;
and I cannot, for the present, do better than refer the
inquirer on this head to Mr Thomas Scott’s series of
publications, a list of which will be found at the end
of this pamphlet, nearly all bearing directly on the
point.
I prefer here to invite attention to the startling
effect, which the recent attacks of the comparatively
few assailants have had upon the attitude of the
vastly more numerous defenders of the dogma, and
to a few brief illustrations of the mode in which these
�22
Reason and the Bible.
attacks are being met, by some of the most zealous
champions of what is called “ orthodoxy.”
I have already observed how remarkably rare has
become the inclination of these champions to deal
with rational argument, and how chary they generally
are about grappling with the arguments of their op
ponents. Among those who are altogether innocent
of reasoning about the matter, are to be found the
most unrestrained shouters of anathema against the
objectors, whose objections they studiously evade.
They bewail the manifest increase of free thought
among their people, attributing all sorts of evil
motives to those who openly profess it, and proclaim
ing that “ God will surely punish" those who deny the
supreme authority of the Scriptures, but neverattempt
ing a word of rational reply or refutation.
Does any one doubt it, or think this exaggeration 1
There is abundance of evidence at hand, from which
only a few selections can here be made. Doubtless,
many of my readers are familiar with it. There is
even a strong probability, though the experiment has
not yet been tried, that, in Scotland at least, and I
suppose not in Scotland alone, the specimens, which
I am to quote, would be pronounced “ sound” and
“ orthodox” by the majority of clergymen of all deno
minations. Not a few might perhaps say that they
exemplify “ a somewhat indiscreet advocacy of the truth,”
or that they are decidedly “rather too orthodox;” but
it is very doubtful, whether any considerable num
ber of those who are included under the name Priest,
as defined in the beginning of this tract, would choose
to characterize these things as they deserve, viz.,, as
arrogant Popish assertions and malignant unchristian
calumnies, irreconcilable with reason, truth, and
evidence.
A lecture, addressed to the Students of Divinity,
at the opening of the Free Church College, Glasgow,
�Reason and the Bible.
in November 1870, by the Rev. Dr Gibson, Professor
of Divinity and Church History, on “ Some Present
Aspects of Religious Opinion,” supplies the following
*
illustrations.
“ The more conscience is enlightened by the religion of
Christ as the Great Prophet of His Church—in other words,
by the Bible, the revelation of His Holy Spirit—the more
do the principles of Christianity find in it an approving
response. Hence Paul says, 2 Cor. iv. 2 : ‘ By manifesta
tion of the truth commending ourselves to every man's con
science in the sight of God;' not to every man’s conscience
or reason as the supreme authority to judge, or—as heralded
by a candidate for notoriety in our city—the absolute and
divine authority of reason, conscience, and love as ‘the only
ground of faith,’ but the absolute authority of God in what
He reveals and commands, and to which reason and con
science are bound to submit. ( If they do not, it is at the
peril of the poor mortal who refuses, and puts his poor
reason and conscience and love, small and variable as his
love is, on a level with the authority of the God of truth
and holiness and love. This manifestation of truth to
every man’s conscience as in the sight of God, so as to
leave him without excuse, can be shown of every one of
the doctrines and precepts of Scripture.”
It is not a little surprising that Dr Gibson should
quote these words of Paul, in support of the dogma
that “ reason and conscience are bound to submit ” to the
doctrines and precepts of Scripture, as to “ the abso
lute authority of God in what He reveals and com
mands.” Why ? Because it is that very dogma
against which Paul is there contending, having just
before called the law of Moses “ the ministration of
death,” which, he says, “ is done away.” In contrast
to the deadness of that law, he proposes, by manifes
tation of the truth, to commend his own doctrine to
every man’s conscience. This sounds wonderfully
like appealing to “the authority of reason, conscience,
and love, as the only ground of faith.” But does not
* Published in the “Watchword,” a Free Church Magazine,
for December 1870, and for January 1871.
�24
Reason and the Bible.
the Professor himself virtually make the same appeal,
when he affirms that the truth of every one of the
doctrines and precepts of Scripture can be manifested
to every man's conscience in the sight of God ? It
becomes merely a question of experimental fact, as to
whether or not the assertion will stand the test of
application. Let it be applied, for example, to the
following passages, selected almost at random:—
Exod. xxxii. 27—“ Thus saith the Lord God of
Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go
in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp,
and slay every man his brother, and every man his com
panion, and every man his neighbour.”
Exod. xx. 13—“ Thou shalt not kill.”
Mai. iii. 6—“ I am the Lord ; I CHANGE NOT."
Gen. vi. 6—“ And it repented the Lord that he had
made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his
heart.”
Exod. xxix. 36—“Thou shalt offer every day a
bullock for a sin-offering for atonement.”
Levit. i. 9—“ And the priest shall burn it all on
the altar to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by
fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.”
Jer. vii. 21, 22—“Thus saith the Lord. - I
spake not unto your fathers nor commanded them in the
day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,
concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices.”
Heb. x. 6—“ In burnt offerings and sacrifices for
sin thou hast had no pleasure.”
Acts x. 34—“ God is no respecter of persons.”
Mai. i. 2, 3—-“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?
saith the Lord : yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.”
(“ The children being not yet born.”—Rom. ix. 11-13.)
Gal. v. 22—“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,
peace, gentleness, goodness, faith.”
Jud. xv. 14, 15—“And the Spirit of the Lord
came upon him, and he slew a thousand men.”
Deut. vii. 16—“Thou shalt consume all the people
�Reason and the Bible.
^5
which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine
eye shall have no pity upon them.
1 Sam. xv. 3—“Now go and smite Amalek, and
utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them
not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suclclin/j.”
Isa. i. 18—“Come now and let us reason together,
saith the Lord.”
Rom. ix. 18-21—“ Nay but, 0 man, who art thou
that repliest against God 1” &c.
Mat. xxiii. 2, 3—■“ The Scribes and the Pharisees
sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid
you observe, that observe and do.”
If Dr Gibson really understands how “ the mani
festation of truth to every man’s conscience, as in the
sight of God, so as to leave him without excuse, CAN
BE shown ” of the many such doctrines, precepts,
and contradictions of Scripture as these, it is surely
most desirable, that he should verify his assertion by
showing the manifestation, because few men are
likely to discover it for themselves.
“ Conscience is a creature, therefore a subject, and not a
sovereign, and is under law. What law, and whence does
it proceed? It must rest in, and proceed from Him who is
its Lord. How, then, does He, or has He expressed it?
“Without entering into abstract discussion, I think I
may affirm that it cannot be in natural conscience as man
now exists in the earth. Why so? Because you cannot
survey it in the light of history, of facts, ancient or modern,
either in the most limited or in the widest range either of
time or place, without coming to the conclusion that its
decisions have been so contradictory as to put ‘ darkness for
light and light for darkness, evil for good and good for
evil, bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.’ What, then,
is the expression of His Lordship? and where is it to be
found ? All Christian men must at once say, in the Law of
the Lord revealed in the Bible. It is plain that conscience,
as a subj ect, cannot have a right to rule above its Creator
and Lord. Equally plain is it that this law, if it can be
found, it must obey; in other words, there must be an au
�q.6
Reason and the Bible.
thority. But that authority must be God himself. As
suming that there is a judgment-day, and that man is
responsible for his belief, one can hardly imagine each
mortal man daring to plead, at the great day, his conscience
to determine the judgment of the Most High. The autho
rity, then, must be the authority of God himself. It can
not be anything short of its Lord.
“ It is to this authority I refer when I affirm that a dread,
and consequently a hatred of authority is one present aspect
of religious opinion.”
The argument, here employed against “natural
conscience,” is perfectly good against those who assert
human infallibility or the supreme authority of any
man’s mind, or of any man’s writings, over the minds
of other men. It is, therefore, perfectly good against
the authority claimed for the Bible. Why so? Be
cause we cannot survey the Bible in the light of his
tory and facts, without coming to the conclusion that
its laws, doctrines, and statements are often so con
tradictory as to put darkness for light and light for
darkness, evil for good and good for evil; as witness
the numberless irreconcilable contradictions, which
abound in many parts of it, and even in the Gospels.
*
Natural conscience or reason, when reasonably exer
cised, enables us to discern errors and contradic
tions, and tn draw lessons of wisdom both from
those of other men and from our own, as well as
from those of the Bible.
That which is “affirmed’' about “ dread, and conse
* For countless contradictions, both, historical and doctrinal,
in the Old Testament, I may refer the inquiring reader to
Mr. F. W. Newman’s “History of the Hebrew Monarchy,”
(published by Triibner and Co., London); and I take this
opportunity of acknowledging that the train of argument,
pursued in my own essay on “ The Finding of the Book,” was
suggested and greatly aided by Mr Newman’s most admirable
and instructive work..
For similar criticism of the New Testament, I would refer
especially to “ The Evangelist and the Divine.”—See list on
last page.
�Reason and the Bible.
o.7
quently hatred of authority,” if not purely imaginary,
would require to be supported by evidence showing
to what class of men it applies; because, as regards
such men as Bishop Colenso, Mr Voysey, the authors
of “Essays and Reviews,” or the large class who
sympathise with them, it would be a quite unfounded
calumny to affirm, that they are influenced by “ dread,
and consequently hatred of authority.” It would surely be
both more charitable and more correct to say, that
discovery and rejection offalse authority, proceeding from
the love of truth and the hatred of falsehood, is one
present aspect of religious opinion.
“ Protestantism is not the right in the sight of God to
hold any opinion which each individual pleases, but the
right and duty of every human being to regulate his belief
by the unerring standard of the Holy Scriptures ; and that
God being Lord, and the alone Lord of the conscience, no
man, or set, or combination of men, may resist his authority.
. . . . God’s Word is a law, distinct, intelligible, and
immediate; whereas any other, under whatever guise or
form—the Church, the Pope, the Reason—is a usurpation
of the rights both of God and man.”
When Dr. Gibson says that, if Church, Pope, or
Reason be set up as a law over the individual conscience,
they usurp the rights both of God and man, he utters
a truth which every free man and noble nature
would die to maintain. But then, Reason in this
connection cannot mean a man’s own reason; for it
must be something external to him, as Church and
Pope are.
Not to dwell upon the commonplace absurdity of
imagining that it is in the power of any individual to
believe what he pleases! the question forcibly suggests
itself,—Shall any man, such as Dr Gibson, or shall
any combination of men, such as a Protestant Church,
presume to come between other men and God, by
holding up before them a book, with the assertion
that all are bound to accept it as the Word of God,
�28
Reason and the Bible.
without any evidence, or without any right on their
part to investigate and weigh all available evidence,
—and that if they allow their reason to decide for
themselves individually, whether such assertion is
truthful, credible, uncertain, or false, they are guilty
of “ a usurpation of the rights both of God and man ?”
It would be well for Dr Gibson to ponder over the
following apostolic words :■—“Hast thou faith? Have
IT Tq thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth
not himself in that thing which he alloweth!” (Rom. xiv.
22.)
“Is it bigotry, fanaticism, ecclesiasticism ? Are these
what we wish to defend and establish, as is asserted by great
men and small men? If such things can be justly applied
to the authority of Holy Scripture, we at once say that they
are what we wish to defend and establish. But the asser
tion, by whomsoever made, is a calumny on us, and a blas
phemy against Holy Scripture.” (!) “ The antidote, we
have seen, is the revealed Word of God—the Holy Scrip
tures, to be received and believed, not on the authority of
any man or Church, but on the authority of God himself,
because it is the Word of God" (/) “speaking to us directly
and immediately as a man speaking to his friend. This is
the sure foundation of all belief. If God does speak in His
works, in the conscience, and, above all, in His written.
Word, which is invariable and ‘ endureth for ever,’—all
with His own mouth, or, which is the same thing, by His
own Spirit in His Word, man must listen and obey ; and it
is impious and at man’s peril if he disobey, reason or prate
about inner light or inner consciousness, or spirit of the age,
or public opinion, as he may. Of all the delusions into
which the weak and inexperienced are so apt to fall, none is
greater than that of imagining that running with the tide
is a proof of deep thought, of deep learning, or high courage
and independence. It is the very reverse—a proof of a
weak and slavish spirit that is afraid to stand by the truth
and abide the frown or sneer of men of no higher authority
than itself. Think for yourselves, gentlemen, as against
man ; but beware of thinking for yourselves as against
God.”
In reply to Dr Gibson’s questions, it is sufficient to
�Reason and the Bible.
29
observe that bigotry signifies stubborn adherence to an
unreasonable opinion, and that what he says about
“ blasphemy ” sounds wonderfully like fanaticism, or
excessive and indiscreet zeal.
It would be a grand good thing if all who heard,
and all who may read, the last quoted sentence, would
act upon the advice there given, by thinking for
themselves as against Dr Gibson, or as against any
man who may, like him, dictate dogma in their hear
ing. Scarcely even Dr Gibson will venture to say
that those who do so are therein guilty of thinking
forthemselves “as against God!” On the contrary
it will be, and has been, in many cases, found by in
quirers, that for them to acknowledge all the words
of the Bible to possess the authority of God, would in
volve on their part the quenching or resisting of that
“ Word of God,” which constantly addresses itself to
their reason and conscience in the Books of Creation
and Providence, as well as in the Books of Experience
and History, both past and present, including, of
course, the experience and history of which the Bible
is the vehicle. Just in so far as all these “ Books ”
are observed and studied, will the “Word of God”
which men are often compelled to hear and to obey
even when not listening for it, which can be heard
nowhere but in the reason and conscience of the indi
vidual, and which Dr Gibson also professes to recog
nise, be understood, and its authority be recognised
and acknowledged by Reason.
“ Running with the tide,” as the Professor phrases it,
is, in itself, neither a proof of deep thought and high
courage, nor of the reverse; but is a propensity of
our nature, so strong that good men, and even great
men, have often been led astray by it. In fact it is
much more than probable that this very propensity
restrains many at the present time from thinking
freely, and from saying what they think, about the
Bible. The frown, and sneer, and social intolerance
�3°
Reason and the Bible.
of orthodox people are still powerful enough to be
really dreaded by dependent or timid “ freethinkers;”
for there is no lack of evidence, to prove, that those
bolder ones who do venture to think and to speak
freely, against the unreasonable assertions of the
advocates for the supremacy of the Bible over Rea
son, are not yet “ running with the, tide." It cannot
be denied, however, that there are some signs of
the approaching turning time.
Throughout the whole lecture, there is not the
slightest allusion to evidence, either for or against
the dogma. It would, indeed, appear that, according
to Dr Gibson, all evidence is quite superfluous and
useless or worse; for there is not one single argument
employed by him in support of his dogma, which
does not openly and avowedly rest upon that dogma
itself, as in the passages quoted, and these are the
strongest and most argumentative which I have been
able to select.
It would be amazing, and almost incredible, if it
were not elsewhere so common, to find that an expe
rienced Professor of Church History, and a leading
minister of the Free Church of Scotland, should have,
on such an important occasion, nothing better to say
in support or defence of the dogma which he calls
“ the foundation of all belief," than a mere set of varia
tions upon the words—It is, and it is, and it is, and
you must believe and say that it is, and must never
allow yourself to think that it is not, because it is !
only because it is !
The fair inference from Dr Gibson’s language is,
that he identifies his own opinion with . Revelation.
To dictate dogma, without appealing to evidence, and
without condescending to rational argument upon the
evidence, is to assume infallibility. Dr Gibson mani
festly assumes either that he himself is infallible, or
that he is expressing the opinion of some other
(assumed) infallible man or men, when, regardless of
�Reason and the Bible,
31
evidence and in defiance of reason, he merely asserts
that the Bible is the Word of God. He seems to be
quite unconscious of the absurdity of a Protestant
Divine making his whole system of doctrine rest
upon an assumption of infallibility.
It appears too clearly that the faith professed and
taught by Dr Gibson, and by that very large class of
clerical men whom he may be taken as representing,
is of a radically different kind from that which Jesus
taught his disciples, when he opened, as it is written,
the eyes of their understandings by arousing, instruct
ing, and stimulating them to the consciousness, the
exercise, and the enjoyment of their own duty, right,
and power to judge and to decide by Reason what
they ought to believe, and what they ought not to
believe. Having learned of Jesus, they could no
longer submit their Reason, as they had for many
generations been taught to do, to the traditions and
superstitions of their forefathers and of their priests;
but burst away from the mental yoke of bondage to
these traditions, to these priests, and to the supreme
authority of their old written creed or law, with all
its sacrifices of blood and burnt flesh, to pacify the
wrath and propitiate the favour of a jealous and ter
rible God, whom the law represented as requiring
such sacrifices and delighting in them. We read
that the words of Jesus were quick and powerful,
and that men were astonished at his doctrine, for
that he taught as one having authority, appealing with
all the force of Truth to the hearts and to the minds
of those who understood what he said; and not as the
scribes, who appealed only to chapter, and verse, and
word of their sacred books. Let it be remembered
that the Scribes and Pharisees were not ignorant nor
wicked men, but were the educated, the respectable,
the orthodox, and the synagogue-attending class of
their day, who stood up for the authority of “ God’s
Word ” as opposed to Reason. But the spirit of Jesus
�^2
Reason and the Bible.
they could neither bind nor subdue, though they could
put himself to death; and accordingly we read
that those who became disciples of Jesus were made,
free by the power of the Truth—that they passed
from darkness to marvellous light—from bondage to
liberty—spiritual liberty—mental liberty—the glori
ous liberty of the children of God, whom they ad
dressed, after the example of their elder brother, as
“ Our Father,” worshipping Him only, not with the
signs and symbols of slavish fear and dread, such as
the shedding and sprinkling of blood; but in spirit
and in truth, in confidence and love, as became the
“ Sons of God." There is reason to fear the disciples
of men like Dr Gibson can have little of that exper
ience, which the disciples of Jesus appear so fully to
have enjoyed.
I have already shown that the unreasonable faith
of modern popular Christianity is essentially different
from the orthodox Christian faith of the true prophets
of Protestantism, which was based upon their convic
tion of the entire harmony and agreement of the
Word of God and reason, so that the one voice could
not contradict the other, and so that conflict between
the two, or subjection of the one to the other, was for
them entirely out of the question, liberation and not
submission being then, as always, the experience of
those who listened to the “ still small voice,” and
obeyed the Word of God.
Most of us can now understand that the Reformers
made a critical mistake, in assuming or fancying, as
they manifestly did, that the Bible quite harmonized
with Reason, and that there could be no real conflict
between them, any more than there could be a real
conflict between Reason and the “ Light of Nature,"
which they also recognised as another Word of God.
But we can also understand that they did not err cul
pably, as we judge their opponents to have erred.
They certainly cannot be charged with wilful blindness,
�Reason and the Bible.
33
nor did they ever proclaim the duty of believing the
Bible without investigation, which, on the contrary,
they thought it safe to challenge and invite, by for
mally stating the rational grounds on which their own
belief was based. That to which their reason sub
mitted was tried, judged, and approved by their reason.
Their reason submitted to itself, that is to its own in
terpretation of every Word of God; and all other
submission of Reason those noble men and true pro
phets cast behind them with scorn, as the genuine
disciples and followers of “ the Prophet of Nazareth ”
always have done; for, “ where the Spirit of the
Lord is, there is Liberty.”
The grand distinction, between them and the advo
cates of the Roman Catholic creed, was this very
point. The one party insisted upon the submission of
Reason to that which Reason was forbidden to test
and could not approve. The other party maintained
that:—
Confession of Faith, xx. 2—God alone is Lord of the
conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and
commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to
his word, or beside it, in matters of faith and worship.
So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such com
mandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of
conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an
absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience,
and reason also.'"
Strange, indeed, it is to find, that the old Popish,
Jewish, and heathen error, the root of all errors and
superstitions,—that Reason is bound to submit to
authority not approved by Reason, has grown up
again, in a new shape, in the churches which call
themselves Protestant.
While such theology is taught and published by
doctors and professors, reputed highly orthodox, in
high places of the Church, it is perfectly notorious
that, from very many pulpits throughout the land,
C
�24
Reason and the Bible.
the same kind of doctrine is preached, which has
been well called, “ the, Gospel of Unreason." . My own
observation and experience of this preaching are of
course local and limited; but, judging from what I
read and hear, I infer that it is exceedingly common,
and by no means confined to one Church, nor to one
part of Great Britain.
It is probable, therefore, that many of my readers
may have often heard such specimens as the following,
which are supplied by pencil-jottings of sermons,
recently taken in the pews by myself and friends in
whom I have confidence. They are all genuine and
unadorned.
“ Every word of this blessed book, brethren, is
God’s message to us. It is to us individually that
Jehovah there speaks.” . . . “ If we would profit by
the Word of God, we must mix faith with the hearing
and the reading of it. We must believe that every
word of it is true, simply on God’s own authority.”
. . . “ God requires of us a child-like unquestion
ing submission to the divine authority of the Bible,
and a willingness to hear the voice of God in all
that the Bible says to us.” . . . “ A sense of God’s
authority in the Bible, and unquestioning submission
to that authority, is the best evidence of true. Chris
tianity.” . . . “ An atheist is one who denies the
existence of God; an infidel is one who does not
believe that the Bible is the Word of God; and
there is not much difference between the two, for he
who does not believe that the Bible is God’s Word,
does not believe in the God of the Bible.” . . .
11 Beware of hardening your hearts against the Word
of God, which speaks to us in every sentence of the
Bible.” . . “ Before a man can resist the authority
of God speaking to us in the Bible, there must be a
process of hardening the heart, quenching conviction,
and self-deception, by false expectations of safety in
some other way than that which the Bible reveals.”
�Reason and the Bible.
35
... “I believe that opposition and hatred to the
justice of God as revealed in the Bible, the desire to
quiet the accusations of a guilty conscience, and to
get rid of the fear of punishment which the Bible
tells them their sins deserve, are the true reasons
why men begin to question the authority of the
Bible.” . . . “ Those who deny this authority would
not be convinced, even although the most convincing
arguments were presented to them. All their objec
tions and outrageous views have been again and
again refuted. It is in the heart and not in the
head that their opposition has its seat.” ... “If
scenes such as the miraculous deaths of Ananias and
Sapphira were to occur in our own day, would they
not make some of us tremble ! Many an awful sight
would be seen at our communion tables, if those who
come there, and eat and drink damnation, were to be
struck down, as Ananias and Sapphira were. Theirs
was a miraculous death ; and it may appear to some
unreasonable, that Peter should thus have had the
power to deal so terribly with them. But, my
brethren, beware of limiting the power and the
sovereignty of the Most High. Though it may be
unreasonable, it is none the less true—none the less
a miracle. Woe unto the man that disputeth with
his Maker—Almighty God ! ”
I refrain from any particular criticism of these
rash assertions and uncharitable thoughts, to which
the thinking reader will easily apply most of my
remarks on Dr Gibson’s lecture • but that in
quirers may be enabled to judge of the true name
by which to designate the teaching of these too
zealous advocates of the Bible, I subjoin the follow
ing sentences from very high authorities in the
Roman Catholic Church.
*
* All quoted, with Latin originals and particular references,
in “ The Moral Theology of Liguori,” by Pascal the Younger,
London, 1856, pp. 43, 140, 196, 47.
�26
Reason and the Bible.
St Ignatius, the founder of the J esuits, says in his
“Epistle on the Virtue of Obedience,” A.D. 1553,
“ If you would immolate your whole self wholly unto
God, you must offer to Him not the bare will merely,
but the Understanding also.” . . . “The noble
simplicity of Blind Obedience is gone, if in our
secret breast we call in question whether that which
is commanded be right OR WRONG. This is what
makes it perfect and acceptable to the Lord, that the
most excellent and most precious part of man is
consecrated to Him, and nothing whatsoever of him
kept back for himself.”
To show how this principle is applied, Cardinal
Wiseman says, in his preface to “ The Exercises of
St Ignatius —“In the Catholic Church no one is
ever allowed to trust himself in spiritual matters.
The Sovereign Pontiff is obliged to submit himself
to the direction of another in whatever concerns his
own soul.”
To this may be added from the “Exercises —
“ That we may in all things attain the truth, that we
may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it as
a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to
be black, if the hierarchical Church so define it.”
It may be instructive, as I am quoting, to take a
specimen of what these outspoken priests have said
about liberty of conscience. Pope Gregory XVI., in an
encyclical letter, dated August 1832, says:—“It is
from that most fetid fountain, indifferentism, springs
the absurd and mistaken notion, or rather raving of
madness, that liberty of conscience is to be recog
nised and vindicated. What has prepared the way
for this most pestilential error is, that ample and
immoderate liberty of opinion which is spreading
far and wide, to the ruin of Church and State,
though there are some men who, out of most con
summate impudence, maintain it is an advantage to
religion. This is the aim of that worst of all liberties,
�Reason and the Bible.
37
that never-enough-to-be-execrated and detestable
liberty of the press (Awe spectat det&rrima ilia ac
nunguam satis execranda et detestabilis libertas artis
librarian ad scripta gucelibet edenda in vulgus), which
some dare so loudly to demand, and even promote.
We are most horribly affrighted {Perhorrescimus'),
venerable brethren, when we see with what monsters
of doctrine, with what portents of evil we are over
whelmed (pbruamur)."
Nearly everything that can be said or thought
against this truly horrible presumption, which ignores
and hushes up, and utterly disregards or sternly con
demns all but its own one-sided kind of evidence or
argument, will be found, on reflection, easily and
equally applicable to such lectures and sermons as
those of which I have given specimens.
Is it not clear that this very same old SPIRIT OF
Popery, with only a slight alteration of form and
expression, has again got possession of our Protestant
pulpits and schools, and that much of the Reforma
tion work will have to be done over again, before we
can expect to get rid of its present unwholesome
superstitious influence in many branches of the
Church 1
The root and essence of Popery, and of all false
religion, the foundation of all superstitious belief, is
the submission of man’s Reason to some external
standard or symbol of “ Authority above Reason.”
The root and essence of true Christianity, of true
Protestantism, and of all true religion, the founda
tion of all rational belief, is the free exercise of Rea
son, liberation of the intellect, liberty of conscience,
private judgment.
These two kinds of religion or belief are as dis
tinctly opposed to each other, as are the two prin
ciples or foundations on which they respectively rest;
and there is no possibility of reconciling them, nor of
finding any tenable middle way or halting place
�28
Reason and the Bible.
between the two ; for all things are full of progress,
and the increase, as a general rule, is according to
the kind. The distinction, moreover, is not merely
such as there is between two opposite positions, but
rather such as there is between two opposite direc
tions; and no man can be travelling simultaneously
towards both the rising and the setting of the equi
noctial sun.
“All worship is idolatry,” says the great thinker,
Thomas Carlyle, the meaning of which appears to be
that every man who worships the Infinite or the
Unseen, worships his own symbol or conception of
the Infinite or the Unseen, which can in no case be
what the Infinite and Unseen is, so that the likeness
or unlikeness of the symbol-—the truth or the false
hood of the conception—can only be relative and
comparative terms, no possible symbol or conception
being absolutely, perfectly appropriate or true. But
he adds,—“Blameable idolatry is insincere idolatry,”
the meaning of which evidently is that, when doubts
have to be stifled, because the only possible solution
of them is unbelief,—when the voice of Reason is
disregarded, that another voice may be obeyed, which
Reason may not test, and therefore cannot approve,
—then begins false worship or blameable idolatry.
So long as there is no conflict between Reason and
Authority,—between the conscience and the Idol, the
worship may be reasonable and sincere, the idolatry is
not blameable, for “ where there is no law there can be
no transgression of the law.” But, so soon as the
conflict arises,—so soon as the antagonism is known
and felt by any individual, all true worship of the old
symbol or conception is at an end for him. Carelesslessness, indifference, and mental sloth may, for a
time, swell the ranks of neutrality; but every serious,
thoughtful mind is, in such circumstances, unable to
rest until it has made the choice, by deciding between
the rival claims of Reason and Conscience on the one
�Reason and the Bible.
39
hand, and of Authority, Tradition, or the Idol, on
the other.
Such is the time in which it is our lot to live.
The conflict has arisen, and has come to such a height,
that it is, now and henceforth, difficult for any think
ing man not to know and feel the antagonism between
the rival claims for supremacy of Reason and the
Bible. Every serious mind is now again being chal
lenged and compelled to make a choice, by determ ining whether the supreme authority of the Bible shall
be maintained by the submission of Reason, or
whether the supreme authority of Reason shall this
time again triumph over the worship of an Idol, con
demned by Reason, over the asserted and assumed
divinity and authority of a book, said to be the Word
of God, but with which Reason does not and cannot
harmonise, as Reason can and does harmonise with
every true Word of God.
The startling fact, to which men are day by day
awakening, is, that this question between Reason and
the Bible, which is at present challenging the verdict
of every inquiring religious mind, is just the very
same old question in a new form, as that which men
were invited, and many constrained, to settle for
themselves individually, at the time when the first
clear light of Christianity shone upon the supersti
tious gloom of J ewish and heathen traditional beliefs,
and again at the time when the dawn of the Protes
tant Reformation broke forth amidst the darkness of
Popish unreasonableness and intellectual submission
to authority. The love of truth and of humanity is
now again constraining men here and there to stand
forth, as of old, against dogmatism and superstition,
and against the antiquated and obstructive idea, that
those who ought to be the leaders and guides of the
people in ascertaining whatever is truest and best,
should be bound by oaths and bribed by emoluments
to maintain the existing fabric of opinion and custom.
�40
Reason and the Bible.
Not from Christianity, nor from Protestantism, have
we received “ the spirit of bondage again to fear.’
Why should not our religious teachers be, as our
scientific teachers are, free to follow evidence, truth,
a,nd fact, wherever these may lead, no matter what
existing theory or practice may thus be imperilled or
overthrown ? Why should they not stir up the gift
of God which is in them, as the Apostle Paul says to
the young preacher, “ for God hath not given us the
spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a
sound mind ? ” Fear cannot enlighten the mind, nor
enlarge and strengthen the understanding—cannot
elevate the emotions, nor purify the affections—can
not subdue the will, even when it forces compliance
or assent—cannot convince the reason, although it
may stifle inquiry and discussion. There may be
much internal rebellion, even where there is so much
external submission and conformity as may be thought
necessary for safety or for comfort. Every one knows
that this is a common fact of daily observation, not
only in religion, but also in politics and in family
affairs. But surely it is the very height of folly to
imagine that we can propitiate or please the Father
of our spirits by being afraid to think. Surely it is
gross superstition to be deterred, by dread of .His
displeasure, from the freest, fullest, upright, serious
exercise of reason. “ If anything is clear,” says an
American writer, “ it is, that faith is large in pro
portion as it dares to put things to the proof. Fear
and laziness can accept beliefs ; only trust and cour
age will question them. To reject consecrated opi
nions demands a consecrated mind; at all events,
the moving impulse to such rejection is faith—faith in
reason ; faith in the mind’s ability to attain truth ;
faith in the power of thought—in the priceless worth
of knowledge. The great sceptic must be a great
believer. None have so magnificently affirmed as
those who have audaciously denied ; none so devoutly
trusted as they who have sturdily protested.”
�Reason and the Bible.
4i
It is not unusual for Bible advocates to declare
that they cannot reason at all with those who deny
the infallibility and supreme authority of the Bible,
because they cannot reason, say they, about that to
which reason is bound to submit, and on which all
reasoning must be based. To dispute or to deny the
supremacy of the Bible is, according to these men,
the same thing as to dispute or to deny the supremacy
of God. They apparently do not see the obvious
fact, that such a declaration is equivalent to a claim
of infallibility for themselves or for their own opinion
that the Bible is infallible : or else they would never
presume to say, that to contend against their opinion
about a book is to contend against God. Can they
not understand that, even though their assertion
about the Bible were clearly and unmistakably set
forth in the Bible itself, which, however, it assuredly
is fiot, it would still be inexcusably absurd to main
tain, that doubt or distrust of God is shown by those
who express their doubt or distrust of any of the
matter recorded in the Bible by the hands of men 1
It seems almost incredible that any intelligent mind
should fail to perceive the obvious, wide, and essential
distinction between these two kinds of doubt or
distrust; but yet it is too well known to need proof,
that many of our teachers think, or at least say, that
these two different things are the same, and both
alike criminal. Who has not heard or read thenstupid declarations, that to trace and exhibit the
various marks of human ignorance, error, and im
perfection, which abound in the Bible as in other
ancient books, is God-dishonouring blasphemy, which
He will surely punish ! No less weak and absurd
would it be for any free-thinking man to be cowed
into submission, or even into deference, by such un
reasonable and presumptuous assertions as these,
than it would be for an educated European to be
similarly influenced by the candid and common
�42
Reason and the Bible.
assertion of an orthodox Chinese, expressing his en
tire confidence in the certainty and truth of his
traditional belief, that the people, customs, and
opinions of the “ Celestial Empire ” are incomparably
superior to all others, and that all men of the Euro
pean persuasion are “ outside barbarians and devils.”
What, then, it is asked, is the use of the Bible 1
Why should it not be utterly abolished 1 If it is not
infallible, it is not to be trusted ; and if it is not to
be trusted, it can hardly fail to mislead ; therefore,
it ought to be destroyed. Freethinkers are often
told that, if they would be consistent, they should
argue thus, and should set the example by throwing
their own Bibles in the fire. I myself have been
thus addressed by “ orthodox ” clergymen, and have
been misrepresented by others as if I argued thus.
It might suffice to reply that the same argument,
if sound, would condemn all the treasures of litera
ture to the flames. The Bible is not infallible;
therefore, it ought to be destroyed. No other book
is infallible; therefore, all other books ought to be
burnt. From Homer to Tennyson, from Herodotus to
Froude, from Plato to Mill, from Aristotle to Hux
ley, from Zoroaster to Dr Cumming,—poets, histo
rians, philosophers, men of science, and divines have
all been fallible, and often in error, whatever pre
tensions to the contrary may have been set up by
themselves or by their admirers ; therefore, destroy
the works of them all, so that none may henceforth
be misled thereby ! Obliterate all the records of the
past, so that we and our children may .be free from
the dangerous influence of past delusions and mis
takes; because in none of these records can be found
perfection or infallibility.
The argument thus refutes itself, and the refutation
applies especially to the Bible. Books, old or new,
are valuable and useful just in proportion as they
�Reason and the Bible.
43
enable the student to profit by the varied experience,
culture, and progress, and even by the errors and
failures of other men. Modern thought and educa
tion, from the village school to the highest walks of
learning, are the still progressive fruits of accumu
lated ages •, and books have, ever since their first
employment, been the safest and most effectual vehicle
for the transmission and propagation thereof from one
age to another.
But let authority set the seal of assumed infallibi
lity upon any one book, and its usefulness will be at
once greatly impaired, if not entirely destroyed. In
stead of a help, it will soon become a hindrance, and
so it is now with the Bible. By the dogmatic ascrip
tion of infallibility and supreme authority, equally
and indiscriminately, to the whole of its contents, it
has come to be regarded through a mystic veil or
cloud of superstition. The intrinsic, direct, and selfevident inspiration of some portions has been de
graded and obscured, by placing these on the same
level with those of an entirely different and even
opposite character; the inspiration of the latter being
assumed and asserted to be no less an authoritative
fact, though neither self-evident, intrinsic, nor direct,
as judged by the free-thinking mind. The undeniable
majesty, truth, and beauty of very many passages are,
by this arbitrary interposition of traditional dogma,
confounded by reduction to equality with the weak
ness, meanness, or repulsiveness of others, which, but
for such interposition, reason would now universally
judge to be evil or incredible. The intellect and
moral conscience of men are stunted, distorted, and
hindered in their growth, by external authority train
ing and constraining one faculty of the mind to usurp
the province of another—by subjecting reason to the
religious sentiment—or, in other words, by cultivating
superstition.
The great value, interest, and use of the Bible, far
�44
Reason and the Bible.
from "being negatived or even impaired, are, in fact,
only discovered or vastly enlarged, when it is ap
proached as a venerable record of human thought,
experience, trial, and progress—the divinely appointed
education of mankind. The study of past errors,
faults, and failures is not less useful nor less instruc
tive than that of past wisdom, worth, and success.
Both alike are “ profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, and for instruction in righteousness
__ « for WHATSOEVER THINGS WERE WRITTEN AFORE
TIME were written for our learning, that we through
patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have
hope” of better times to come for us and for
humanity.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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
Intellectual liberty: the fundamental principle of Christianity and Protestantism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Robertson, J. M. (John Mackinnon)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 44 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5516
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Protestantism
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 (Intellectual liberty: the fundamental principle of Christianity and Protestantism), 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
Bible-Evidences
Christianity
Conway Tracts
Faith and Reason
Protestantism
Reason
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f1996b4dd4444564122fdf3e7355c11a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=WFERNGtg7KjyKjkkY%7EDbLyuqLQtBMdDLDImd11jzorG9K8cljAoL0nnK58ZQcEATyHUWJLiflaXYPxf5t41cwh5MxNj8MZnfDqOoCPg00mqsjqs80t8tQpdwydion0Km4Wu5rW2wfc%7EtqA7Jtpsg-x2pNoKTl6VV44rXPEhjB9%7EODirjr2ltwtwzlaNpfhBRx-dFPlHax-7EwwWEpPPouA3oIPqGc1eoPM-4PQ6zNA0p%7E2vhAWfsxWsCXLa3j3dhqaoLQQsK1-mY4jOX5Vn14IcpUpsBo5xR2OB9AWhK%7EFsa4QSMY-WaZqK4o8RXnlZFi3NlYAdIlcE4BmTvwEo4yg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6359ee87bb05ae53e704e7fdb952d40a
PDF Text
Text
Weakness
ELIGIOUS
OF
PROTESTANTISM.
BY
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN,
Emeritus Professor of University College, London; and formerly Fellow of
Balliol College, Orford.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
1866.
Price *d.,post free.
7
�It is proper to say that this tract appeared originally in a Review. No
moderate change would suffice to make the tone natural to the author
when writing in his own sole name. It has been thought better to leave
the impersonal character which it bore from the first. Nevertheless,
allusions to passing events which would now be misleading, are omitted
or altered; one passage which was changed to please the Editor, is
restored more nearly as it was at first written; and an erroneous para
graph has been corrected.
August, 1866.
E. W. N.
�THE RELIGIOUS
WEAKNESS OF PROTESTANTISM.
TT is humiliating to every Protestant to look on the
map of Europe, and see the vast surface which is
covered by Catholicism, and the numerical weakness
of its nobler adversary. In less than forty years from
its feeble origin, Protestantism made its widest
European conquests; and thenceforward began to
recede, nor ever again recovered the lost ground.
Through the whole of the eighteenth century
Protestant doctrine might have been preached with
little molestation in the greater part of Europe, yet
nowhere did it extend itself. Neither in Ireland,
where a victorious Government was long bent to
reduce Catholicism by severe and unjust law (in
which they were far less successful than Catholic kings
in their bigoted violences); nor in France, where
unbelief laid the national religion prostrate and stripped
the Church of its revenues; nor in the dominions of
the Emperor Joseph II., who resolutely put down
Eomish pretensions, while remaining in communion
with the Church; nor even in his kingdom of
�6
The Religious Weakness
Hungary, where the two religions co-existed in much
good-will; nor under the Prussian monarchy, and
elsewhere in Germany; nor in Tuscany, under the
enlightened Leopold II.;—in short, nowhere at all has
Protestantism, even while she had a fair field and lea/ve
to speak truth, been able to win anything perceptible
on the field of history from her Papal antagonist. We
submit, that this is a phenomenon too broad, too
uniform, too decidedly marked, for any reasonable
man to pass by as insignificant. And it is the more
remarkable, because side by side with this religious
weakness, Protestantism has more and more dis
played its political and social superiority. Noto
riously the Protestant cantons of Switzerland are
superior in industry, neatness, and abundance to the
Catholic cantons of the same land; while climate,
soil, and race are the same. A similar distinction has
often been observed between Catholic and Protestant
farmers in Ireland. England, the largest Protestant
State in Europe, has been the richest and perhaps the
best ordered country, certainly that which stretches
its power farthest.
Nowhere else, not even in
despotic countries, is the executive Government more
energetic through the prompt obedience and concur
rence of the citizens; nowhere else, not even in
Switzerland or the United States, do the citizens
exercise their right to criticize and to thwart the
Government with a more loyal submission of the
ruling powers; nowhere is there less desire of
violent revolution than there has been for two cen
turies together in Protestant Great Britain (for the
�of Protestantism.
7
ejecting of one Catholic king does not here concern
our argument); nowhere is there a country, which, in
proportion to its millions, is fuller of all the elements,
mental and material, which kings desire and patriots
extol. In Canada, where the two religions come into
equal competition, the superior energy of Protest
antism in everything that constitutes the grandeur
of nations is manifest. Now it is a familiar fact,
that such worldly superiority does in itself tend to
the progress (at least to the superficial extension) of
the religion in which it is found. It cannot be said
that Catholics, like Turks, are so fanatically wedded
to their creed as to be proof against all refutations;
for it is notorious that in Catholic Spain, France,
Germany, a disbelief in the national religion is very
widely spread through the higher and middle ranks
—a disbelief which sometimes pervades the ruling
powers themselves. Yet, though they may cast off
the Romish faith, they seldom or never adopt that of
Protestants.
Probably all men who are thoughtful enough to
abandon the Catholic Church, are also well informed
enough to be aware what are the true causes of the
energy, wealth, and intelligence of the Protestant
nations ; that it does not arise from the positive creed
which they still hold, but from the private liberty
which accompanies this creed or from the energetic
public administration which this liberty enforces
and maintains. In fact France, though nominally
Catholic, vies to a great degree with England
in all national developments; and the causes are
�8
The Religious Weakness
evidently either purely political, or inhere, not in
religious faith, but much rather in religious
scepticism. Out of that unbelief, which by the
great French revolution of the last century broke
down the power of the Church, has arisen much of
the vigour of modem France ; no part of it can be
reasonably ascribed to the positive creed. Evidently
then it is to the negative side of Protestantism that
Protestant nations owe their energy and freedom, so
far as the cause is ecclesiastical at all. It will further
be observed that Russia, having a creed which from
a Protestant point of view is in its essence neither
better nor worse than Romanism, and being without
the individual freedom which is to us so precious,
nevertheless is on the whole flourishing within and
powerful without, because of the energy of its central
executive; an energy which is upheld by summary
proceedings of the Royal House from within to
secure an able occupant of the throne. In short, on
the very surface of history is a broad fact, which is
perpetually overlooked by the panegyrists of ecclesias
tical Protestantism—namely, that while all Europe
was still Catholic, every State was prosperous in a
near proportion to its freedom, and the freest dis
played exactly those points of superiority of which
England or Prussia may now boast. Look to the
Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella—a nation profoundly
Catholic ; in fact, more Catholic then than now—for
unbelief had not as yet pervaded its higher ranks, as
in later days. The Parliaments of Arragon, of
Castile, of Valencia were more spirited than those
�of Protestantism.
9
of England at the same time. The municipalities
were as well ordered and as independent; the local
authorities as active and as responsible to the local
community; the public law as efficiently sustained;
the industry was as intelligent, as persevering, and as
highly rewarded by wealth: or rather, in all these
matters Spain then took the lead of England. Her
poetry and other literature was in advance of ours;
she had a celebrated school of painting, while we were
strange to such art. By the patriotism, high spirit,
intelligence, faithfulness, and mutual trust of Span
iards, Spain then stood at the head of all Europe, and
lent to her subsequent monarchs—Charles of Ghent,
and his son Philip II.—an enormous power which
their despotism first lessened and soon undermined.
Spain has undergone no change of religion. Evidently
then, it is not Catholicism which in itself has been
her bane; but the despotism which, to sustain the
Catholicism, has crushed her intelligence and forbid
den her activity. Nearly the same remarks may be
made on Bohemia.
Turning to another country,
Belgium, we see a people which—although not without
violence from its princes preserved to Catholicism in
the struggle of the Reformation—has yet on the
whole retained its local freedom with singular success
under Catholic and despotic houses ; and since 1830
has become a wholly independent State, with a free
Royal Constitution. Thus, to speak roughly, we may
say that Belgium has never lost either her freedom
or her Catholicism. And she has all along been a
highly industrious, energetic, prospering country—
�IO
¥he Religious Weakness
not indeed intellectually prominent, for this has been
prohibited by the ascendant ecclesiasticism—yet her
general state suffices to prove that the material well
being of England does not spring from that Protesttantism in which she differs from Belgium, but from
that freedom which she has in common with Belgium.
Thus we cannot claim that Catholics will impute
any of these exterior advantages, of which we
boast, to our remaining ecclesiasticism, or regard
them as an honour to the positive side of our national
creed.
Nay, nor can we impute to this cause any part of
our mental superiority to Belgium or to Sicily; and
for this plain reason, that on the one side the
ecclesiastical organs have done their worst to crush
our intellectual vigour; and on the other our Puri
tanical school has done its worst to scold it down.
For every stupid and mischievous error a hard fight
has been maintained by theologians, in proportion to
their “ orthodoxy.” Take, for instance, the super
stition concerning witches and possession by devils.
The truth of the latter is still guaranteed in the
Canons of the Church of England, which regulate
the casting out of devils by license of the bishop.
The reality of witchcraft was publicly maintained
on Scriptural evidence alike by clergymen and
by judges. Chief Baron Hale (a very religious
man) not only argued for it Scripturally from
the judgment-seat in 1665, but had two women
hanged for witches. Education and free thought
prevailed, against the positive evidence of the Bible;
�of Protestantism.
i1
in favour of which the celebrated John Wesley still
struggled.
“ It is true,” says he, “ that the English in general, and
indeed most of the men of learning in Europe, have given up
all accounts of witches and apparitions as mere old wives’
fables. I am sorry for it
The giving up of witch
craft is in effect giving up the Bible................... .... I cannot
give up to all the Deists in Great Britain the existence of
witchcraft, till I give up the credit of all history, sacred and
profane.”
His contemporary, the celebrated Dr Johnson, a
High Churchman and anxiously orthodox, was a
believer in the “ Cock-lane ghost ” of those days.
Certainly no one can think that the theory of “ the
Bible and the Bible only,” &c., has led Protestants to
resign the Witch of Endor.—Again, if there is any
one national enormity which more than all others
tends to repress mental energy, it is religious perse
cution. Of this there has been far less among the
Protestant countries—to their undoubted benefit; and
yet, certainly, we have not to thank Protestant
theology for it. The practice of Calvin was substan
tially the theory of all the orthodox reformed
Churches. If the hierarchy or Presbyterians of Eng
land and Scotland could have had their will, mental
freedom would have been crippled in Great Britain
as effectually as in France or even in Spain. The
Independents won, by the sword of Cromwell, with
political also a religious freedom before unheard of in
these lands; yet for heretics who went beyond them,
it was long before the law provided safety, much less
�12
The Religious Weakness
gave them their natural equality. In every step of
progress towards freedom, it is lamentable to say that
English “ orthodoxy ” has always been found on the
side of resistance. Not only were the Test and Cor
poration Acts sustained by the Church influence, and
were abolished in 1828 by a lay Parliament, whose
Protestantism had but few positive elements of the
Reformed Theology; but even much later, when the
Dissenters’ Chapel Act was passed—an Act which, in
its practical aim, did but hinder the Unitarian
revenues, chapels, and burying-grounds from being
taken from the hereditary possessors (often children
or grandchildren of the donors), and given up to be
scrambled for by strangers, with a certainty that the
whole must be swallowed up in lawyers’ fees;—in
that crisis, when Peel and Lyndhurst, and even Glad
stone, stood up for the Unitarians, all the “ ortho
doxy ” of England stirred itself to resist this act of
equity. It is to our laity, and to that part especially
which has little ostensible religious character, that
every successive victory over bigoted intolerance is
due. Hence it is to the negative, not to the positive
side of Protestantism, that we must ascribe our
mental energy and intelligence.
Undoubtedly, these negative elements have been of
vast national moment, by liberating the energies of
individuals; whereby knowledge has risen into
science, industry into systematic art, wealth and
skill have increased, labour has organized itself, and
an unusually large part of the nation has employed
itself on fruitful thought and invention. But in all
�of Protestantism.
13
this there has been little or nothing of properly re
ligious influence. The more Protestantism has been
developed into its own characteristic prosperity, the
more Atheistic is the aspect of public affairs. It has
not known at all better than its Romish rival how to
combine religious earnestness with tolerant justice,
and has become just only by passing into indifference
to religion. Its divines often attack Romanism by
insisting on the vast spread of unbelief within the
pale of that Church; while they are astonishingly
blind to the very same phenomenon within all the
national Protestant Churches. This is not a recent
fact, as some imagine. Indeed, since the Restoration,
it is difficult to name the time at which it may
reasonably be thought that the existing English
statesmen had any grave and practical belief in the
national religion. Montesquieu, who passed for a
free thinker in France, found that in England (near a
century and a half ago) he had far too much religion
for our great-grandfathers. Equally in the Lutheran
Churches of Germany and of Sweden, also in the Calvinistic Churches of Switzerland and elsewhere, the
same face of events has presented itself: the clergy
tend either to lose all spiritual character, or to take
refuge in Unitarianism; the laity, in proportion to
their cultivation, have been prone to entire unbelief.
Under that measure of mental freedom which the
great rebellion against Charles I. brought in, and by
aid of the growing indifference to religion in France
and elsewhere, physical science has in the last two
centuries grown up. From this, more than from
�14
"The Religious Weakness
anything else, has proceeded the political superiority
of Europe to the Turks, the Persians, the Chinese. It
has given to us safe oceanic navigation—a vast
command of the useful metals and all material of war
—the steam-engine and all its developments —with a
miscellany ever increasing of practical applications
of chemistry. Indeed, the relative strength of differrent nations, which is ill measured by any religious
test, such as Catholicism or Protestantism, and is
not accurately measured even by a political test, such
as freedom or despotism, yet (numbers being equal)
is well measured by the development of physical
science. Russia is stronger than China, though
having but a quarter of the population; yet the form
of government in China is as despotic, the people is
as obedient, and far more conveniently situated, on
the noblest rivers, in highly advantageous concentra
tion, with a better soil and climate, and a splendid
oceanic coast. Russia has but one advantage, and
that one thing is all-important: she has introduced
the physical sciences of the West, and has turned
to Imperial service the skill of our ablest minds.
Two centuries ago, before physical science had
effected anything practical, the Protestant States
had no perceptible superiority over the Catholic;
now, they have on the whole a superiority, but
it is' proportioned chiefly to the development
and application of science. Perhaps then in truth
it is more to the science of matter than to Pro
testant theology, that we ought to attribute whatever
advantages we can boast in material strength.
�of Protestantism.
15
Meanwhile, no one can overlook the portentous
fact, that this physical science—to which we owe so
much of what some would claim for the credit of
Protestantism—is intensely repugnant and destruc
tive to the theology of the Reformation, and con
stantly drives to results not only anti-Christian, but
even Atheistic. Dr Pusey and Mr Sewell are forward
to aver this. Mr Sewell declares his aversion to the
glaring light of science, and well understands its
antagonism to the belief in miracles. It is not that
many scientific men will go to the fall length of
asserting that no imaginable evidence could be strong
enough to prove a miracle; yet, certainly, that no
such evidence as is pretended by divines can ever
prove such miracles as they allege. Science teaches
us to study every question d priori, with a view to
judge how much d posteriori evidence will suffice for
its decision. If a statement is beforehand highly
probable, we need but moderate and ordinary testi
mony to create belief in it; if it be decidedly
improbable, we want first-rate and clear testimony;
if it be intensely improbable, we need testimony
direct, conclusive, and unimpeachable. Let us pass
from this principle to the two great miracles which
lie at the foundation of orthodox Christianity; we
mean, of course, the miraculous conception and the
resurrection of Jesus; and let us calmly consider how
they would be treated if they were now for the first
time heard of, and brought to the test of ordinary
scientific evidence.
It is not our fault, if the discussion of the former
�i6
The Religious Weakness
topic somewhat shock religious decorum. In heathen
ism indecent fables are not uncommon; to have to
refute such things is disagreeable. If the refutation
prove disagreeable to the votary also, all unprejudiced
bystanders will say that he must blame those who
invented the creed, not him who refutes it; and surely
the same topic applies here. We are ordered to
believe that a certain person was born without a
human father; and when we ask, on what proof, we
have handed to us, in the first instance, the book
called Matthew, in which it is alleged that Joseph, the
ostensible father of Jesus, discovered his betrothed
wife to have premature signs of maternity ; that he
was disposed to repudiate her privately, in order to
save her shame; when, lo! he had a dream; a dream !
informing him that there was no shame in the matter,
but great glory; it was a holy miracle ; the father of
her child was no human being, but was the Spirit of
God. Such is the account in Matthew.
We should fear to insult an English magistrate, by
expecting him to believe a similar story concerning
some English peasant girl, on the ground that her
betrothed lover had had a dream to that effect, which
tranquillized his mind after a painful struggle. Not
only no English magistrate, no judge, no jury, would
believe such a tale on such evidence; but no clergy
man would believe it, no bishop, no archbishop : this
we may assert with absolute freedom and certainty,
however large demands of easy faith they make on
others. The least that even an archbishop could re
quire would be, some security,—or say, some plausible
�of Protestantism.
pretence for believing—that it was not a common
dream, but a properly miraculous vision; and that
the man to whom it was vouchsafed should display
some superiority of mind, which might, if not justify
our trust in his power to discriminate between
dreams and visions, yet palliate our credulity in so
trusting him. Who then was Joseph ? Why should
we believe him so easily ?
Who indeed was Joseph ? We know nothing of
him except that this story was told of him at a later
time. Nay, we cannot even attain any moderately
good proof that he evei’ had such a dream, or pro
fessed to have had it: for it is on the face of the
narrative that he passed as father of Jesus, and that
there was no public suspicion that that was an error,
some thirty years later, at which time Joseph has
vanished out of the narrative and is supposed to
have been dead. We have then a second question:
Who is it that tells us that Joseph ever narrated such
a dream, ever professed painful suspicions, and re
ceived such a solution of them ? The reply is: We
know little or nothing about him. It is usual now to
call him Matthew; and if Matthew was really the
writer’s name, if he even wrote within fifty years after
the dream, it helps very little to prove that Joseph
was his informant, or had ever heard the tale.
It has been observed (and the remark seems
decisive) that no young woman of ordinary good
sense or right feeling could have failed to reveal
everything of this critical nature to her betrothed
from the first moment. That she should allow him
B
�i8
The Religious Weakness
to have unjust and dishonouring suspicions, and
remain silent, is quite unnatural: it is conduct of
which no plausible explanation can be given. And
now, we are expected to believe a mighty and car
dinal miracle on evidence which would not suffice
in the laxest court of law to establish an ordinary
fact.
If the possession of an estate depended on priority
of existence, and the evidence offered were, that aman called Matthew, who died last year, had left a
MS. which stated that a certain Joseph had a dream,
and that in this dream an angel of the Lord told him
that “ James was born before Joses ; ” we say, no
ecclesiastical tribunal in Europe would believe this
very credible statement on such evidence.
There are many persons so thoughtless, or se
unreasonable, as to assume that religious credulity
is safer and more pious than incredulity. As if for the
instruction of such, the Romanist steps in, to show
them by his example to what results their easy faith
leads. For centuries together Spain was eminent in
the Romish world for its devotion to the Virgin,,
to whom the Spaniards have ascribed a prerogative
which they entitle “ immaculate conception.”
Protestants in general, misled by the phrase,
suppose it to assert the same miracle concerning the
birth of Mary (whose mother is ecclesiastically known
as St Ann), as Matthew and Luke assert concerningthe birth of Jesus. The writer of these lines has
been rebuked by two Catholics for this very error;
and as they were very explicit, he supposes they were
�of Protestantism.
J9
correct. They explained, that the miracle in the case
of St Ann was, not that the Holy Spirit acted on her
womb to supersede a human father, but so combined
his influence on that organ with that of the real
father, as to hinder the introduction of “ original
sin ” by the father’s act! Within the last few years
we have seen this doctrine raised into a dogma of the
church by the Pope; and Protestants cry out, that
the dogma is very disgusting, and that it has no basis
of proof; for of St Ann nobody knows anything. We
cannot defend the doctrine from such attacks; but
we doubt whether the “ orthodox ” Protestant has
fairly earned a right to make them. His own dogma
is equally baseless, not less puerile or more edifying.
If he insists that it is pious to believe rumours or
speculations of this nature, in which the gossip of all
heathenism abounds, he does his best to throw open
the floodgates of measureless credulity and indecent
fable.
A curious story, not much known, is alluded to by
Dr Campbell, of Aberdeen, in the fourteenth of his
celebrated “ Lectures on Ecclesiastical History.” So
late as the pontificate of Clement XI., in the begin
ning of the last century, a preacher in Rome, intend
ing to honour St Ann, applied to her the title
“ Grandmother of Godwhich, being new, appeared
highly offensive, and was suppressed by the Pope;
who doubtless foresaw that, if it were permitted, we
should next hear of “ God’s grandfather, uncle, aunt,
and cousins.” “The second Council of Nice, in quoting
the Epistle of James, do not hesitate (says Dr C.) to
�20
The Religious Weakness
style the writer God’s brother (a5eX0o0eov).”
“ The sole spring of offence is in the first step,” viz.,
the calling the Virgin Mary “ Mother of God.”
For, he adds, to distinguish between “ the mother of
the mother,” and “ the grandmother,” is impossible.
As a protestant, he of course disapproves of the
received Romish phraseology; yet, clear as he
generally is, he leaves us in doubt whether he disap
proves of saying (p. 253) that the Virgin is “ the
mother of him who is God,” equally with the other
formula, that she is “the mother of God.” He has
just .informed us that under Pope Hormisdas and
some of his successors there was a fierce strife,
*
whether we ought to say, “ One of the Trinity
suffered in the flesh,” or “ One person of the Trinity
suffered in the flesh.” Unless such controversies
are to be regarded as rightful and necessary, what
are they but a red/uctio ad alsurdum of Anglican
orthodoxy ?
We pass to the second great miracle, the Resurrec
tion, to which the Ascension is a sort of complement.
Here it is possible that men of science will admit
(though we have no right to make concessions in
their name), that evidence is vmaginable adequate to
prove facts of such a nature—which are not negative
(as in the case of miraculous conception), but posi
tive. Suppose a man’s head were cut off, or his
* “There were four different opinions. One set approved of both
expressions; a second condemned both; a third maintained the former
expression to be orthodox, the latter heterodox; and a fourth affirmed
the reverse. In this squabble, emperors, popes, and patriarchs engaged
with great fury.”—Dr Campbell.
�of Protestantism.
21
body burned to ashes; after either of these events,
duly testified, no man of science could be incredulous
of the real death. Again, suppose that after such
death testimony were offered that the same person
was still alive. Inasmuch as only from information
and experience do we hitherto disbelieve that a man
once dead ever resumes animal life in the same form,
it would seem that an amount of first-rate testimony
is imaginable^ which might force us to modify the uni
versality of this doctrine: nevertheless, the evidence
needs to be very cogent. We must have decisive
proof of the death, and decisive proof of the renewed
animal life: a failure on either side would make the
whole vain. If, for instance, a person fainted and
seemed to die from exhaustion or loss of blood, and,
after this, came overwhelming evidence that he was
still alive ; it would not have the slightest tendency
to prove that he was risen from the dead, but only
that the death had not been real. Now the very
peculiar phenomenon in the Biblical narrative of the
Resurrection is, that of the two propositions, both of
which are equally essential, it is hard to say which of
the two is less satisfactorily sustained : so that those
who find it every way impossible to believe the
miracle, are at the same time left uncertain whether
or not the alleged death was reaL Crucifixion was
notoriously the most tedious of deaths, and was for
this very reason selected by the Carthaginians and
Romans as a mode of long torment and ignominy.
The loss of blood endured by it is so trifling, that the
�no
The Religious Weakness
victim dies only by exhaustion and thirst, or by the
sufferings of muscular spasm. From the article
“ Cross,” in the ‘ Penny Cyclopaedia,’ we extract the
following:—
“ As death (from crucifixion) in many cases did not ensue
for a length of time, guards were placed to prevent the relatives
or friends of the crucified from giving them any relief, or
taking them away whilst alive, or removing their bodies after they
were dead. .... Even when it (crucifixion) took place
by nailing, neither the wounds themselves nor the quantity of
blood lost would be sufficient in all cases to bring on speedy
death. During the reign of Louis XV. several women (relig
ious enthusiasts, called Convulsionaires) voluntarily underwent
crucifixion. Dr Merand .... relates that he was pre
sent at the crucifixion of two females, named Sister Rachel
and Sister Felicite. They were laid down, fixed by nails five
inches long driven firmly through both hands and feet into the
wood of which the crosses were made. The crosses were then
raised to a vertical position. In this manner they remained
nailed, while other ceremonies of these fanatics proceeded.
Sister Rachel, who had been first crucified, was then taken
down; she lost very little blood. Sister Felicite was after
wards taken from her cross. Three small basons, called
palettes, full of blood, flowed from her hands and feet. Their
wounds were then dressed, and the meeting was terminated.
Sister Felicite declared that it was the twenty-first time she had
undergone crucifixion."
The death being ordinarily so slow, it is of great
importance to know how long Jesus hung on the cross :
and here the narrators are at variance. Mark says
distinctly (xv. 25—34) that Jesus was crucified at the
third hour, and died at the ninth hour. John as
distinctly tells us that he was not yet crucified at the
�of Protestantism.
23
*
sixth hour (xix. 14). “ It was about the sixth hour,
and Pilate saith unto the Jews, Behold your King.
And they cried out, Away with him, crucify him. . . .
Then delivered he unto them to be crucified. And
they took Jesus, and led him away. And he bearing
his cross, went forth into a ptace called ” ...
<fec. &c.
Thus, after Pilate’s command, was the
farther process of carrying the cross out from Pilate’s
judgment-seat to Golgotha; which, for anything that
appears to the contrary, may have delayed the actual
crucifixion for another hour. In short, accepting the
narratives, there is nothing in them to show that
Jesus was longer than tu)o\ hours actually on the
cross. It is further manifest in them all, that Pilate
most unwillingly consented to his execution, and was
•driven to it only by fear. He distinctly declares him
to be innocent, and tries to save him. In Matthew
he takes water, and symbolically washes his hands in
* To save the Biblical infallibility, some divines hold that John
had a different way of counting the hours from the other Evangelists.
The learned Dr Bloomfield, in his ‘ Commentary to the Greek
Testament,’ thinks such a theory too rash. He says (on Mark xv. 25),
“Although such discrepancies [as this between Mark and John] are (as
Eritz observes) ‘rather to be patiently borne, than removed by rash
measures,’ yet here we are, I conceive, not reduced to any great necessity.
For although the mode of reconciling the two accounts by a sort of
management [Italics in Dr B.], however it may be approved by many
commentators, is not to be commended, yet . . .” in short, it is best
to believe the text in John corrupt, and to alter sixth to third. Of
course this is possible; but so is the opposite; and no one can rest a
miracle on a voluntary correction of a text.
t Strauss has discussed this whole subject carefully: ‘ Life of Jesus,’
Part in. ch. iv. § 134. [First Work, 1st edition.] He thinks the addi
tions in John to be mythical inventiohs; but we here decline to discuss
such possibilities, and (concessively) abide by the statements as
given us.
�24
The Religious Weakness
sight of the multitude, saying, “ I am innocent of the
blood of this just person : see ye to it.” A governor,
who, after so humiliating a struggle, yields an inno
cent man to public death, is not unlikely to compro
mise with his conscience by giving secret orders to
the executioners not to kill him, but to put him on to
the cross for a short time, and give up his body, as if
dead, to his friends, as soon as he appeared to faint.
What might thus seem beforehand probable, is unex
pectedly confirmed by John’s information (xx. 32,
33) that the soldiers, knowing that the time was in
sufficient to kill, broke the legs of the other two who
were crucified with Jesus (not a very effectual way of
hastening death, but at least a security against their
*
resuming the trade of robbers); while they did not
break the legs of Jesus. John adds, that they re
frained because they saw him to be dead; which
appears to be a mere surmise; the real reason may
have been that they had secret orders from Pilate to
spare Jesus.
Curiously enough, John proceeds
unawares to state what distinctly suggests, that Jesus
was not dead when they began to take him down
from the cross; for he adds, that a soldier “ pierced
his side with a spear, and forthwith came out blood
and water: and he that saw it (whoever this
was) bare record, and his record is true,”
&c.
Some of the Fathers, as Strauss observes,
strongly felt how opposed this is to common expe* Strauss observes that the breaking of legs nowhere else occurs in
connexion with crucifixion among the Romans. He thinks that the
fractures would be sure to mortify, and thus cause death.
�of Protestantism.
25
Hence of death. Says Origen : “ In all other dead
bodies the blood coagulates, and no pure water flows
from them; but the marvel of the dead body in the
case of Jesus is, blood and water poured from his side
even after death.” So Euthymius: “ For out of a
dead human being, though you should stab him ten
thousand times, no blood will come. This pheno
menon is supernatural, and clearly proves that he
who was stabbed is higher than man.” We are too
aware of the delicacy of such physiological questions,
to speak so confidently ourselves. It suffices to say,
that the flow of blood is most easily and naturally
accounted for by supposing the circulation still to
be active. Indeed, even swooning makes it hard to
get blood out of a man. If he falls in battle from a
sabre-cut and faints, the heart ceasing its normal
action, the blood flows too feebly in the arteries to
issue from the wound, which presently coagulates:
and when death is complete, the stagnation must
ordinarily be still greater. It is of course possible,
that though crucifixion had not caused death, this
spear-wound proved fatal; but the alternative is
equally possible—that as he was still alive, neither
did this new wound kill him. The narrative decides
nothing either way. We however do learn from it
that Pilate desired to save him, gave him up with a
bad conscience, and subjected him to the shortest time
of crucifixion which would obviate quarrel with the
Jewish rulers; that Pilate’s executioners favoured
Jesus in comparison with the two robbers by not
breaking his legs; allowed a humane person, when
�i6
^he Religious Weakness
Jesus complained of the thirst accompanying that
miserable torment, to moisten his lips with vinegar,
which, diluted with water, was a well-known beverage
of the Roman soldiers, and is a great relief to a
fevered mouth; farther, Pilate’s officers took him
down from the cross, and prepared to deliver him to
his friends, while there were symptoms which strongly
indicate life, and after an interval so short, that (as
Mark asserts) Pilate “ marvelled if he were already
dead.” With so very imperfect a proof of death, it
is manifest that all pains in the second part of the
story to prove a Resurrection are wasted; the more
so, since, according to the accounts, neither was he
buried in such a way as could have tended to suffoca
tion. His body was given over to the friendly hand
of Joseph of Arimathaea, who laid him “ in his own
new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock that
is to say, in a rocky vault, where a wounded man
might receive surgical treatment and cordials.
The evidence offered in proof that Jesus after his
buii al was seen alive, has been many times ably dis
cussed. English readers who desire to see what can
be said against it, may consult Charles Hennell’s
1 Inquiry on the Origin of Christianity,’ Strauss’s
‘ Life of Jesus,’ or W. R. Greg’s ‘ Creed of Christen
dom.’ From the last-named, we extract the followings
p. 216
“ A marked and most significant peculiarity in these ac
counts, which has not received the attention it deserves, is,
*
* Hennell touches the topic in a short but decisive paragraph, p. 239,
second' edition.
�of Protestantism.
that scarcely any of those who are said to have seen Jesus
after his resurrection recognised him, though long and intimately
acquainted with his person. . . . (Mark xvi. 12.) ‘After
that, he appeared in another form, to two of them.’ Now, if it
really were Jesus who appeared to these various parties, would
this want of recognition have been possible ? If it was Jesus,
he was so changed that his most intimate friends did not
know him. How then can we know that it was himself ? ”
The defence put in by our divines does nothing but
show the shifting and untangible nature of their argu
ment. They say, that the risen Jesus had a glorified
body which could pass through shut doors, and of
course was sufficiently different from his former body
to embarrass recognition. We began by avowing
that human testimony was imaginable that might
prove the restoration of a dead man to life. But we
must modify the avowal, by adding, that no common
testimony could ever prove the sort of resurrection
here tendered to us : for if the risen body is not a
body of flesh and blood, but “ glorified ” and ethereal,
and so unlike the former body of Jesus that his friends
identify him only by the symbolical action of breaking
bread, as the two disciples at Emmaus (Luke xxiv.),
their testimony is unavailing. To what do they
affect to bear witness ? They do not lay before us the
impressions on their sight or hearing, but merely the
inferences of their mind, that the person who broke
bread in a certain way must have been Jesus, though he
looked v&ry unlike him.' And this leads naturally to the
important point, which Mr Hennell has so well made
prominent:—
“ It seems probable (says he, p. 204, second edition) that the
�28
The Religious Weakness
original belief among the Apostles was merely that Christ had
been raised from the dead in an invisible or spiritual manner : for
where we can arrive at Peter’s own words, viz., in his ‘ Epistle,’
he speaks of Christ as being put to death in the flesh, but made
alive in the spirit (1 Pet. iii. 18)—OavarwGels p.tv traps! ^woiroi^dels
Se nveipari. That the last phrase signifies a mode of opera
tion invisible to human eyes, appears from the following
clause, which describes Jesus as preaching, also in the spirit
(eV <£), to the spirits in prison. But some of the disciples soon
added to this idea of an invisible or spiritual resurrection, that
Jesus had appeared to many in a bodily form................... ”
Men who have seen and heard another man, have
a certain power of identifying him when they see and
hear him again; and when by eye or ear they do
identify him, we call their declaration concerning it
testimony or witness, and assign a certain weight to it.
But if they declare that they do not identify him by
eye or ear, but only by the inferences of their mind,
it is an abuse of language to call this testimony. If
the glorified spirit of a deceased friend were to appear
to one of us—whether in ecstatic vision or in what
seemed to be our waking senses—we could not claim
that other men should accept as “ testimony ” our
statement that it was he : for though they have expe
rience of the trustworthiness of sense to recognize
and identify ordinary bodies in their ordinary states,
they know nothing of the trustworthiness of sense
when it pretends to identify a form now ethereal and
glorified with what was once a human body. And as
it is not only in Peter’s epistle and in Paul’s vision
(as, indeed, in Paul’s doctrine of the “ resurrection
body”), that this idea of a merely spiritual resur
rection of Jesus is suggested, but the same occurs in
�of Protestantism.
<19
all the Gospels—partly in the difficulty of recognizing
Jesus, partly in his vanishing out of their sight or
suddenly coming through walls and doors—the whole
is removed beyond the sphere of testimony, even if
the declarations were consistent and distinct, and were
laid before us on the authority of the original eye
witnesses.
Thus those two cardinal events which Protestantism
undertakes to prove and recognizes as its basis,—when
their alleged Scriptural evidence is examined fail of
satisfying the demands of ordinary scientific reason
ing ; after which we need not wonder that Protes
tantism cannot win intelligent converts. For it does
not, like Catholicism, tell people that they must not
reason at all concerning religion. On the contrary,
it excites their reasoning powers — bids them to
examine—professes to give proof—lays before them
the Scripture as decisive—talks high of private judg
ment—and yet gives no evidence which can bear the
tests of ordinary historical and scientific inquiry.
When hereto it adds unseemly threats, denouncing
Divine judgment on all whose intellect rises against
its imbecility, none can wonder that the freer-thinking
Catholics say they may as well remain under the old
Church as go into another which, while it affects to
appeal to reason, is as essentially unreasonable as the
old one. “ My child,” said a Catholic bishop to a
Protestant in his neighbourhood, “ did I rightly hear
that you called the sacred doctrine of Transubstantiation irrational ? Oh, folly! If, in order to receive
the doctrine of the Trinity, you have crucified vain
�30
The Religious Weakness
reason, what avails to build again, that which you
have destroyed, by setting reason to carp at another
doctrine which is too hard for it ?”
Besides the miracles which inhere in the person of
Jesus, there are two great classes of miracles wrought
by him, and by or in his disciples, which may deserve
a few words here. First we have the casting-out of
devils—a miracle very prevalent in the three first
Gospels, though unknown to the fourth. No educated
physician, Catholic or Protestant, can well listen with
gravity to a truly orthodox discourse on this subject.
Indeed, many well-informed divines are ashamed of it,
and declare that popular ignorance mistook epilepsy,
catalepsy, madness, and other diseases, for a possession
by evil spirits. They are aware that the superstition
was learned by the Jews in Babylon, and still exists
in very ignorant countries ; and they tell us that the
Evangelists accommodated their dialect to that of the
ignorant,but made no substantial error. Hence, accord
ing to them, as we accept the phrase, that “ the sun
rises,” even if astronomically questionable; so must
we tacitly interpret the “ possession by a devil ” into
epilepsy, or some other disease. But such divines are
rather well-informed than candid; for they cannot
but be aware that it is impossible to get rid of the
“ devils ” by interpretation. Divines more candid,
but sometimes worse-informed, have far more cogently
argued, that the discerning of Jesus, as Son of God,
which is attributed to demoniacs—and still more
decisively, the passing of a legion of devils from a
man into a herd of swine—demonstrate the narrators
�of Protestantism.
to have had a definite belief in the supernatural know
ledge, power, and personality of the “ devils ” who
dwelt in the demoniacs. Thus our Protestant theo
logians, episcopal critics and historians, reverend
mathematicians, astronomers, geologists—men cer
tainly who know what proof is—solemnly read out in
church, for public edification, stories about devils,
which it is hard to believe they do not know to be
Babylonish frippery; and while thus glorifying
fictitious follies, wonder that many who disdain
hypocrisy rush headlong into the belief that most
religious men are hypocrites.
The second class of miracles is the speaking with
tongues, which so abounds in the book of the “ Acts
of the Apostles,” and on which there is ample discus
sion in “ Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians.”
We should in vain try here to abridge Mr Greg’s able
summary of the phenomenon, in pp. 169—178 of the
“ Creed of Christendom.” It is clear, both from the
details given by Paul, and from many other conside
rations, that these “ tongues ” were not real foreign
languages, but were gibberish, such as used to be
heard in the late Mi’ Edward Irving’s congregation
—a gibberish which Paul felt to be “ most probably
nonsensical, unworthy, and grotesque ” (Greg.)—
which he desired to repress, yet did not dare to
forbid.
“ We are driven to the painful but unavoidable conclusion,
that those mysterious and unintelligible utterances, which the
Apostles and the early Christians looked upon as the effects of
the Holy Spirit, the manifestation of its presence, the signs of
its operation, the especial indication and criterion of its having
�32
’The Religious Weakness
fallen upon any one, were in fact simply the physiologically
natural results of morbid and perilous cerebral exaltation,
induced by strong religious excitement acting on uncultivated
and susceptible minds ; results which in all ages and nations
have followed in similar circumstances and from similar
stimuli; and that these signs to which Peter appealed, and to
which the other brethren succumbed, as proving that God
intended the Gospel to be preached to Gentiles as well as to
Jews, showed only that Gentiles were susceptible to the same
excitements, and manifested that susceptibility in the same
manner as the Jews.”—Greg, p. 178.
There are other doctrines, common to the creed of
all the national Churches, which, though too cardinal
to omit, are too vast to discuss here in detail. We
allude especially to the Trinity, the Incarnation, and
the Atonement. These are rejected from Christianity
by the followers of Dr Priestley, who can fight
powerfully against the “ orthodox,” when they go
the full length of avowing that the Epistles of Paul
were of no authority in the Church at large for two
centuries, and that the fourth Gospel is full of pro
fanities, which would have shocked the earliest
Christians. But nothing can be so opposed to the
creed of European Christendom as this avowal; and
without disrespect to some great Unitarian writers,
when we speak of Christianity or Protestantism, we
do not and cannot mean their scheme of thought and
religion. The accomplished and variously-gifted
scholars who hold places as bishops or deans among
us, will justify us in treating these difficult doctrines,
with the resurrection and the miraculous conception,
as essential to Protestant Christianity. But since
they are aware that the laws of evidence are coeval
�of Protestantism,
33
with the human mind, and that the evidence strictly
and rightfully needed to establish a marvel now was
always strictly and rightfully needed, even before
men’s minds had ripened to discern it; we may fairly
propose to one of these learned persons, in the calm
retirement of his library, to put down on paper the
kind of evidence which, if tendered, would satisfy his
mind that the holiest and noblest man now living is
the Eternal (or an Eternal) Divine Being, Creator of
this world and of all worlds, future Judge of mankind,
who will give eternal life to some, and award con
demnation to others—a Being towards whom we may
exercise absolute trust and hope, and supreme adora
tion. If he seriously undertake the task we suggest,
we should not be greatly surprised if his meditation
threw unexpected light on Edward Irving’s apoph
thegm, “ Intellectual evidence is the egg of infidelity
or if it even reconciled him to the distinguished Mr
ICeble’s advice to his friend Arnold, as homely good
sense, to “ put down ” his doubts concerning the
Trinity “ by main force,” and take a curacy to get
rid of them.
At the same time, nearly the same problem as the
above rests on Unitarian Christians, whether their
philosophy grovel or aspire; who after giving active
aid to demolish the gorgeous fabric of magical ecclesiasm, now struggle to sustain its central shining
minaret—the unapproachable, absolute, moral per
fection of him, whom they elaborately maintain to be
merely human, and limited by human conditions.
But we will vary our demand. Suppose the East
�34
The Religious Weakness
and West so far to change places, that missionaries of
Buddhism come to England to convert us to their
religion. Let them proclaim, that Buddha—whom,
by reason of his virtue, his followers unwisely have
worshipped as God—was truly divine in goodness,
the incarnate image of absolute divine purity: that,
as such, his Person enters into the substance and obliga
tions of human religion; on which account they call
upon us to listen, while they preach his life, person,
and pre-eminence; and, moreover, thoughtfully to
study the ancient books which record his sanctity.
This hypothesis is, in fact, so closely akin to the real
Buddhism, that it might on any day become a case
of reality. Now, we ask of Unitarian Christians on
what primd facie evidence should we be bound to
explore the Oriental books, and listen with religious
hope to the argument, that Buddha is the Head of
mankind, and unique type of perfection ? To reply
that we have found such a Head already, and do not
want another, may be practically good, but is scien
tifically weak; for it avails equally to them, and
would justify them in exploding the perfect Christ,
because they already believe in a perfect Buddha.
Is the intrinsic unplausibility of a doctrine never a
reason for exploding it, without sacrifice of valuable
time and research ?—or can any folly concerning an
Apollo, who is physically a God and morally a liber
tine, be more unplausible than the Unitarian notion,
that Jesus was mentally a dwarf and morally a God ?
The present condition of theological “philosophy ”
among us (if the phrase be allowable) indicates that
�of Protestantism,
35
the old school is dying out. From fifty to thirty
years ago the doctrines of Paley (as regards Christian
“ Evidences ”) were dominant in both Universities,
and were acknowledged by High and Low Church
alike. At Oxford they were especially upheld by
such men as Copleston, afterwards Bishop of Llandaff;
•Shuttleworth, afterwards Bishop of Chichester;
"Whately, afterwards Archbishop of Dublin; Lloyd,
Regius Professor of Divinity, and a little while Bishop
<of Oxford; Vowler Short, now Bishop of St Asaph ;
Longley, now Archbishop of Canterbury; besides
•others who never emerged from the University.
They were able men, some remarkably able ; they
had the field to themselves, yet they could not keep
it. They sincerely believed that by invoking “ his
torical testimony ” they could recommend to the
assent of every unprejudiced and intelligent mind
such doctrines as we have denoted ; yet, against their
learning, experience, and high authority, two young
men in Oxford commenced an unexpected reaction—
Pusey, Professor of Hebrew, and J. H. Newman,
whose sole distinction then consisted in being a
Fellow of a most distinguished College; both of
whom had evidently become aware that Protestantism
•could not possibly stand on its old basis. To prove
by historical and learned evidence the postulate of
the Evangelicals, that the Bible from end to end is
infallible, they saw to be at once a hopeless and an
absurd undertaking. To lay logic as the foundation,
and make the doctrine of the Trinity the super
structure, they more than hinted, was very dangerous ;
�36
'The Religious Weakness
indeed, some of the “ Tracts for the Times ” almost
avow that no Protestant can prove the doctrine even
from the Scripture. Dr Newman (led on, we sup
pose, by polemical instincts) struck upon the method
of assailing with logic all who appeal to reason
(that is, common Protestants and liberals), while
assuming that the true faith (his own), being founded
on something higher than reason, is not bound to
justify itself to reason. This gave to his school a
delightful licence of attacking other people’s want of
logic, while reserving to itself the privilege of being
illogical at pleasure. Oxford still boasted of able
men, though some of those whom we have named
were withdrawn. The new “ Puseyism” soon reached
the ears of the outer world, and interested all England.
Baden Powell—and shall we say Hampden?—opposed
it from within; Whatelv, and Arnold, and Julius Hare,
and a host of Evangelicals, from without. At Cam
bridge, at least one man of vast and various powers,
keen ambition, deep and original thought—Whewell,
Master of Trinity College—would have started a
rival philosophy of the Christian religion, if he had
been able. In morals, Sedgwick and Whewell have
repudiated Paley; but we have never understood
that in regard to “ Christian Evidences ” they under
take to supersede him. Like the deep-souled Julius
Hare, and the sprightly, eager Arnold, they proved
unable to check the movement of Newman and
Pusey, whose attacks on the vulgar Protestantism
were very unshrinking. The Tractarians were,
no doubt, in a false position. They overthrew
�of Protestantism.
37
their allies from within, and were debarred from
attacking their great enemy without; for Romanism,
precisely on their ground, claims exemption from the
task of reconciling its dogmas with reason : moreover,
their doctrine of “ Apostolic succession ” presumes that
a Roman bishop, however wicked, has a power of
bestowing the Holy Spirit. In the result, Dr New
man discovered and repented of the sin of assailing
Rome. He has, nevertheless, done an effectual work
in England, practically showing in what those must
end who assume “ High Church ” axioms, and reason
from them with consistent logic. Simultaneously,
our knowledge of German theology has continually
been on the advance. Dr Pusey indeed himself, in
his ardent youth, was the first person to expound at
Oxford the deep Biblical learning and warm piety of
German theologians, who had in some points un
happily been carried too far, but who ought never
theless to be esteemed and honoured, and wisely
used. But he appears in a very few years to have
discerned that the free study of the Bible in the nine teenth century would never end in the theology of the
sixteenth, and by the discovery to have been forced
into a totally new career. Meanwhile, it has become
notorious that the arguments of Gardner and Paley
break down on the literary and historical side, in the
presence of the more accurate scholarship of the Ger
mans, to say nothing of a higher philosophy; so that
our academicians, if they endeavour to discuss “ evi
dences ” in Protestant fashion, dread to be precipi
tated into German neology; while, if they deprecate
�38
The Religious Weakness
private judgment and appeal to the Church, they are
fighting the battle of Rome. In such an entanglement
men of backward and stagnant minds may write and
speak as if nothing new had been added to our
knowledge of antiquity in the last fifty years; but
leading talents will no longer give their energies to
develop and maintain either theory of Anglicanism—
of the Low, or of the High Church.
The school of Paley has now, for perhaps the last
twenty years, its most prominent representative in
Mr Henry Rogers, whose grave Edinburgh articles
have been succeeded by elaborate effusions, called
coarseness and ribaldry by some critics, sacred mirth
by others. Most of our readers have probably read
his conception of an Irish Adam talking brogue to
the Creator against the Ten Commandments ; and
will add epithets at their own discretion to MrRogers’s name. We believe that he writes from the
outside of the Established Church. Within, Oxford
and Cambridge are waiting for a religious philosophy.
That of Professor Jowett may be very noble and very
true ; but it is so different from the hereditary Pro
testant doctrines, that the Oxonians cannot be blamed
for looking askance and timidly at it.
They are in general paralyzed, from an uneasy
foreboding of the dangers contingent on a close
reconsideration of first principles.
Precisely because theologians will not reconsider
first principles, but, with infinite disputes about their
superstructure, are careless about their foundation,
therefore it is that science tends to become Atheistic,
�of Protestantism.
39
alike in Protestant as in Catholic countries. The
blame of this may be justly laid upon the doctrine
which elaborately seeks for marks of God in every
thing unusual and exceptional, and denies His pre
sence in all that is ordinary and established. We are
aware that there are enlightened Protestant divines,
who disapprove this position; eminently the Rev.
Baden Powell, who, in the first of his “ Three Essays
on the Unity of Worlds,” speaks as follows:—
“ According to this mode of representation [by religious
writers] ‘ nature ’ was the rule, ‘ Deity ’ the exception. The
belief in nature was the doctrine of reason and knowledge;
the acknowledgment of a God was only the confession of
ignorance. So long as we could trace physical laws, nature
was our only and legitimate guide; when we could attain
nothing better, we were to rest satisfied with a God. Even learned
writers on natural theology have thought it pious to argue in
this way.”—p. 162, Second Edition. [Italics as in Mr Powell.]
Mr Powell’s protest is right and wise; but, with
deference to him, we add, it cannot be effectual unless
he pull down the whole Protestant theory, of which
the avowed foundation is the miraculous—the excep
tional. It commands us, not to look within our hearts,
or into human history, for the Divine, but into one
miraculous book and one miraculous history. It
virtually shuts God out" from inspiring us now,
by the stress which it lays on the special inspi
ration once granted by Him to a few. It lays
down that the Jewish history is sacred, and other
histories profane; and treats even the history of
the Christian Church as too secular for the pulpit,
from the day that the canon of Scripture was closed.
�40
The Religious Weakness
It represents that God is certainly present wherever
there is miracle, but that where miracle is not, no
one can be sure of the presence of God. Nothing
else is meant or can be meant by the infallible and
authoritative Bible, than to desecrate, in comparison
to it, all the ordinary modes of learning truth, and
duty, and right. In proportion to the power and
activity of this theory concerning miracles and the
Bible, will be the intensity with which a man
embraces the exceptionable and obscure phenomena
of the world as the great manifestation of Deiiy.
Undoubtedly Mr Powell rightly regards this to tend
to Atheism, for every step onward of knowledge is
then a lessening and weakening of the Theist’s
resources. But we submit to him that we are right
in insisting, that a theory which places the strength
of religion in the miraculous is naturally of Atheistic
tendency. It entraps into Atheism those students of
science, who, having no religious philosophy of their
own, borrow its fundamental principles from the
Church. In fact, those writers on “ Evidences,” who
now seem to have the field to themselves, make no
secret of their conviction that Atheism is the neces
sary logical result of an appeal to Science, the
Universe, and Man. On the one side, we see a great
ecclesiast, the Rev. Dr Irons, frankly declare that,
without the authoritative and supernatural revelation
by miracle, Nature preaches to us nothing concern
ing God. On the other, a would-be philosopher and
liberal Christian, Mr Rogers, in his “ Eclipse of
�of Protestantism.
4i
Faith,” announces that the Atheist has the argument
entirely in his own hands, as against the Deist, and
that without the Bible the only God preached by
Nature is an immoral or malignant Being. The
learned and highly popular author of a work called
“ The Restoration of Belief” goes so far as to insist,
that one who does not acknowledge the supernatural
authority of “ The Book,” not only ought to be an
Atheist, but has no right to talk of “ Conscience,
Truth, Righteousness, and Sin; ” and that sacrifices
for Truth are in such a one “not constancy, but
opinionativeness.” How can Christians avoid shud
dering at such avowals from their own advocates ?
which, if true, utterly destroy Christianity with
Theism, and prepare to plunge mankind into a state
of universal profligate recklessness.
That the Protestant theory has no future, is indi
cated by many marks. We have seen Arnold and
Julius Hare (good, noble, able men, of peculiar
acquirements) live and die without being able to
make themselves understood; a pretty clear proof that
the age has no susceptibility for their doctrine. The
same is true of the Rev. Frederick Maurice, and of the
Chevalier Bunsen. Mr Maurice is a man of acknow
ledged goodness and largeness of heart; as Professor
or Preacher, untiring in industry; devoted to raise
the working classes; so copious a writer on theology
that he will probably outdo Archbishop Whately in
amount; and he has evidently undertaken as the
work of his life to sublimate Church orthodoxy into
�42
’The Religious Weakness
a transcendental philosophy. Yet, in spite of the
high commendation bestowed upon his talents and
discrimination by a few, to the public at large he
seems to be only subtle, flimsy, and evasive. He may
be wise, but the age cannot understand him. “ What
does he mean ? ” is the cry which escapes from the
perplexed novices who would fain admire him. Not
dissimilar is the case with the accomplished Bunsen,
who invests in gorgeous colours and vast pomp of
intricate words a system of religious historicism, in
which the common intellect can discover no solidity,
no fixed shape, no firm and certain meaning. And as
the new quasi-Coleridgian school proves feeble to us
and dim, so neither does the old nursery rear any
thriving plants. No young Whatelys show them
selves. Nobody of high reputation now writes trea
tises on the Trinity. Whately did but bring on him
self a strong and dangerous imputation of “ Sabellianism,” by the remarks in his Logic on the word
“Person
Hampden half ruined himself by being
too learned on the same subject. Men of the Evan
gelical school, who have no philosophic reputation to
lose, may publish sermons on the Atonement; but a
systematic treatise on this involves much risk to a
man of note. Schleiermacher’s “ Discourse on St
Luke” was translated about twenty years ago (as
was believed) by Dr now Bishop Thirlwall: we have
never heard that it has been answered by any one.
Many have claimed, that the Bishop will answer it
himself, since he now disavows it. Nor does any
�of Protestantism.
43
leading divine undertake to refute the works of
Charles Hennell or W. R. Greg. When the wise
men hold their peace under such attacks, it must be
thought that they are but too conscious of the weak
ness of their own cause.
In consequence of the freedom which in Protestant
countries many sects attain, we see from time to time
the doctrine of personal inspiration (perhaps with
some fanaticism) assert itself strongly against the
ecclesiastical, which makes inspiration an exceptional
thing of the past. Thus Whitfield, and thus Hunt
ington the coalheaver, thus also Edward Irving, were
distinguished. Speculators have marked out as revi
vals such periodical recurrences of a simpler and
nobler theology, but have lamented that the fresh
ness of religious enthusiasm always decays in the
second generation. Some even have elicited from
this a “ law ” of nature: that the stage of languor
follows that of excitement; or that the era of com
mentators follows . that of men of genius. The
existence of this “ law ” may seem plausible from the
side of total unbelief; but it is difficult to understand
what intelligent theory of the phenomenon can
rightly recommend itself to a devout Evangelical or
to any earnest Protestant. The phenomenon is not
confined to our sects, nor to the ignorant and excite
able. Neither in Geneva, nor in Scotland, nor in
England, nor in Protestant Germany, could a second
and third generation sustain the religious warmth of
the first; nor indeed is it denied by Romanists that
�44
The Religious Weakness
learning is the fertile mother of heresy. Assuredly,
if religion be a deep and noble principle, rightful and
reasonable to man, then a particular form of religion
must be involved in some very essential falsehood, if
its vigour and vitality are uniformly undermined by
accessions to its knowledge, or by the tranquil
advance of experience. A true religion can but strike
its roots deeper with cultivation of mind and increase
of wisdom. That must be a fundamental fanaticism
which thrives only upon action and excitement, and
wastes by calm examination and learning. Alike in
Catholic and in Protestant countries, the world has
still to wait for a religion which shall grow stronger
and stronger with every development of sound scien
tific acquirement.
Nor perhaps is this the worst: for we must add
Europe has yet to wait for a religion which shall
exert any good influence over public measures. A
distinguished foreigner, in his own consciousness a
true Christian—whose name we could not properly
here bring forward—on a recent day said, in a select
circle : “ I begin to doubt whether Christianity has a
future in the world.” “ Why so ? ” asked one pre
sent, in surprise at such an augury from such a
quarter. “ Because,” he replied, ■ neither in India,
nor in America, nor anywhere at all in Europe, does
any of the governments called ‘ Christian ”—I do
not say, do what is right, but—even affect and pre
tend to take the Right as the law of action. What
ever it was once, Christianity is now in all the great
�of Protestantism.
45
concerns of nations a mere ecclesiasticism, powerful
for mischief, but helpless and useless for good.
Therefore I begin to doubt whether it has a future ;
for if it cannot become anything better than it is, it
has no right to a future in God’s world.”
C. IT. BEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENET ST., HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The religious weakness of Protestantism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 45, [1] p. ; 19 cm
Notes: Publisher's list on unnumbered page at the end.
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
1866
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4851
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 />This work (The religious weakness of Protestantism), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
Protestantism
Christianity
Protestantism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6dc56683a420ad4f7248a6fa16b74b97.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=I57-dkGKA30bshNjLTI-2uJT-52XA%7EevxODjjI7G2TRMmQtYwcT1CsL9RpCkUPd-C8VkwM3c77-xrNacPGqV1QRk%7Ex7zbSzZbPCPeoicoI4rDsV1hlravXC4EGVFNLrKuyZ6w-jrSV8l9-TfFKfLJwaPWs-buG7PU3SQAG4lJGyapHxdDG7hSDH7U-nRw80VgmR9sl9lVoxqk7GiNV85VAlUpFHb8pVuTzDoCKUmI3Br1n3jtIknGMEbRh%7E9QxYmMfH3T5cxYUdmGOw3z4Zsc0%7ESajv6RB7fQg40N7LPJCwrNzAWOYek-5KGTHDOJrSv3NOscsCGt3I4HJWGm29Nbg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e9ecfe3439733cc1923d5819b03198cc
PDF Text
Text
APPEAL OF A PROTESTANT
TO THE POPE
TO RESTORE THE
LAW OF NATIONS.
REPLY TO SIX QUESTIONS
ON THE
BUSINESS FOR THE ANNOUNCED
SIXTH LATERAN COUNCIL.
BY
DAVID URQUHART.
“ When the true notion of Justice becomes obscured, material force
takes the place of Right.”—Pius IX.
LONDON:'
DIPLOMATIC REVIEW OFFICE,
24, EAST TEMPLE CHAMBERS,
1868.
�This exposition arose out of an application to the
writer to put down concisely the substance of several
conversations.
The heads were given as follows:
“ 1st. The former universal observance of Interna
tional Law.
“ 2nd. Its present total disuse.
“ 3rd. The absolute necessity if Society is to be saved,
of a general reacknowledgment of International Law.
“ 4th. The Catholic Church, with the Pope at its head,
the only power capable of enforcing this.
“ 5th. The approaching General Council the occasion
for doing so.
“ 6 th. The means to the end being (in part) the for
mation of a Diplomatic College at Rome.”
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL, &c.
The Priory, January 18, 1868.
If it were possible to be concise it would be superfluous to
write. What I have to say every one formerly knew. They
do not know to-day, because of the fallacious terms and erring
propositions, which form the sum of every man’s intellectual
being.
The removal of these—the unteaching—is the work. It can
only be done by conversation. If made in writing, the attempt
must consist in more than statement or indication. The case
itself would be all contained in these words : “ Do what is right,
“ you who have no interest in doing what is wrong.”
1st
and
2nd.
PASSAGE FROM LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
The two first questions resolve themselves into one. It cannot
be said that the Law of Nations was formerly universally ob
served; nor that at the present time it has fallen into total
disuse. Both questions are directed to obtaining a definition
as to that portion of the public Law which has been disregarded,
and to fixing the limit of time at which such change has
taken place. It is in this manner, therefore, that I shall give
my answer.
The Law of Nations is a Code which regulates the intercourse
of communities, as if they were individuals. The difference be
tween an individual and a Nation consists only in number,
leaving rights, duties, and obligations precisely the same. In
a 2
�4
PASSAGE FROM
the one and the other case, all Law is founded on the Ten Com
mandments, and specially on the four:
Thou SHALT NOT kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou SHALT NOT bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet.
All which Commandments are broken collectively when a Nation
makes war upon another, without necessity, without just cause,
and without due form. That is to say, when it makes war with
a deliberate purpose of doing wrong, that wrong consisting in an
invasion or attack, which cannot be made without killing inno
cent individuals, without robbing and destroying their property.
Then these acts must of necessity be accompanied by alleging
falsely against the innocent guilty acts, and coveting that which
belongs to them.
The purpose to commit those things must exist somewhere
when they are committed. That purpose need not co-exist nu
merically with the community; it may be confined to a few, or
even to a single individual; it will be found in the brain of the
community, wherever that brain happens to be. Nevertheless,
the guilt is common to all, because it is the result of their acts,
whether perpetrated by their hands, or accomplished through
the taxes they contribute, and the assent which they give.
And as this co-operation and assent, in so far as it is blind, can
result only from the resignation of judgment in regard to
matters affecting religious conscience and political duties, the
guilt becomes twofold. Such a people is at once a felon and a
slave.
No war is made except in so far as one of the parties to it has
been reduced to this condition. When such an event has oc
curred, some one people has been thus guilty: whilst some other
people, resisting the crime, has become the protector of public
and private innocence and liberty throughout the World.
That the Law shall cease to be appealed to by the State that is
attacked, is the lowest condition to which humanity can be re
duced; it is the destruction of all human Society. It is our
present condition.
No nation can proceed honestly against another, save for acts.
It must suffer from these acts. Otherwise it cannot come into
court. It cannot proceed to pass sentence on such acts, and to
carry that sentence into execution by levying wrar, until it has
exhausted every means for obtaining redress or security, and has
thus put beyond the possibility of doubt or even cavil, the
existence on the earth of a Power resolved and prepared to dis
turb the repose of the human race. Such must be the course,
without any enactment, of an honourable or a wise nation. This
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
5
also is what the law prescribes. This is the law and rule which
each people has to enforce the observance of, on its own Govern
ment. In this consists and is shown its domestic liberty. In
this resides the means, and the only means, of preventing wars
and preserving peace; that is to say, of preserving it when not
broken by a real necessity, such as the incursion of barbarous
tribes or the outburst of some military genius at the head of a
great martial people, itself alone superior to all its neighbours.
These are the rare but sole contingencies on which the know
ledge of the law by the various communities, and the enforce
ment of it on their sovereigns and his servants, would not suffice
for the preservation of peace. All the recent wars of Europe
have arisen solely from the cessation of this restraint; in other
words, from the absence of integrity in the men composing these
communities.
It may be useful to quote an instance :
A country (Hanover) can be invaded in full peace without
declaration of war, without ground or pretext of any kind on
which to found such declaration, there having been no act what
ever done by it. It can be, thereupon, conquered (through a
succession of military treacheries) and incorporated with an
other, while the rest of Europe remain unmoved witnesses of
the crime. The victim makes no appeal to the Law !
This can only be because the law is dead. The other nations
have not remained silent; they have applauded. They are led,
having lost the standing ground of integrity, by mercenary
writers of daily comments. This can be done, because the assault
of one body on another, having ceased to be judged of on its
own grounds, is judged of on other grounds which have no
connexion with the case itself. These grounds consist in the
emotions of each man’s mind, and may be resolved into and
classed as speculations on ethnography, on philology, on geography,
on forms of government, on dogmas of religion, out of which he
draws conclusions and says, “ This people shall be united to or
“ dissevered from that people ; this king shall reign in that
“ country! such country shall expel its king, and have a re“ public; that country shall abrogate its republic, and have
“ a monarchy. This being my desire, whoever achieves it is
“ an estimable person, and whatever means he adopts are good
il means.” Thus it is that at any and every moment the occasion
is open for the employment of the last resort of man—blood
shed. For bloodshed no reason whatever need now be offered;
no wrong need have been done, attempted, or so much as
dreamt of.
Here is the test by which to separate the base from the
Upright. Every man who, being himself upright would stop
�PASSAGE FROM
evil ancl reclaim his fellow-man, must discipline himself so as
to be able to convince and convict, by showing each man with
whom he converses that, in so far as he pursues a speculation
and indulges in desires in reference to the affairs of other people
with whom he has no business, he lives without law and without
faith in the world; and lends his aid, so far as it can go,
to that universal trouble, out of which will, in due course, be
brought the domination over all of one grinding political and
religious despotism. So true is it that the Law is the foundation
of States and the only security for peace and goodwill among
men, that when it becomes obliterated, as it is to-day, nothing
can be held permanent or secure, not even their own opinions.
This deplorable condition springs from the perversion of lan
guage through the use of false and ambiguous terms; thence
the unbridled passion for destruction. Whatever is not ourselves
is hateful to us, from overweening vanity and presumption in
regard to what we imagine ourselves to be.
It is not only that the truth is hateful to them; it is con
temptible. They despise it quite conscientiously, when by the
rarest of chances, any of them hears it. Thus you say to a man,
“ Bloodshed without cause is murder, no less on the battle-field
“ than in a dark alley.” He answers, “ Oh, you must be a
“ Quaker, and will have peace at any price.” You answer him,
“ I did not speak of peace, which is a consequence; but of
“ crime, which is the cause, and of justice, which is the remedy.”
He replies, “ Oh! all wars are unjust.” He does not see that he
is confounding the commission and the punishment of crime,
and substituting felon for judge, and judge for felon. If, by
management, you at last succeed in showing him his error,
instead of being rejoiced at being emancipated from it, instead
of earnestly and hopefully entering on the new field thus opened
to him, he is only angry because proved to have been wrong,
and has no thought save that of afterwards misrepresenting to
himself that which has passed, and of reviling to others the
person from whom he has heard it. Thus it is that the truth
cannot be known. Unless shame and repentance come with
sight, blindness is not removed. This period of compunction
and of shame has passed for our age, save for very powerful
minds, very young persons, or exceptional cases of remarkable
conscientiousness, which suffice to conquer the universal passion
of self-love.
Those who are the depositaries of this truth have, therefore,
to undergo a life of trial; suffering in the sight of the uncon
sciousness around them, pain in every attempt to remove it, selfreproach in every possible occasion unemployed, persecution as
soon as the nature of their thoughts and character is appre
hended.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
7
Physical truth (discovery) is gratifying to the investigator,
and is accepted with gratitude by the rest. Moral truth is the
discovery of error in all, and is hateful to those to whom it is
presented.
What the desire of food is for animal nature so is for the in
tellectual being the desire of being right. That is, it is the main
spring on which all depends. Each virtue has its corresponding
vice : this, which is not a virtue, but the source of all virtue,
must, therefore, have in its counterpart the source of all evil.
That counterpart is the fear of being found out to be wrong; in
other words, the desire to appear to be right. This condition is
expressed by the word self-love. To say, then, that this is the
character of an age, is to express the very worst condition to
which a people can be reduced. The sign of it is offence at
being told that they are wrong. It is conscience, the stay of
integrity, perverted so as to become its enemy. This is the
evil of our times, and it must be boldly looked in the face and
known to be the real enemy we have to combat, concealed
behind all the disguises it puts on of political opinion, philoso
phical maxim, and religious pretence.
When an individual murder is committed, the heart of every
man is moved; human indignation is at work to trace, detect,
and punish. The extensive organisations of police, criminal and
legal functionaries, pursue the guilty as a business and a trade.
The conscience of the guilty is itself at work, paralysing his pro
ceedings, betraying his steps, pursuing him during his defence,
and finally overtaking him on the scaffold or the death-bed.
What prevents these safeguards from exerting their power in
the case of multiple murder ? It is only that it is not seen to
be so. It is not so seen from the progressive servility of decay
ing nations before power; whilst neither secular nor religious
instruction has applied itself to inform them in childhood as to
the nature of crime and sin in this respect, and so brought them
up as just, virtuous, or even conscious men.
That association in India known by the name of Thugs pre
sent a striking and instructive analogy. Amongst these persons
the same sense existed as to individual murder that in modern
Christendom exists as to aggregate murder. A Thug, reverting
to the sense of crime in such acts and endeavouring to convict
his fellows of guilt, would have stood in reference to that com
munity in exactly the same position as an inhabitant of
modern Europe in making the same attempt in reference to his
contemporaries. Such a person will in vain appeal to the com
mon religion of the land, any more than to the common instincts
of humanity.
The picture is, however, entirely reversed if such words are
spoken by the highest religious authority, recognised already by
�8
PASSAGE FROM
millions as the vice-regent of God upon earth. The offence ceases
for them, at least, and all will exclaim, as at the Council of
Clermont “ Died le veut !” It is the will of God that there
be peace on earth and goodwill among men, which can be onlythrough justice. St. Paul preached the kingdom to come, but
he first preached of <( judgment and justice.”
The first step backwards and out of this labyrinth of darkness
consists in regaining a clear and distinct perception of the various
acts which we include to-day under the general term War, and
of those other acts to which the term no ways applies, but which
we equally include under it.
Wars have to be classed under three heads. First, necessary;
second, just; and third, lawful.
An unnecessary war may be one to which the character of
just also applies—that is, when the Declaration has been had
recourse to, without the other preliminary steps which might
have forced the adverse party to do justice, or when the requi
site business-like capacity has not been employed, to bring the
negotiation to a fortunate issue. Thus, when Mr. Disraeli
called the Russian war of 1854, “ This most just and most un
necessary war,” the idea was presented of a war that might have
been just had the means been adopted which should have ren
dered it unnecessary; implying, that though just by occasion
being given for it by guilty acts on the other side, it wTas so no
longer, when on our side the available means had not been taken,
either to prevent the acts of which we complained, or to force the
satisfaction which we demanded.
An unjust war is one in which that is demanded which we
have no right to claim, and the adverse party is under no obli
gation to concede. Such, for instance, as the war against
France in 1806, which was made after the adjustment of all
matters respectively affecting England and France; and when,
thereafter, England made further demands, unjust in them
selves, and put forward by a third Power (Russia). The re
course in such a case is to the constituted authorities of the
State against the Ministers ; but the formalities being observed,
such as the statement of the case (Rerum Repetition, the announce
ment of the Penalty (ultimatum), the Record in Chancery, the
Proclamation to the Subjects, the Denunciation to the Enemy,
and the Commission to “ kill, burn, and destroy,”—the military
oath of the soldier is saved, and weapons can be drawn and used
lawfully.
The third case is that which, being unnecessary and unjust,
has further been made without the due and above-stated forms;
and where, therefore, there is no warrant for the use of weapons.
Any man so using them exposes himself to the last of penalties,
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
9
not only as regards the State assailed, but also as regards the
criminal and martial laws of his own country.
*
As regards the
world, this is piracy; as regards the country, it is the levying of
private war. When any case arises under it in our courts of
law, it will be disallowed, as carrying no legal consequences, as
was shown in the first Chinese war.}
Unlawful Wars have happened in the history of mankind; but
they have been of the rarest occurrence. Consisting chiefly of the
outbreak of hordes who have devastated extensive portions of
the Earth, they may be considered rather as convulsions of nature
than as operations of man. These cases have been indeed con
sidered by jurists, but only to dispose of them in a phrase to the
effect that they do not constitute war, but consist simply in
robbery and piracy.
Every man engaged in such enterprises is liable to be dealt
with, and ought to be dealt with, as a pirate; that is to say, hung
without trial if taken with arms in his hands. Thus it was that,
when Geneva, in 1602, was attacked without Declaration of
War by the Duke of Savoy, the inhabitants of that town
hung upon its walls every Savoyard they had captured. Stress
is laid upon The act by the Jurists, specially by Vattel, as a
precedent of authority. It is particularly noted that no attempt
at reprisals was made by the Duke of Savoy, and that a general
assent on the part of all Nations followed this display of vigour
and of justice, by which has been preserved the independence
of that small State.
.Unlawful Wars, when they did occur otherwise than as the
migrations of hordes were treated exactly as piracy on the high
seas, or the enterprises of Bandits in a forest; or as murders and
robberies in Town or Country.
It is to the latter category that belong the operations of fleets
and armies in this age. It may, therefore, be designated as that
of lawlessness. Those who receive and execute the commission
to murder and to rob are not aware that they are doing aught
* “ At the table of the Commander-in-Chief, not many years since, a young officer
entered into a dispute with Lieutenant-Colonel------ upon the point to which military
obedience ought to be carried. 4 If the Commander-in-Chief,’ said the young officer
like a second Scid, 4 should command me to do a thing which I knew to be civilly
illegal, I should not scruple to obey him, and consider myself as relieved from all
responsibility by the commands of my military superior.’ 4 So would not I,’ returned
the gallant and intelligent officer, who maintained the opposite side of the question.
I should rather prefer the risk of being shot for disobedience by my commanding
officer than hanged for transgressing the laws and violating the liberties of my
comtry. 4 You have answered like yourself,’ said His Royal Highness, whose attention
had been attracted by the vivacity of the debate ; ‘ and the officer would deserve both
to be shot and hanged that should act otherwise. I trust all British officers would
be as unwilling to execute an illegal command as I trust the Commander-in-Chief
would be incapable of issuing one.’ ”—Sir Walter Scott's Memoir of the Duke of York.
I See case of Evans v. Hutton.
�10
PASSAGE FEOM
amiss, and those who suffer are not aware that they can protect
themselves by inflicting on the criminals their due punishment.
It is by the abstaining of the sufferers, through the loss of the
sense of law in their own breasts, from hanging the pirates who
assail them; and, on the contrary, treating them when captured
as innocent and honourable men, that is, as prisoners of war,
that that judicial blindness has fallen on the eyes of all. As
violence is not summed up in its particular performance, but
assumes to establish a despotic authority over the human race, so
is innocence when assailed invested with supreme attributes, if it
duly performs its duty of protest, resistance, and punishment. It
is in this sense that the maxim of Roman law — Justice is in
the keeping of the injured — receives its counter-application in
the present day.
Each of these crimes does not spring from the active pre
sence of so many millions of individual passions hurrying them
on. It springs solely from two causes: 1. Blind obedience to
the Executive; 2. Absence of penalty from the injured.
Having thus circumscribed the field, a very encouraging con
sideration presents itself. It is that of its simplicity. To ap
prehend it, neither legal, constitutional, diplomatic, nor historical
studies are requisite. The simple instincts of the most illiterate
of men suffice to embrace it and apply it. It only requires to be
stated to be accepted by all. There may arise difficulties in
reference to the means of rectification; but there can be none
as to the consequences to the human race, unless the remedy be
found.
As to the period of this momentous change, it cannot be fixed
to a year and by an event; it being in the course of nature that
change should be progressive. Unnecessary and unjust Wars
had long to be made and often repeated, before the new course
of ferocity became easy or possible. It may be needful severally
to trace these steps: and the more so, as the people of this
country is entirely ignorant of the acts done by itself.
As regards England, the first great disturbance took place
under the influence of polemical hatreds, and in connexion with
a Revolution, a change in the Succession of the Crown, and the
establishment on the throne of a Foreign Prince. This was the
war of the Spanish Succession. It arose out of a treaty in
which, for the first time, the legal and constitutional element
in an International proceeding, though not openly set aside, was
virtually extinguished. The signature of the Lord Chancellor
was appended to the blank parchment, which so transmitted to
William III., then in Holland, was filled in at his arbitrary
pleasure. To have protected this Empire, and with it Em-ope,
from the consequences of this crime, it would have been
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
11
requisite to have put Lord Somers on his trial for his life. This
course not having been adopted, this first step was followed by
others in the same direction. All legal and all constitu
tional checks were successively withdrawn, whether as to the
making of wars, whether as to the negotiating and signing of
compacts with foreign States, out of which war arises. Simul
taneously the Royal functions were withdrawn from the super
vision of the body through which alone “ they could be exer
cised” and remitted to the disposal of an illegal body, to which
the designation of “ King’s Cabinet” was affixed. It is now
most falsely and most fatally held that the signing of treaties
and the making of war belong to the Royal Prerogative; whilst
such Royal Prerogative is held to be duly exercised, not by the
King in Privy Council, but by the accidental body brought
into power by a parliamentary majority, and which is called the
Cabinet.”
The wars, from that of the Spanish Succession, have been,
like it, unnecessary and unjust without exception, whilst, in carry
ing them on, the real power of England, in her naval means,
has been restrained rather than employed, by the successive
holders of office. But down to the close of the great wars of
the French revolution, a remnant of respect and of decency had
so far prevailed, that such forms as were of absolute necessity
to guard the consciences of soldiers and sailors were observed.
The warrant for destruction accompanied hostilities, and the
orders to kill, burn, and destroy were duly issued.
It is, then, since the European wars ceased, that commences
the era of uncloaked brigandage. The first incident (Navarino)
took place in 1827, which, though originating in a lawless treaty,
was not followed up by other operations (at least by England),
and was explained as the result of a mistake.
We have to come down eleven years nearer our own day for
the first positive and complete case of a buccaneering expedi
tion, undertaken and carried through by a constituted Govern
ment. This was the invasion of Affghanistan. The year
1838 may therefore be fixed upon as the period when war
ceased, and when the mere killing of men by the orders of
Governments commenced.
The Affghan war was made on the allegation that a certain
ruler was “ unfriendly” to England. This allegation, in itself
no ground for war, was supported by various sets of documents
presented to Parliament. These documents, being received by
the Envoy employed, they were declared by him to be a “ tissue
of falsehoods.” He consequently sent home for publication true
copies of his despatches. After many years and repeated motions
in Parliament, the original despatches were produced. The truth
�12
PASSAGE FROM
of the statement of Sir A. Burnes was then established; and it
was proved that the allegation against Dost Mahomed, and on
which the war to upset him had been explained and accepted, had
been made out, through an elaborate falsification of the official
despatches of the British Envoy.
The war therefore was unnecessary; it was unjust, for it was
not just to attack or upset a foreign Prince ; and being neither
necessary or just, it could not be, by any “ formality” rendered
legal, nor was there so much as the attempt to do so. The
document which appeared, though entitled a “Declaration,”
declared no war, but was restricted to observations in reference
to “ the service of troops across (beyond) the Indus.”
No ground was taken in Parhament on the law for resistance
to, or punishment of, this crime. After the whole of the ex
pedition had perished, a motion for mere inquiry was defeated,
and a second invasion was planned for the purpose of naked
vengeance.
But before this positive and hot-handed revolt against all laws
of God and man, preparations had been made for screening those
guilty in this respect from punishment. The English Government
negotiated with Spain a treaty (Elliot convention), according
to which they should no longer shoot the foreigners taking part
in the Civil contest then raging, and who were, and could only
be treated as pirates. The matter was managed with art.
There is no mention made of these foreigners. The English
Minister is only moved by the interests of humanity. It was
in the name of that great Moloch that both parties were called
upon not to shoot men after the battle was over.
*
In the Affghan war commencing the new era for mankind,
is found combined every order of guilt together with loss and
injury. It was to be expected that the licence thus obtained
should soon produce corresponding effects, and so it has proved.
Thirty years have now elapsed. During that time no Conqueror
has arisen: there has existed no necessity for war; yet wars, or
the operations to which the name has been affixed, have followed
uninterruptedly from that hour to the present; first in Asia,
then in Europe, after that in America, and now at last in Africa ;
all resulting either from the direct act of England, her indirect
encouragement, or through the operation of the general law
lessness which her practice has introduced or her authority
established.
This proceeding on the part of England awakened no atten
tion on the Continent of Europe. The sense of law was already
so far obliterated that the character of the new crime was not
• In the collection of Treaties published by the English Government this Conven
tion is wanting.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
13
perceived; the people against whom the blow was levelled wTas
remote ; they were looked upon as cc infidels” and (i uncivilised,”
and in respect to whom no Laws had to be observed. They did
not perceive that the reaction would afterwards fall upon Europe
herself. Indeed, France had herself a few years before com
menced the same lawless course in Africa, and had afterwards
continued it in Mexico and South America.
The invasion of Affghanistan was immediately followed by the
first Chinese War; a war, so far as the Chinese were concerned,
but piracy only on the part of Grreat Britain, as was formally
established.by the English Courts. Then came the destruction
of the British army in Affghanistan, and the second invasion for
the sake of vengeance. This was followed by the second and
third Chinese wars with their revolting incidents of atrocity
and barbarity. Then came the two Persian Wars, the two
attacks on Japan, the Bombardment of Jeddah, and now the
Invasion of Abyssinia. All these wars are of the same cha
racter, that is to say, unnecessary, unjust, profitless, and unac
companied by the forms requisite to make a just and necessary
War a lawful one.
It has to be remarked that whilst there was no gain to be
obtained by these operations, so was there no passion of an
internal kind to be gratified. The British Nation was on every
occasion surprised into them. Falsification of documents to the
extent of forgery, and every kind of misrepresentation were em
ployed to bring them about. These artifices were directed not
only against the public and the Parliament, but also against the
Colleagues of the Minister, and the Sovereign. And the im
punity, success, and pre-eminence of the sole Minister who
managed them, was secured by the idea that the honour of Eng
land was compromised and had to be maintained. Whilst, in
the universal sense of mental weakness and public insecurity,
confidence was given to the one man, in whom the rest recog
nised resolution and capacity.
Amongst the incidents of this order of which Asia has been
the field, we have to enumerate the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857,
it having been produced by the transmission from England to
India, in defiance of the standing orders of the department, of
cartridges prepared in a manner which inflicted pollution on our
Eastern subjects. The design in this case was the same as
in all the others ; and it was practicable and successful like the
others, only through the extinction of all the restraints hitherto
imposed on evil doers.
Thus from the year 1838 down to the year 1868 there has
been a scarcely uninterrupted series of piratical expeditions on
the vastest scale, the effects of which have been to shake the
�14
PASSAGE FROM
power of England in the East, to sap the basis of society and
the means of Government throughout these vast Regions, by
imposing heavy pecuniary obligations, and breaking down Con
stitutional restraints. Whilst, not there only, but throughout the
World, has the sense of law been obliterated from the minds of
men.
We have now to review the occurrences in our own quarter
of the globe.
The settlement of 1815 was one which, not restoring the con
ditions that had been disturbed and the rights that had been
infringed, prepared the way for what was to follow. It was
almost immediately followed by the Treaty called the Holy Alliance, which, pretending to establish a common right of Govern
ments to lend mutual aid to each other against their subjects,
had for effect that which was the object of its original proposer
—to generalise Revolution. All Governments were to lend
their troops against all subjects; all subjects were consequently
to combine against any Government. The distinction of alien
and subject was effaced, everybody could interfere with every
body and everywhere, and the right was established for every
man to fly at every other man’s throat. This heinous and sacriligious Treaty—for it pretended to act in the name of Christ—
introduced the unlawful system of Congresses. These generated
unlawful Wars; thus from it came the invasion of Naples by
Austria, and of Spain by France, and that general confusion
of opinions and affairs which has prevailed unto the present day.
Concurrently with these operations there was the intervention
in the East for the so-called “ Pacification of the Levant,” but
which was directed to the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire. The
Greeks had been insurrectionised by Russia. England, whom
it was found impossible to draw into the Holy Alliance, on the
withdrawal of the Russian Minister, made herself the organ of
Russia at Constantinople. The Turks resisting, a Treaty was
signed between England, France, and Russia, to constrain the
Turks. It stipulated that the means of action should be left
at the disposal of their representatives. This treaty was, there
fore, not a beneficent compact, but an outrage and an infamy.
It was, moreover, the surrender by each of the three Govern
ments of all control over their own actions, and placed their
respective forces at the conjoint disposal of their agents; that is,
of the one of these agents who happened to be more dexterous
than the others. Out of this came the butchery of Navarino,
and the destruction of the naval power of Turkey, followed im
mediately by the Russian invasion of Turkey, and the with
drawal of the representatives of England and France; so that it
was a common war of the three Powers against an Empire which
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
15
two of them had entered into the negotiation with the avowed
purpose of protectingI
Meanwhile the Ruler of Egypt, secretly invited to revolt, first
by England and afterwards by France, twice rebelled, imperil
ling all Europe. After ten years of confusion, the result of
these negotiations and acts, a rupture was effected between Eng
land and France in reference to Egypt. A treaty sent from St.
Petersburg, and signed by England, Austria, and Prussia,
behind the back of France, all but produced a general European
war, and left everything in utter confusion, with an immense
increase of the warlike charges of France, and the fortifications
around Paris.
Not one of these steps could have been taken had there existed
in the Minister of any State “ respect for the laws or fears
“ for his person.”* They could not have taken place had the
Executives not usurped the power of making war without the
assent of the Estates of the Realm. They could not have taken
place had the Privy Council not been displaced from within the
Executive. They could not have taken place had the habit not
arisen of permanent Embassies, by which the internal condition
was invariably subjected to external considerations and influence.
Finally, they could not have taken place had the churches of
Christendom taught that murder in the aggregate was not less,
but the same sin, as murder in the individual. For then war
would no longer have been possible on the mere motion of the
Minister; letters and despatches would have remained without
effect to produce convulsion; and that maleficent power desig
nated “ moral influence ” would have been lifted off the human
race.
The pressure of taxation, the disturbance of every basis of
judgment; the absence of all authoritative exposition of what is
right in maxim, or profitable in practice; the periodical convul
sions arising from a fictitious monetary system; and the expen
diture of large sums of money and endless activity on the part
of one Government to organise secret and revolutionary societies,
had now prepared Europe for the repetition on a larger scale, in
1848, of the convulsion of 1830.
This event, to which our present state more immediately
belongs, was led and managed for Russia by England. It began
in Switzerland by double-dealing with the parties in the Civil
War. This was followed by the celebrated despatch of October,
1847, announcing designs of Austria on Italy, and threatening her
on the part of England. Then came the mission of Lord Minto
to all the Governments of Italy openly to impose on them in* Words used in the House of Commons, February, 1848, as applied to the English
Minister.
�16
PASSAGE FROM
ternal measures, and openly to invite the various populations to
revolt. No point of Europe was neglected. The ground was
everywhere mined by Russian revolutionary agents, whilst
England openly invoked rebellion. Thus, on a given day, in the
beginning of 1848, from Copenhagen and Bucharest, to the
Mediterranean and the Atlantic, every people was convulsed
and every throne upset.
When after a time the re-establishment came, there was,
in all respects, a difference. The Governments were more sub
servient, the people more discontented. The military organisa
tions were augmented, the debt and taxes were increased.
Hitherto the north of Europe had been spared; one people
in Europe was tranquil, had no factions, and was attached alike
to its institutions and to its Prince. It was now to be drawn
into the European vortex, and whilst made the victim of its order
and ‘loyalty, was to be converted into a more terrible lever of
convulsion than any other of the fragments of the confederacy
of European States, which had severally been used as dupes and
instruments. This people were the inhabitants of the Duchies
of the Eyder. The King of Denmark had been induced, on
perfidious councils from Paris, to infringe the rights of the
Duchies on the plea of including them in a general representative
constitution, which would make the “ United Danish Monarchy”
a barrier against Russia. Being thus prepared to be acted on
by the convulsion of 1848, a civil war with Denmark broke out,
which, by the management of England, was kept on for three
years. She interfered each Autumn by mediation, and prolonged
the situation till the warlike operations could be resumed in the
Spring, which were then allowed to take their course. Prussia
lent her aid to the same work by pushing on the Duchies,
getting the command of the conjoint forces, and then betraying
them in the field. After four years of this bloodshed and perfidy,
matters were brought to a head, and an arrangement took place
at Warsaw between the Russian Czar, as head of the House of
Oldenburg, and the King of Denmark, by which the succession
of the crown was altered, so that almost the whole of the inter
vening and numerous heirs were cut off; a successor named
to the Royal line, at the option of the Emperor of Russia, and
his own title as heir-general established, both to the Kingdom
and the Duchies.
Such a compact, unlawful as all the rest, was also offensive in
the last degree to Denmark, and alarming to all Europe. It was
impossible for the Danish Government to present to the Diet of
Copenhagen a law to carry it into effect. The Compact or Pro
tocol had been kept secret. To impose it on Denmark, and to
impose it on Europe, it was taken up by England. A Treaty,
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
17
embodying the Warsaw Protocol, was signed in London, May
Sth, 1852, rehearsing that the arrangement had already been
made, and that the Treaty was only to give to it a “ European
sanction.” On this it was proposed to the. Danish Diet, as a
“ European necessity.” After repeated dissolutions, the constitu
tion was changed, and so the Treaty became law for Denmark.
These points are given, as out of this transaction—certainly
the most monstrous and insane, that the world has ever witnessed
—has come directly the phase of convulsion around us.
Whilst the Danish incident had been running its internal course
of five years, from the letters patent of 1846 to the Warsaw
Protocol of 1851, and its European course of fifteen years,
from that Protocol to the battle of Sadowa in 1866—in the
Italian Peninsula the harvest from the seed sown by the de
spatch of 1847 and the mission of Lord Minto was being
gathered in. Whatever the attractions for Russia of the Penin
sula itself, whatever the necessity of stopping a productiveness
which interfered with several, and endangered one of her own
staple products—whatever the occasion which it presented now,
as in all time, by the extended and exposed structure of the
*
land and the debased character of the people for exciting the
rivalries of neighbouring powers and bringing the fall of Dy
nasties—Italy, for Russia, meant the Pope. He was in Italy the
only real thing. He from Italy could restore law, order, and
peace in Christendom. He was head of the Western Church,
which the Czar works to destroy and pretends to incorporate.
The East was involved in Italy, no less than the West, and
Poland and Russia herself, no less than Europe and the East. To
revolutionize Italy was the means to reach the Pope. By that
process he could reach the sovereignty of the Bishop of Rome,
and so upset his spiritual power; that "is, that spiritual power not
exerted at present, but, as she well knew, capable of exercise in a
judicial fashion, and for which the first condition was that he
should be subject neither to a foreign Prince nor be protected
by foreign bayonets. That these must have been her desires
and her objects it is facile to perceive, and it is in evidence that
towards them, events have marched. But what is not so easy to
perceive, and might have appeared impossible to accomplish, is
what really did take place, and of which we possess the evidence.
It is that in bringing about this convulsion (1848) she concealed
from the Papal Government her part therein—concealed from
its eyes alike her secret connexion with revolution and with the
English Government, and made it believe that she was doing
her best to protect the Pope against both. She made the largest
* “ Divided by the Apennines ; surrounded by the sea.”
B
�18
PASSAGE FROM
offers in money ancl troops, and accepted the grateful acknow
ledgments of the Pope for having, by her influence, obtained
for his protection the presence of French troops at Pome.
*
It was not that the Pope had forgotten Poland, or the substi
tution by the Czar of himself for Patriarch, or his pressure in
the East on his spiritual subjects; but all were then powerless
to comprehend that Russia made use of revolution. They all
believed her to be its opponent. However, the anomaly of the
goodwill thus shown by the Russian Cabinet had to be explained.
The explanation offered and accepted was that St. Petersburg
and Rome were on “ the same line,” that being the “ line of
order.” It is curious that the Revolutionists at the very same
moment were attributing the pecuniary support they received
from her to the same cause, that of being “ on the same line
with her.” They understood that line to be “ disorder.”
The historian of the Revolutions of Europe remarks that,
from the commencement of the eighteenth century, history had
become difficult to write, in consequence of the non-observance
of public law. Now that the very idea of law has disappeared, or,
which is even worse, its name only used to misapply it and to
affix it to some monstrous deed, the affairs of mankind have be
come one mass of incalculable confusion. They now pretend
to substitute for the law they have abrogated, what they
call an “ International Law,” which is to consist of Treaties.
Strange as it may appear, it is not the less true that there has
not been a single treaty signed during this period, that of Vienna
inclusive, that has not been violated, till at last treaties are
looked upon as some miasma pervading the air.f The idea
of any value as resulting from a positive compact having disap
peared, they now propose to substitute them for the Law of
God and of Nations.^
* “So early as the mouth of February, 1848, the Cabinet of St. Petersburg thus
addressed itself to the Court of Rome :—
“ ‘It is beyond doubt that the Holy Father will find in His Majesty the Emperor
a loyal supporter in effecting the restitution to him of temporal and spiritualpower, and
that the Russian Government will apply itself to all the measures that may contribute
to this end, seeing that it nourishes in respect to the Court of Rome no sentiment of
rivalry and no religious animosity.’”—Farina Stato Romano,vol. Hi. p. 215.”—From
“ The East and the West,” by the Hon. H. Stanley.
f “ The Treaty of Gastein was now losing its vitality.”—M. Rouher.
j “ The most manifest and repulsive indication of that aspiration for Omnipotence
which popular sovereignty affects is the contempt of that elementary right which the
public honour and good sense have called the faith of treaties.”—M. A. Re Broglie,
in the Li Revue des Deux Mondes.” Thus the perception of the evil is powerless in
this age to lead to the perception of the cure. The first proposal of substituting
Treaties for Law and calling them Law was made by Russia, in 1806, as one of the
conditions on which she would have accepted the peace then on the point of settlement
between England and France. As a step towards this result, at the Treaty of Vienna
no anterior Treaty was restored, so that the peace became a generality.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS»
19
In former periods of anarchy and violence a remedy was pos
sible. The idea of it spontaneously arose. It was that of Law. At
that time—-that is to say, in all previous times, crimes only were
committed. The hearts of men were corrupted, but their under
standings were left to them; and speech, the instrument of
reason, was under each man’s hand to use if prompted thereto.
To-day the disturbance does not come from hordes lusting for
territory, or conquerors for battle-fields. Those who commit the
crimes suffer from them. It is the understanding that is per
verted; it is speech that is falsified; and therefore is the restora
tion at once most easy and most difficult—most easy, because all
would be on the side of right, did it find an interpreter; most
difficult, for where is the interpreter to be found in an age which
has fallen into this chaos by reason of false speech in use, and
true speech forgotten ?
When such terms as “ Public Opinion,” “ Civilisation,”
“ Progress,” can be uttered, who can speak of Law, of Justice 2
and how, therefore, can there be peace on earth and goodwill
among men 2
All these terms have been already condemned by the Pope ;
but in condemning them he has not analysed them to show their
vacuity. Let us take an instance. To say that the word
“ progress ” should not be used, is of the greatest service to any
human being who will obey the injunction ; because it will save
him from a large amount of distracting volubility, evil habits of
mind, and erroneous conclusions. But only abstaining from it
because it is forbidden, and not knowing it to be unmeaning, he
will not be freed from its effects when it falls from the lips of
others ; noi' will he be able to show to others why it is objection
able. Being incapable of giving a reason for his objection to its
use he will sink in the estimation of his interlocutor, and in his
own. The benefit of discipline is not secured to him. Instead
of the regenerating effect of discarding a false term, his obedience
only justifies the contempt of the “ man of the age,” who holds
religion to be superstition, and its professors to be weak-minded.
Let us suppose this Catholic to be instructed by his priest,
himself instructed by the Head of the Church, and so enabled
to deal logically, and not religiously or authoritatively, with a
logical perversion. How differently wrnuld he stand! He
■would then proceed to call his opponent to account, even as
Christ did in the time of the Pharisees, or as Socrates did in
the time of the Sophists. He would question him as to his
meaning; he would ask him to explain the relation between a
substantive of motion and a method of reasoning. He would
call for a definition of the geographic field over which motion is
predicated, and for the contents of the entity represented as
b 2
�20
PASSAGE FROM
marching over it. He would persist in drawing forth the forms
of the unknown future towards which the progress is to be made.
He would force him to declare whether his “ progress ” was
towards or away from knowledge of cases, the correct definition
of laws, the due regulation of constitutional checks, the restraints
on the exercise of political power, the control over the public
expenditure, the supervision of transactions between States, and
the inhibition of public acts not beneficial, not just, not lawful.
He would have always in reserve to show, and by questions to
bring out the avowal, that on all these heads, since the word in
question came into use, there had been a progressive deterioration
of the human species. Thus would he confound and confute
his antagonist, and show that to employ amphibologies is not the
perfection but the extinction of the human faculties.
Men can go on, with the pen in their hand, making phrases—
the weakest as well as the strongest. They are at once pulled
up by a question, and will equally be baffled by it—the strongest
as well as the weakest.
It is impossible to separate man and speech. There may be
base men using language correctly, but there can be no people
upright whose speech is debased. No branch of human science
can be followed, or even so much as exist, if the terms be not
defined. No legal act is binding into which terms not legal are
introduced. An article of faith consists entirely in the definition
of the terms.
What is here in evidence before us in the introduction of new
terms into all the languages of Europe, and that all these have a
double meaning: concurrently therewith, there has been a dis
turbance of all settled convictions.
The connexion is therefore established by two distinct pro
cesses. Ambiguous terms must bring, we say, malversation in
affairs and infidelity in belief. They have been introduced, and
have been accompanied by these results.
It follows, therefore, that the rectification must commence by
the exclusion of such terms ; and the Pope ha's put his hand to
this work, condemning as unchristian and uncatholic those
very terms which had already, on philological grounds, been
shown to be unmeaning and deceptive.
For doing this Catholics have a great advantage in the Sacred
Writings, having to study them, in the first instance, in the
natural sense. This is a preparation for confounding fallacy
by throwing men back on themselves, and for calling men to
Repentance without reference to dogma. These are among the
latent intellectual powers of the Catholic Church, which it knows
not itself, and which will be known either to itself or others only
when exerted.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
21
Concurrently with the obliteratiou of the common instincts of
man as regards the taking of life, there has arisen in Europe a
parallel change in the conduct of affairs, by which one subordinate
branch of government has been rendered supreme in each. The
department of Foreign Affairs dealing extra-nationally, has got
this mastery, and out of it has come an enthralling secresy. This
revolution has been worked out of the “ Intervention in the
“East.” That operation has converted international business
into a labyrinth. The very existence of which is unknown save
to those who had been connected therewith, before the Greek
episode commenced. Each Foreign Department uncontrolled,
unquestioned, can bring about wars, can, consequently, exert
“ moral influence ” on other states; and so can disturb internal
affairs, overthrow internal liberty, augment military establish
ments, increase charges, impose taxes, augment debt, produce,
indirectly, disloyalty and unbelief; and whilst directly foment
ing revolution in particularly selected countries, prepares for it
in all; tending in a direction, which at some point must render
all government impossible: and so preparing for the general
domination throughout Europe of some power or people whose
understanding and speech has not been similarly vitiated.
Before closing this branch it is desirable to revert to the act
of Geneva in 1602. It is not only a great lesson, but also a
prominent landmark. It is such a limit between two order's
of existence, such as that traced by Tacitus in summing up the
history of Rome, where he says, Hie finis cequi Juris. It explains
how small states have been in later times absorbed, and how
they remained up to these times, to be absorbed. When a crime
against which human nature revolts does not receive its due
penalty, of course it spreads, and, spreading, changes its cha
racter. So it has happened. Bandits being normally sent forth
by established governments, come at last to constitute themselves
on their own account, and to combine to assail this country or
that. The penalties having ceased to be applied to the first, are
then no longer applied to the second, so that a trade in piracy is
established, and the inducement of impunity, which would apply
to a band of false coiners, applies to the enterprises carried on
against the Sultan or the Pope. The Sovereigns so attacked,
not exercising the functions of sovereignty in this respect, be
come themselves in reality accomplices in this breaking down of
all things. They have, moreover, no passions to mislead them,
and no real or supposed advantage to gain. It is therefore the
result of weakness only—the greatest of all sins in the holder
of delegated authority. Firmness in some would at any moment
of past time have stopped the course of evil. Firmness would
stop it even to-day.
�22
SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
It is not, however, correct to designate these adventurers
as . Bandits or Pirates. The latter have a positive object of
gain in view. They may be driven to guilty deeds by ne
cessity. They have the excuse of degrading associations. They
incur positive danger; and, lastly, they are conscious of thenown acts. Far different is the man who imbrues his hands in
the blood of his fellow-creatures without such inducements,
such risks, or such consciousness, and who is moved by the
passions of the understanding—the most ferocious and' most
hopeless that can take possession of the human heart—the more
hopeless and base, the loftier and the holier the pretensions which
he puts forward to himself or others. The passions of the heart
are the passions of the animal or the wild beast which lie down
when satisfied. The passions of the understanding are those of
the human being perverted from the image of God to the pur
poses of the Devil. It is before this outburst that the execu
tioner gives way !
Had the hired assassins of the King of Sardinia met the
fate of those of the Duke of Savoy—had there been in 1862 a
township in Sicily with hearts of the men who lived in 1602,
Italy would have been spared, the “ making” she has had, and
the unmaking she will presently have to undergo.
3rd.
SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
The third question is already answered. It is more than an
swered, for the method to be adopted has also been shown. It
consists in the extrication of the mind from a few fallacies, all
which disappear of themselves, from the moment that a man
sees that to kill, to rob, to covet, to bear false witness, is no less
a crime when committed by many against many, than when
committed by one against one, or a few against a few. Not to
know this is to be under judicial blindness. Whilst that blind
ness endures, the case, as regards the conduct, conscience, busi
ness, and existence of a people is exactly such as, in regard to
material objects, it would be, if natural and artificial light were
suspended, and the human race were left to grope their way in
the dark. Efforts, if made, would avail nothing, resources un
bounded within his reach would satisfy neither hunger nor
thirst, and he would perish miserably in the midst of the stench
of his already putrifying fellow-creatures, despite all that Pro
vidence might have otherwise supplied for his comfort, and
fortune assorted for his pre-eminence.
�SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
23
The expression “International Law” has, however, to be put
aside. The epithet alone reveals this hopeless and abject con
dition. It reveals the intellectual debasement out of which that
condition has sprung; it reveals the loss of respect for the rule
of right, without which neither would the understanding have
been debased, nor circumstances disordered. The Law is
supreme, the Law rules, the Law is from on high. It is above
all. Thus the Law of Nations is a holy law; but the sacred
character vanishes before the preposition “ between.” In English
you could not say it. If you did, you would know that it was
nonsensical and feel that it wTas vile—“the between-NationsLaw.”
The Law of Nations is otherwise termed the “Law of
Nature,” and, again, the “ Law of God ”—of Nature and of
God because of its essence; of Nations, because ruling all and
accepted by all. It is the Ten Commandments as applicable to
communities. By observing these a people preserves its faith,
its honour, its liberty, its power, and, if capable in other respects,
will live for ever. When a people causelessly assails another,
it has lost innocence, honour, liberty, and faith. It contains no
longer one citizen, one Christian, or one gentleman, save amongst
the protestors, if there be any.
Finally, it is peculiarly the Law of Nations because it, and it
alone, deals with and adjudicates on their aggregate acts. It is
the civil and criminal municipal law applied to the whole com
munity. An eminent English judge has thus defined it:—
“ The Law of Nations,” says Lord Mansfield—“ that uni“ versal Law, which will be carried as far in England as any“ where—which is here adopted in its full extent by the Common
“ Law, and is held to be a part of the Law of England ; which
a Acts of Parliament cannot alter : which is to be collected, toge“ ther, together with the rules of decision concerning it, not from
“ Acts of Parliament, but from the practice of different nations
“ and the authority of writers; of which from time to time Acts
“ of Parliament have been made to enforce, or decisions to facili“ tate, the execution, and are, therefore, considered not as intro“ ductive of any new law, but merely as declaratory of the old
“ fundamental constitutions of the kingdom; and finally, without
“which the kingdom must cease to be a part of the civilised
“ world.”
This Law is, moreover, emphatically that of Nations, because
the Nations have themselves to enforce it. It is against their
Governments that they have to enforce it. It is by
taking care that their rulers “ shall do that only which is law
ful,” that peace can be possessed or preserved on earth. The
contrary must happen if that Law of Nations is remitted to the
�24
SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
agents, that is. the Governments, to apply, to interpret, and to
change at. their pleasure. It is thus that a people falls into the
last condition of<£ taking for law that which their rulers do.” To
recover them from it, some must arise different from the rest, to
reprove and to teach them.
There remains behind a still graver consideration for the
future. If the Law of Nations is not observed, it will neces
sarily come to be perverted, and its name, forms, and authority
will remain as a blight on the world. The Law transformed
into a mask and cloak for the designing will thus become the
most fruitful of all sources of war and discord.
A small chink lets in light. It is not willingly that nations
err, sin, slay, and suffer. Therefore is it that those who among
such a generation do see, are filled with zeal, 'are incessant in
toil, and endued with power. Few and insignificant, as in them
selves they may be, their work may bear fruits.
Operations depending on thought are independent of numbers.
This present condition of the human race has been brought
about by a single man.
n
It is not bloodshed alone that we suffer from, and that has to
be put a stop to, but lawless acts of all kinds; whether these
consist in commission or in omission : of wrongs perpetrated or
wrongs endured. Had there been a body of upright men in
England, there would have been no waiver of the means of co
ercing her enemy in 1854, no giving away of her maritime power
in 1856, no fitting out of Piratical vessels in 1863, no refusal of
reparation for their depredations in 1864-7, no endurance of the
transfer by sale of territorial possessions amongst our neighbours,
or any foreign Powers, no submission to Blockades where war
of no kind had been made, no interference in the internal juris
diction of Eastern States by our Consuls, no proposals to shake
the very bases of all society in destroying the indefeasible alle
giance of the subject;—none, in fact, of these novelties, which
come upon us to-day in overwhelming and inextricable shoals,
and which were unknown in the world among all its previous
generations. All these and all that are to follow are the neces
sary effects of dispensing ourselves from the observance of any
rule of conduct. Surely a remedy so simple and so comprehen
sive ought to have attractions, if only from its novelty. We do
run after new things and strange things; one more new or more
strange is not to be found than Justice.
�DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
25
4th.
DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
Whether the Catholic Church is capable of this restoration
must depend on the qualities of the men it possesses at this
hour. It is placed under the necessity of making the attempt,
both because of the new characters which crime has recently
put on, and because of the assumption of authority over the con
sciences of its flock.
The words spoken by the Pope, while containing a promise,
also suggest a fear. By them the Church steps out of its poli
tical disability, asserting its appellate jurisdiction. Four years
have elapsed since the pretension was advanced, but it has re
mained unexerted. No preparatory steps have been taken for its
exercise. The question therefore arises as to the sense attached
to the words themselves. In any case the position of affairs is
no longer the same after they have been spoken; for from that
hour the sanction of the Church must be assumed to have been
given in all cases where it has not rebuked and condemned.
It did not, however, require the assertion of this claim in this
authoritative manner to convey a religious sanction to political
crimes. It may be put in this very self-evident and simple
fashion : Granted that the Church of England or of Prussia is
not called upon to determine the lawfulness of a war made by
the respective Governments of these countries, it does not there
upon follow that the Church of Rome can dispense itself from
this duty, seeing that its pretension is to be universal, and that
its flock will be engaged on both sides; so that there is for it
no possibility of not sanctioning crime, as there is an impossi
bility of both sides being innocent.
The case has been stated by a distinguished Prelate (the
Bishop of Mayence) in the following terms :—
u In the last centuries, after abandoning the commandments
“ of God, an inert form has been substituted for them, derived
from the scales in which merchandise is weighed. . . . This
“ separation of the Rights of Nations and the Law of God—
“ this fiction that the end and means of Policy stand in a horizon
“ superior to those of vulgar morals and justice, brings an im“ mense peril for the peace of the world. This is war in perma“ nency, or a simple armistice—the prelude of a war of all
“ against all.
“ It is thus that we have to deplore bitterly that Religion has
“ been rendered the accomplice of this policy. They have been
“ very ill inspired who in these latter times, have suggested to
“ Religion and its ministers, to give a sort of religious consecration
�26
DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
“ to all these violences. For how many victories have TeDeums
“ been chanted that have no ways been for the glory of God,
“ but which were cursed by God from heaven ! ”
It is thus that the Bishop of Mayence—without having
perceived the distinction between wars that are unjust and those
that are unlawful, and taking the first ground alone, and sup
posing that to be the guilt and danger of our times—still with
grief and indignation, and also with horror, points to the
desecration of religion, in the blessing by it of opposing arms.
Here speaks a disturbed conscience and a grieving heart; but
how unavailing those emotions, even when combined with high
intellectual powers, to find and apply the remedy, when the re
quisite knowledge of circumstances is wanting, is singularly illus
trated in the veiy work from which the above extract is taken.
It is entitled “ Germany after the War of 1866,” and necessarily
deals with the causes which brought about that war. The
author sees none of them. He makes statements as to Denmark
which are not correct. He then speculates thereon. Finally,
he reverts to that terrible and sacrilegious compact, the Holy
Alliance, through which Europe has been convulsed, as a great,
and good, and beneficial operation, attributing to its non-iulfilment the present condition of things I
Although, therefore, the instances of Gregory the Great,
Gregory VII., and Innocent III. must necessarily present
themselves to any hopeful mind, whatever its religious pro
fession, and whether or not it admits of any faith or belief at all,
yet Popes are required nowadays for far graver purposes than
to interdict uncanonical marriages, to excommunicate Royal
assassins, to restrain unlawful taxes, or even to condemn unjust
wars.
At the present time it is no active interference that is called
for in the State; it is simply adjudication on criminal matters
that is required. The povrer so to be exercised will be appre
hended only after it has been exerted; and it can be exerted
only by the possession of those eminent qualities, that perfect
knowledge, and that unbounded self-sacrifice and devotion
which, in the person of Gregory, created that wonderful
system which we designate the Church of Rome; and which,
in the person of the present Pope, if it please Providence
to grant him time and aids in men, may restore that Church,
and with it retrieve and preserve human society—that society
which, in his own words, is “ crumbling to pieces.”
A French philosopher (unbeliever) says :—
“ Do not tell me that Gregory, Leo, Urban, Innocent,
“ and so many others were Saints a thousand years ago. . I want
�DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
27
“ you to-day to be one yourself, in order that all the moral world
“ may, without dispute, fall down at your feet.”*
A Protestant clergyman and the actual Dean of St. Paul’s, in
writing of the past, shows what is practicable in the present:—
“In the person of Gregory, the Bishop of Rome first
“ became, in act and influence, if not in avowed authority, a
“ temporal Sovereign. Nor were his acts the ambitious encroach“ ments of ecclesiastical usurpation on the civil power. They
“ were forced upon him by the purest motives, if not by actual
“ necessity. The virtual Sovereignty fell to him as abdicated by
“ the neglect or powerlessness of its rightful owners; he must
“ assume it or leave the people and the city to anarchy. His
“ authority rested on the universal feeling of its beneficence.”!
But the Pope is also a crowned head. He is one of the com
munity of Sovereigns; yet he has not taken part in those
proceedings which have reduced Europe to a chaos of mind and
affairs. He has never recognised the Treaty of Vienna which
is the fountain of these evils; he has unceasingly protested
against it. He has also specially and vehemently protested
against some of the crimes (in Poland and Italy) perpetrated
under the conjoint influence of the extra-national management
to which Europe is now subject.
It is, therefore, no less the duty of the Pope, as a king, to
protest against crimes in which he has no part, and of which he
is the victim, than for the Pope, as head of the Roman Catholic
church, to teach every adult as every child belonging to his
flock, that bloodshed without cause is murder; and to refuse
the offices of religion (as he does to the conspirators in England
known as Fenians) to any man directly engaged therein,
by planning or executing them, or indirectly by approving of
them, and contributing money towards them in the shape of
taxes. His kingdom is indeed small, but in the eye of the Law,
as of human reason, all sovereignties are equal. So also in our
circumstances, the smallest State in Europe can equal the
greatest. The affairs of all nations are interwoven. They are
all conducted in secret. The entire European community is
thus at the mercy of the most dexterous ; and being all destitute
of the requisite qualifications by which to detect what is being
done with them, the web is gradually woven round their eyes, as
the snares are prepared for their feet. There is no extrication
for them save integrity and capacity in some one government,
and such a Government however minute its territories, could
render them this service.
* “ Christianity,” by Quinet, p. 59.
f Milman’s “ Latin Christianity,” vol. ii., p, 130.
�28
TIIE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
But with these qualifications the Court of Rome becomes, at
a bound, the most powerful on earth; and it has already
taken its stand against that Government which manages all the
others, and is leading them on to their mutual destruction.
The acquisition of these intellectual means is, therefore, the
question. For this,. individual powers, the most rare in the
history of mankind, are requisite. An eminent ecclesiastic
has put it in a form which cannot be improved upon. “ For
this,” he said, “ giants are required; and there are no giants
“ to be found either within the Church or without it.”
Has the attempt, therefore, to be abandoned in despair ? By
no means. The first and greatest step is made when some have
recognised its difficulty.
5th.
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
No Council is required for this work. There is nothing new
to be discovered or enacted, no new tribunal to be instituted. In
the Council there is danger only, and it is thus that it may
be counted gain.
These propositions are of the highest quality by their nature,
and of the vastest bearing in their application, now and in all
future time. If to any design the word great can be applied, it
applies to this one. Therefore can it be worked out only by
individual minds. A public assembly, however constituted, is
unfitted for the task.
The bases, metaphysical and legal, have been already laid
down by the Pope. The superstructure is wanting.
As respects terms, he has condemned them as erring; they
have to be shown to be unmeaning, to give intellectual life to his
flock, and enable them to make wai' on the fallacies in which all
error is enveloped and contained.
Among the vast resources available for this purpose is that
portion of education which in England is termed “ classical,” and
in France “ profane.” The literature so studied is that of States
(Greece and Rome) which, in their corruption and decay, are to
us at once warnings and models—warnings by their fall, models
by their thoughts. Homer is a code of the Law of Nations. In
Demosthenes we possess a remonstrance against our actual
habits, on which the seal of value has been impressed by the fall
of Athens, as a result of its neglect. Socrates has been held
by Fathers of the Church to have been the harbinger of Chris
tianity. His teaching consisted in unravelling the errors con
tained in false terms. During the flourishing, and therefore
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
29
corrupt, period of Rome, we have the two dangers constantly pre
sented, which threaten the communities of Europe to-day—false
terms and injustice—and the two are linked together. It is not
only moralists, but statesmen, favourites, and popular poets who
thus speak. I cite some of them, for these are the words which
meet our need.
Cato told his fellow-countrymen that they had lost true
speech by adopting false speech (“nos vera rerum vocabula
amisimus”). Seneca tells them that they no longer had law,
since they took for law “ whatever their rulers did.” Cicero,
in the sublime description of what a community ought to be,
which he places in the mouth of Africanus, has'these words :
“ The State (res publica) is not only synonymous with justice,
“ but exists only by and in the highest justice.” Virgil makes
the shades of Hades echo with the great voice of Theseus :—
“ Discite justitiam moniti et non temnere Divos.”
The lyric of the Augustan age presents Virtue unteaching men
their false terms, and thus securing a safe condition of life:—•
. Virtus populumque falsis
dedocet uti
Vocibus.”
“.
.
How is it that such things are known to the school-boys, and
are forgotten by the men of Europe ? How is it that there are
none to be found to take advantage of such teachings in the
past, to turn them to profit for the present, and so bring up the
Youth, knowing what is wrong, and loving what is right ? But
what did the fallacious terms of the Greeks or Romans amount
to? For the first, it was but meshes woven out of their own tongue.
For the second, it was but a very slight importation of Greek
terms. With us, it is a vast influx of both Greek and Latin
terms, and these jumbled up together and used in senses that
would be utterly unintelligible to Greeks or Romans; while
always displacing the simple and appropriate words of our own
tongue. The mass of these will astound when it is considered
that every word ending in ty, in ence, in ion, in ite, ism, and ze
belong to this category, when used in the second intention. The
effect on the human being placed in the hopeless condition of
having to learn these, and to believe that they mean something,
may be apprehended, when it is stated that every such term is
unmeaning in itself, illogical in its construction, and perverting
in its use. These terms may be used—have to be used—for
others. The danger lies in being used by them; that is, tbinking in them and through them, and imagining that there is
meaning in them.
It was the duty of the teacher to prevent the use by the child
�30
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
of vague or unmeaning terms ; so would he have put a stop to
erroneous ideas which came in as the explanation of these
terms. The teacher has not done so. It is now for the Church
to render this service to the adult.
The task may be difficult, but the obligation is imperious. If
difficult, it is not impossible. If it -were so, there could be no
safety and no hope. If men arrive at false totals because they
are working with false figures, you may hope to put them right;
and strive to do so. But if you accept the figures as correct,
then there remains nothing to do. If the evil that is done arose
from a purpose in their hearts, again the task would be hope
less, and words would be without power. It is only because
they are deceived by their terms, and thereby cheated into doing
what they do not desire, that human speech can avail for human
good.
But for this there must be the perfect and absolute conviction
of the nothingness of all that is held to be, in this age, intellectual
power and philosophical culture. Any one can arrive at this
certainty for himself, who will take any sentence of any modern
writer, whoever he may be, and strike out of it the Greek and
Latin terms, and then read it over. He will then see that these
terms were all superfluous; that the sense, if sense there was,
comes out free, or that the fallacy remains naked and exposed.
It has to be made apparent that those speculations in which
modern society is engaged are not only politically futile, and re
ligiously and morally heinous, but also that intellectually, they
are contemptible.
This branch, then, the metaphysical, is the first which has
to be undertaken for the Council.
As regards crimes, the basis was equally laid when the Pope
asserted his “ power over the consciences,” not of individuals
only, but also “ of communities, nations, and their Sovereigns.”
This power he has never exerted, nor can he till he specifies the
Law. That has to be done not only in reference to wars, but
also in reference to Congresses, Treaties, and Protocols. For
besides the modern practice of making wars without form, has
come that of holding Conferences without cause; of making
compacts (Treaties) vicious in matter of form, and lawless in
substance; of substituting Protocols for Treaties; of violating
Treaties when made; and of superimposing on all this a new
invention, which they term “ Declaration,” and by means of
which the internal condition of each State can be reached and
upset. There has, therefore, a rule to be laid down according
to which, in all these respects, Catholics may be able to dis
tinguish what is lawful from what is criminal. Then, and then
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
31
only, can and will the Pope exercise “power”—judicial power
“ over communities, nations, and their sovereigns.”
It can only be attributed to the indistinctness that prevails in
regard to these matters being common to all, that the Pope,
being recently called upon to act magisterially by a most
heinous attempt of foreign bandits on his State, his subjects,
and himself; did not in his own courts vindicate the Law, and
use “ the power of the magistrate” for the repression of evil
doers and the protection of the innocent. Had he done so, he
would by his own act have commenced the restoration of
human society, and would have gained for the promulgator of
this new order (himself) the respect and confidence of mankind.
Crime leaves no option. It must be either pursued or accepted.
To condone crime, is to be criminal. It is so in the private man,
how much more so hi the magistrate ? How strange that these
things have to be said; how much more so to know that, speak
ing them, they are not understood.
This Code of “ Christian Legislation” having been enacted,
then no grander spectacle could be witnessed, and no holier
work conceived, than the assembling of the body of the Church
to accept it, ancl to take counsel together for its application.
The danger consists in the work being left to be done by a
Council composed of men who are ecclesiastics only, and neither
lawyers, metaphysicians, nor diplomatists; at a time when the
Church has ceased to be what it was in the middle ages, the
fountain of Law; in an age when the common talk is fallacy,
and when the affairs of nations are enveloped in a secret and
mysterious web of deception.
The superior minds who have somewhat approached the
subject have felt this danger. One of the most eminent has
used the words “ The Council will kill or cure.” In this__in
the perception of this danger—lies that hope which has been
above expressed, namely, that some will thereby be induced to
make the effort necessary to have the work for the Council done
and well done, beforehand.
It has to be considered that the whole field of public morals
has been left untouched by modern speculation. It remains to
be trodden by the Church. Among all the subjects submitted
to investigation, the stopping of wars has been omitted. In all
our speculations for the improvement of the human race, no
plan has been suggested for arresting the progress of public ex
penditure. In all our associations for protecting the injured and
the weak, not one has appeared for the protection of public
honour, morals, and interests. In all our projects of reform,
there has not been one for the restraining of the Executive, and
�32
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
preventing it from disposing at its arbitrary pleasure of the
money and blood of the subject.
As this Council is not for the settlement of dogma or disci
pline, at least as primary objects, but to devise means for arrest
ing general disorder, it is not for Catholics only, but for
mankind. If the results obtained are for the good of any, they
must be also for the good of all. Those who are thus con
cerned should be admitted. At the Council of Trent, the
Protestant States were invited to attend by their represen
tatives. Such an invitation, it is true, would be accepted, if
accepted by the European Governments, only with the view of
preventing any just solution, and to produce confusion. But
the domain of Law, belongs not to Executives, nor even to socalled Legislative Assemblies, but to legists. An appeal, there
fore, to men whose studies have been so directed would natu
rally fall into, as it would be a necessary part of, such a design.
The Law of Nations, which overrules all Municipal Law, and
which, as regards England, is still part and parcel of the law of
the land, has never been enacted by parliamentary statute, nor
promulgated by royal authority. Its expounders have been, in
modern times, private individuals. The chief of these have
been Protestants (Grotius and Vattel). Their compilations
include the laws and practice of pagan times and people; and
especially of Ancient Rome, where the jus gentium was the
common law, but which had for its external application a
special judicatory. Processes with foreign States were referred
exclusively to that judicatory, and withdrawn from the civil
power. Neither King nor Consul, neither Senate nor People,
could so much as interfere in such matters, or could declare war
or make peace. The “ Government,” in such cases, "was con
sidered as a “party” merely in the dispute, and its acts were
inquired into. It was the Fecial College, a body having no
political character or functions, and which was invested with a
legal and religious character, into whose hands the case was
remitted so soon as a difference arose between the Roman Ex
ecutive and that of any other people.
It is therefore on the example of this gieat people that those
few private individuals whose minds have been turned to this
branch of human science, have chiefly relied in expounding
those principles which have obtained for them pre-eminent
authority in the courts of all modern kingdoms, and which
have, in so far as they have been maintained, secured order
and peace in the world. If private men, endowed with publicmindedness, have become the lawgivers and benefactors of
their species, what might not be effected by the Church of
Rome, if it entered on the task in a similar spirit, having no
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
33
longer laboriously to work out, but simply to employ and
apply the materials ready to its hand?
But Europe is not entirely Christian. A great Mahomedan
Power dwells on its soil, and holds possession of the point not
only of greatest geographical and political importance in Europe,
but in the world. This system, so far from being opposed to
the great design of the Pope, is associated therewith, and is
the only Government not directly and essentially opposed to it.
It is so not only as being, in common with the Pope, exposed to
the direct assault of bandits or to the insidious combinations of the
other Powers, but it is so also as having preserved in its constitu
tion the same laws and practices that prevailed in Pagan Rome.
The effects of this original constitution are still evidenced in this,
that it has alone abstained from forming designs against its neigh
bours, or combining to subvert their independence by interfering
in their affairs. The Sultan and Divan of Turkey can, no more
than could the Consuls and Senate of Rome, decree or levy war.
The Ulema in the one country, as the Fecials in the other, have
first to render their sentence (Fetva). Were a Sultan without
such warrant to declare war, he would find no one to obey him.
*
The common Mussulman soldier would make no distinction be
tween the individual murder of a fellow-citizen and the aggregate
murder of a foreign regiment. Without the Fetva of the Sheik
ul Islam, he would hold himself no more bound to obey his officer
in firing on such regiment, than an English soldier would do, in
firing on a mob without the reading of the Riot Act.
It will be, of course, supposed by Europeans, judging by their
own habits, that Turkey is not herself aggressive or intriguing, like
the other Governments, solely because she is the object of attack on
the part of others; but it is not so. Had it not been from her own
maxims and character, she would have been the most dangerous
Power in Europe, if, possessed, as she is, of the positions the
most important, she had yielded to the combined inducements
of unjust profits to make, and legitimate animosities to gratify.
Take as instance the year 1812, when, after suffering from the
several violences of England and France, an offensive alliance
was proposed to her by Russia, under which their naval and
land forces were to be combined, their joint fleets to issue into
the Mediterranean, and their armies to invade Lombardy. The
dream of Mahmoud H. was paraded before her eyes, and not
Italy only, but the Southern Provinces of France, offered
* In the only case of such usurpation presented by the annals of Turkey, the
Sultan (Mahmoud IV.) was put to death. He had recommenced war with Austria
before the expiration of a truce. Even under the new order commenced in this gene
ration, the most eloquent and popular preacher at Constantinople denounced the
surrender of Belgrade as an act of infidelity, as well as usurpation, no fetva having
been obtained for it.
�34
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
to her ambition. The good sense of certain men might, in
deed, have sufficed to overrule the suggestions of the tempter;
but even if there had been found in the Divan a Kaunitz, a
Beust, or a Bismarck, still the craft and corruption of such
men must have failed in face of institutions which required
the plans of a Minister, before execution, to be submitted to a
public Divan and approved of by a legal Fetva. The Grand
Vizier at the Treaty of Belgrade said to the Ministers of Austria
and France, “You do not understand our Government. One or
“ two men cannot decide at Constantinople, as they do at Paris
“ and Vienna.”
This rule of the Boman State was that of all human society in
the origin (the Romans only copied those who were before them,
and specially the Etruscans). It is also that which we still hold
to in common practice. The “ Government,” and even the
“ Crown,” comes into the British courts exactly as a private indi
vidual, when it has a civil case to urge. So also it is itself brought
into court by private individuals when they are plaintiffs, and
the judge deals with it simply as a party in a suit, examining
its acts, and pronouncing sentence for it or against it, according
to the merits of the case and the law which determines it. So,in like manner, in regard to external operations of the nature,
now improperly termed, of war, when they affect the subjects,
not of Great Britain only, but of foreign States, and are of a
nature to be brought into court.
In the first Chinese war a case arose between shippers and
insurers in consequence of losses incurred through the operations
then being carried on. It came for trial, on the plea that the
loss was incurred through the effects of war. The judges unani
mously decided that there was no war.
Lord Mansfield, in trying a case in which Danish subjects
had been injured by acts of the British Government, when the
orders of that Government were quoted, said (case of the Diana},
“ The word ‘ Government ’ is not one that can be used in this
“ place, being nonsensical (without meaning). If the orders were
“ lawful, the law gave them their value; if unlawful, they could
“ not be rendered lawful, by the source from which they
“ emanated.”
In like manner, had a charge of murder of a Chinaman been
brought before the Central Criminal Court against any soldier,
private or officer, or sailor employed in China, that court must
have passed sentence of death on such soldier or officer. The law
is still there, only there are no men to enforce it.
It is true that in modern Turkey, these restraints on human
passions, these safeguards of the innocence and life of com
munities, preserved there from ancient times for our instruc
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
35
tion, are fading away before the pressure of European diplo
macy and the contamination of European ideas; but, never
theless, such ideas are not there, as in Europe, strange ; are
not incomprehensible nor offensive. The Government, after
all, is itself still composed of Mussulmans; it may and does ap
preciate the injury resulting from its own unwilling usurpations ;
it does feel the danger resulting from the pressure upon it of the
lawlessness of European Governments. It is therefore unques
tionable that the Sublime Porte would hail with joy the .proposi
tion of the Pope, would aid it to the best of its ability (and that
ability, in such a case, would not be small), and might thereby be
led to a wholesome return to the past, and a respectful considera
tion of the profound and beneficent maxims, lying neglected and
obscured in the foundations of its own institutions.
*
In the time of Christ Christians lived under the dispositions
of Moses. The “Church,” then in its most perfect form,
obeyed rules for the conduct of men in all essential matters of
life, viz. low taxation, cleanliness, charity, and politeness. Islam,
in common with all primitive religions, followed the same rule,
and prescribed how wars can be lawfully made; what taxes can
be lawfully levied; how and when the body is to be washed;
what proportion of a man’s income shall be given in alms; and
how a man is to salute his fellow-creatures. By rules on these
points society can alone be considered as duly constituted, or
capable of durability. The absence of these may make up, in
deed, a condition of “ civilisation,” but, clearly, a community
destitute of such restraints is not one that can be either reli
gious, virtuous, cleanly, charitable, happy, or durable.
These restraints being imposed by Religion, Religion became
sanctified to man by its benefits; and, consequently, that dis
belief which we now see spreading over Europe was unknown.
In the origin Religion was everything to man. It was Govern
ment as well as Faith. Secular Government arose from its
decay. Finally, Government having at last come “ to consist
“ of those practices which it was instituted to put down,”f re
pudiate Religion, as a guide for its acts, while it makes use
of its authority to sanction its crimes. Thus it is that Re
volution and Atheism prevail and spread. They have not yet
however made way among those nations that still hold to Law
as a part of Religion, and who have not drawn the distinction
now established in Christendom between the Law as applied to
the acts of the individual and to those of the community.
To judge of the view which the European Governments will
Not in the Mahomedan only, but in all the Asiatic systems. Law has always
been held a part of religion.”-—Thomson's Akklak-i-Nasiri^ p. 121.
f Lord Lyttleton.
c 2
�36
THE CECUMENIC COUNCIL.
take of the matter, we must consider what the consequences
will be to them of his success—consequences which they will
perceive at a glance.
The Pope will be successful when nations commence to
question acts in reference to their lawfulness. This will present
a new obstacle to despotic power. It will endanger that “ pre
rogative of peace and war” which has been usurped by Execu
tives from both Sovereigns and Representative bodies, or, as in
France, by the Sovereign from the Representative body.
*
Executives, no longer able to plunge their country in foreign
wars, will have to surrender ambitious schemes of conquest
and annexation.
Executives no longer able to kill men at pleasure on the
battle-field, words of menace will no longer be capable of
disturbing the world, whether spoken on a New Year’s Day
presentation, or written in despatches, or secret instructions, or
“ private” letters. Diplomacy will disappear. Danger and
alarm ceasing, military establishments will be reduced.
For the same reason taxes will be cut down.
Permanent embassies will be looked on with suspicion and
alarm.
On all points the tendency will be the reverse of that at pre
sent pursued ; it will be to escape from despotic executives, extra
national combinations, ruinous military establishments, and an
unbearable accumulation of taxes—all which constitute the
power of office and its attractions.
. But the appreciation of these effects will not be confined to
diplomatic, men, but extend also to the active and managing
spirits among the class of infidels and revolutionists. They, in
like manner, will perceive that it is a blow struck at their im
portance, and at their occupation. The food and fuel of infi
delity and revolution are public crime and national suffering—in
other words, . Wars and Taxes. Governments and clubs, the
ambitious Minister, the aspiring demagogue, the spirit of rest
lessness, on whatever side it breaks out, the powerful interests
of the press, which lives by news—that is, crimes and agitations
—are all smitten by this proposal of the Pope.
Indistinct and problematical as the benefits may appear to the
vast mass of well-disposed and indifferent men who are to reap
the profit, to the moving, acting, and ruling—though in numbers most insignificant—portion of the community, the loss is
very distinct and very positive. They clearly understand that
to attempt to restore the supremacy of the Law is to attempt to
supersede their calling.
* The Revolution of 1848 had withdrawn this power from the President (except,
in case of defence); it was regained by the Coup d’Etat.
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
37
The consequence of this judicial blindness has been, in an
other sense, fatal to the peace and well-being of communities,
and to the judgment and integrity of the individuals comprising
them. This consists in the putting away the idea of punishment
in regard to persons filling ministerial offices. The arm of the
soldier is placed at the mercy of the political adviser. He is
expected to slay when ordered to do so by the Minister, and the
law is not to reach him when, acting on the oath to obey “ lawful
orders,” he obeys unlawful ones. Then it was to be expected
that the acts of the political agent should be looked into with
peculiar severity, so as to bring the full responsibility of the
measures themselves on those who had acquired the facility of
causing their subordinates to overleap the law. But this is not
the case. The reverse has happened. First, these advisers are
suffered to give such orders without prior sanction or even know
ledge of so much as their intention on the part (in England) of
the body constituted to advise the Crown in its exercise of the
prerogative of Peace and War.
In the second place, they are not held responsible for their
acts after the event, however blamable or however disastrous; so
that at once every check has been removed from human frailty,
purpose or passion, whilst every possible encouragement is
heaped upon those persons to yield to such tendencies, in the
vastness of the uncontrolled power placed in their hands, in the
enormous sums of money afforded by modern taxation, and its
concession into military materials and troops.
It is not merely that the idea has vanished of punishing
Ministers for any act, but that the neglecting to clo so has
become a maxim, and a maxim which the present generation
pronounces with much self-satisfaction, as honourably distin
guishing them from, and placing them above all former times
and people. That maxim is, “ The days of Impeachment are
gone by.” To say that there should be a class of men who shall
not be punished when they do amiss—they not acting for or by
themselves, but by the power confided to them—is what could
not enter into the imagination of men, where such had not
become the practice: so is it impossible to cause the contrary
idea to enter into the imagination of men, where such has be
come the practice.
Nor is it that this class is held to be by nature free from
human imperfection. They are by no means considered sinless
and wise: while their acts are taken for law, their word is not
taken for truth. They are periodically expelled from office because
they are condemned or despised; and any one of them who
should put his own hand in the pocket of another, or knock off
his hat, would be taken up by the police. Nevertheless, un
�38
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
questioned and unopposed, one of them can send hundreds of
thousands of his fellow-creatures to death, and cause myriads
of arms to be plunged in the pockets of hundreds of millions
of men, subjects of the Crown he serves, or aliens.
*
There have, during the last thirty years, been found some
individuals throughout Europe who have perceived, if but for a
moment, that unlawful battle was assassination, but no one
whatever has perceived that the present normal bloodshed and
convulsions are results of the maxim—that Ministers shall never
be exposed to punishment. But if the real nature of this practice
were understood, and human indignation were thereby evoked,
and directed itself to suppressing it, then would men naturally
turn upon those who, quietly and unendangered, in their closets,
ordered such crimes ; and the cry would be, “ The days of im“ peachment are not gone by.” All this the men of this class
feel and know, and instinctively connect with the general pro
position of applying the law to the conduct of States. Those
who propose to move in this matter have anxiously to ponder
and clearly to comprehend, what is the depth and intensity of
the opposition they will meet, and the vastness and variety of
the disturbing and corrupting influences that will be brought
to bear against them, in order to stop or frustrate their pro
ceedings.
No such dangers would assail, or pitfalls surround, the
attempt, were it made by any other Church save that of
Rome, as on the other hand, no corresponding benefits would
accrue. Had it been the Church of England which proposed
to restore the law, that restoration would only be, quoad
its own members. The purpose settled in its own mind,
it would only have to deal with its own Government. If so
minded, there could be no struggle and no difficulty; the
English Government could not make lawless wars in face of a
hostile Bench of Bishops, to say nothing of lay Peers, of
Members of the House of Commons, and the whole Anglican
community, resolved that wars should not be unlawfully and un
justly made. Neither France, nor Austria, nor Prussia, nor
Italy, nor any, nor all Foreign Powers, could in the slightest
degree, or for a moment, disturb or influence the decision of
such Church, nor would they, save indirectly, be affected
thereby.
The Anglican Church, like the Fecial College of Pagan
Rome, would have in view one side only: namely, its own
government. In a proposed war with Austria, it would be com* Since these operations commenced, dating them from the introduction of Lord
Palmerston into the Foreign Office and the sacrifice of Poland, the charges of Europe
for military purposes have increased threefold.
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
39
promised only in regard to the English Crown ; it is free, if our
side is just. Not so the Church of Rome. It would have to
bear on its conscience crime equally on both sides. It is not
free, if one side is just. Both must be in the right for it to be
blameless; and this is impossible. There is no possible escape
for it save by adjudication. 1st. It has to judge in reference
to the war; 2ndly. It has to excommunicate the side that is
in the wrong. No Community, great or small, can be called
just that does not exclude from its breast dishonourable men—
that is, excommunicate them. To fear to use the weapon of
excommunication is, above all things, to mistake the age in
which we live; which, more than any that has preceded it,
affords a field, and has in readiness a crown, for capable
daring.
Excommunication is a power which every individual possesses,
by which and which alone he retains, or can retain, his integrity.
We know a gentleman by this, that he will not know a dis
honourable person. This power is the safeguard of public as of
private morals. The real restraint over Ministers is this, that
public crime being also private guilt, honourable men will not
associate with them.
With Rome it is widely different. That Church is co-existent
with no State. Its decision has no reference to its own particular
State—not making itself unjust wars, or any wars; having never
used its power for the extension of its limits, when even that
power was the greatest in Europe; and not having engaged in
any of those diplomatic operations which are to-day directed
against the independence, not of the small States only, but of
the greatest also.
Its action, therefore, is without, and not within ; and with
out, it reaches them all and all equally. This action would in
effect be greatest on the States not publicly united to its faith ;
for the aggressive States which endanger the world are, with
one exception, not Catholic; and that one, Catholic in name,
is in essentials the reverse of Catholic, whether we term it
Gallican in its religion, or heathen in its Government. It is
therefore more logical to say that none of the dangerous Powers
are Catholic. These are four: England, Russia, Prussia, and
France. Of these, the three which are nominally not Catholic,
are those on which the action of the Court of Rome, under
our hypothesis, would be the greatest. The case can be only
stated here, not elaborated. Enough, perhaps, has been said
to show that the body of Catholics in England, or rather a
minute fraction of them, would suffice to stop nefarious and
injurious proceeding in the Government. Take from Russia
the active co-operation of England, and not only hei’ power
�40
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
expires, but the process commences of restoring the power of
England herself. But, in like manner, Rome has spiritual sub
jects in Russia and in Prussia. The method of proceeding is
one for all. Rome has also a few subjects left in France.
All the political influence of these Governments will be
brought to bear on Rome, directly on the Pope and his Go
vernment, indirectly through the Prelates and Ecclesiastics
connected with each State; and here Austria, too, comes in,
and will prove of all the most dangerous. Finally, the
common talk of diplomatic and political circles will be directed
to the crushing out of whatever idea may arise that is just,
wise, and beneficial. The Church of Rome knowing what it
is about, the fallacies of argument and the shafts of ridicule
would fall harmless. But the bare threat of such an intention
will cause measures to be hastened for crushing the Roman
State. During the interval it will be agitated with troubles
and tortured with alarms. In the Council the Pope has
raised up a stone; a great, a desperate, and a saving effort is
required to prevent it from falling back, and to cause it to fall
on and crush the reproved of mankind.
“ When religion is banished from civil society, and Divine
“ Revelation rejected, the true notion even of justice be“ comes obscured and is lost, material force takes the place of
“ justice and right, and certain men dare to proclaim that the
“ will of the people, manifested by what they call public
“ opinion, constitutes the supreme law, independent of all right,
“ human or divine; and that, in politics, acts consummated, and
by the fact that they have become consummated, have the
“ force of right. (Facta consummata, eo ipso, quod consumu mata sunt, vim juris habere.)”
Such is, perhaps, the leading idea of the Allocution of 1864.
This is the flag wrhich is raised. It has to be observed to
those who would object, because not adhering to the Church
of Rome, or because adhering to no church whatever, that
this proposition is not a religious dogma, but an assertion
which every man can examine, and of which he must recog
nise the truth. For no one can deny that what they call
“ Public Opinion” exists only in substituting something else in
the place of right, and that the people of Europe do accept
whatever is done on no other grounds than that it has been done.
It is, therefore, for all who see that this is so, and that it is
wrong, and must bring evil consequences, to apply themselves
to find the means of effecting a change.
It has further to be remarked that for them (the non-Catholics
and unbelievers) this is simply the assertion of a man. It is a
man, like each of us, who calls on his fellow-men to warn them,
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
41
and who, moreover, invokes their aid to stop nefarious proceed
ings, distracting and endangering, not one only, but all the
nations, first of Christendom, and then, by their example and
their acts, of the entire world.
The Pope speaks, in the first instance, to his own flock;
they differ in no respect in conduct and idea from those who
are not Catholics. That they do possess a religion no ways
changes their position from that of those who have none.
They neither protest against public crimes, nor denounce
“Public Opinion,” nor refuse to accept “consummated acts.”
In fact, the separation of religion and politics has had for
effect that there is no difference in practice and perception
between the believer and the infidel; and that condition of
slavish submission, arrived at by the latter through the throwing
off of all religious conviction or restraint, has been arrived at
equally by the former, notwithstanding his observance of the
ceremonial, and his profession of the symbol, of a belief.
What is here proposed is no more than what it is the duty of
each individual to do for himself; for it consists of the means to
be taken, so that in thought, word, and act he may not err.
Whilst each nation lived by and in itself, when the incidents of
conflict occurred at the interval of generations only, no such
duty was imposed on ordinary men. Not so when all these con
ditions are reversed, and when there is an incessant forming and
expressing of opinions. These opinions must be false, unless
they are true; and there is no possibility of their being true
save by taking the necessary steps to discard error, and that is
by ascertaining the law by which on each occasion we have to
be guided, and the history of the events to which it applies.
To commence this study a man must be possessed of the con
viction that it is his duty to be right, and consequently of the
knowledge that the idea prevalent among bis compatriots that
it is impossible to be right, and that it is human to err, is the
mere result of their not having taken the trouble to understand
the matters of which they speak. In this respect the doctrine
of infallibility of the Catholic Church comes greatly in aid.
To it, at least, we can boldly say, “ You recognise the duty of
“ being right, since you profess yourselves to be incapable of
“ error.”
There is, however, an objection which has been raised, viz.
that this is “extraneous work” and must interfere with the
regular work to come before the Council. The answer is, There
is no work before the Council.
The minds of men are, indeed, filled with vague and tumul
tuous notions as to a vast number of things that ought to be
done, and which they fancy the Council will in some way be
�42
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
able to reach. All these vanish on close inspection. It is first
of all expected that some dogmatic sanction will be obtained
for the “ Temporal Power.” When you ask how and in what
terms such an article is to be framed, you will get no answer;
and when you go on to say, “ The Temporal Power is simply a
ci state of possession, which can be disturbed only by an act of
“ violence; security against such is only to be found in the Ten
“ Commandmentsyou will have put the case in a form to
convince any one, not only that an article of faith cannot be
framed so as to meet the case, but also that it is superfluous, and
that the desired end can be reached only by a return to the Law
itself. The various’propositions may be classed under the fol
lowing heads:—
1. Temporal Power;
2. Secular Intervention in nomination of Bishops ;
3. Religious Education;
4. The Eastern Catholics ;
5. Relation of the Church to Governments (“ entre l’Eglise
et la Politique”).
As to the interference of Kings in the nomination of Bishops,
all that can be done by a Council has been done already by the
1st Article of the Council of Trent.
As to Education, it is a matter which regards the internal
legislation of each country. That legislation, as it exists, does
not, at least, prevent the priest from teaching the child what sin
is, and what the particular sin from which wTe suffer; which the
priest does not teach the child at present, because he himself
does not know, and which to teach is to stop.
In regard to the settlement looked to in the East (meaning
Turkey), there is nothing to do. The Porte leaves the Catholic
body perfect freedom on all the points on which Rome has been
at variance with the- Christian Governments of Europe. It does
not persecute, it does not constrain conversion, it does not con
fiscate property, it does not interfere in education, in the election
of Bishops, in the appropriation of testamentary bequests, or in
the public ceremonies. As to the discipline of that Church,
the Pope himself, and proprio mota, has made a change the
most momentous—that of assuming the direct nomination of the
Bishops. He has done so without consulting either the com
munities of the East, or the Consistory, or the Academia Sacra
at Rome. If he has determined the major point by reversing
immemorial practice, he can determine the minor ones, if so
minded, without the aid or intervention of a Council.
On the 5th and last point, “ the relation of the Church to
Politics,” it is difficult to imagine what it can mean.. This is
certain, that when the question is put nothing definite can be
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
43
extracted. The conclusion therefore is, that there exists at pre
sent no work foi’ the Council to undertake in the view of
realising its avowed purpose of “ preventing human society from
crumbling to dust.”
At the time of the announcement, the phrase was current at
Rome : “The Pope looks to the Council; the Cardinals to the
^Temporal Power,” meaning that the Pope had objects in
view which were not those of the Cardinals. Doubtless those
views are to be found in germ in the Allocution and the Syllabus.
But these are not all. There must lie at the bottom apprehen
sion of a new danger impending over the Church.”
Those who have considered the dangers that threaten Europe
from the disturbance of hereditary succession and from the matri
monial alliances of royal and princely houses, especially since the
new dynastic arrangements in Denmark and Greece, have had
one ground of consolation—namely, that the Pope was neither
an. hereditary monarch, nor capable of contracting matrimonial
alliances.
If the election of a Pope depended exclusively on a Conclave
of Cardinals, there might be grounds for such confidence. But
it is far from being so determined. Conflicting influences
operating from without prevail, and it is possible to suppose a
case when these influences, hitherto balancing each other, might
be combined. In such case, that elective source of the Papal
sovereignty, instead of affording any guarantee, would, on the
contrary, present the greatest of perils.
When a Frencli Sovereign conferred temporal possession on
the Bishop of Rome, it was in reason that precautions should
have, been taken to prevent the election from falling on a person
inimical to France, or in alliance or confederacy with those other
Governments with which France was in conflict, and for whose
rivalry and competition, Italy and the Papacy afforded the chief
field. In succession of time and events, other Governments
extorted and secured a similar guarantee. This consisted in the
right to.veto the election of one candidate. Three nations have
up to this time acquired this veto. These are France, Austria,
and Spain.
The first of these countries is in the hands of the man who
sent French troops to the Crimea. The second is in the hands
of a Minister who owes his position to Russia, and who has
declared himself openly against the Pope. Of the third, it
may at least be said that there is in it no capacity to take a line
of its own, and. that a Russian Ambassador has ruled as abso
lutely in Madrid as formerly at Warsaw.
To veto three candidates is to decide the election. Three
candidates amount to the number of eligible persons. By com
�44
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
bining the vetoes, the negative faculty of three, as hitherto pos
sessed, is converted into the active faculty of one. To the holder
or suspected holder of this influence, all candidates and all
electors would look.
That the Pope sees this danger is unquestionable. It does
not follow that he connects it with Russia; at all events, he
must connect it with the Ruler of France. Louis Napoleon
has sought consecration at the hands of the Pope. The Pope
has refused it. Threats and offers (money included) have been
unavailing to move him from his purpose. The Pope must,
therefore, foresee that every means will be used to obtain a more
pliant successor.
If a Council convened on the occasion can interpose so as to
bar the foreign vetoes, then some light may be thrown on the
motives to which the Pope has yielded, and some explanation
afforded, for a difference in this respect between himself and
the Consistory. It would also explain how there should be
mystery in the matter. At all events, it is clear that the fate
of the Catholic Church may turn on the election of the next
Pope, and that with that election this Council is immediately
connected. It more immediately explains the vagueness of the
terms of the instruction to the Sub-Commission as to deter
mining the relations of the Church to Politics.
Nor is this all that would be explained. The vehemence with
which Russia has denounced the Council, the monstrosity of the
pretensions she has put forward in respect to it, could hardly be
accounted for by any dread as to the effect it would have in
withdrawing Europe from her control, and the more so as the
language so used has given to the act of the Pope an importance
in the eyes of Catholics which it by no means had before. But
if she sees in it the indication of a design to frustrate the action
of foreign diplomacy in reference to the next election, the
vehemence of her words and their apparent indiscretion will
be alike explained.
But the power of applying these vetoes to candidates likely to
maintain the independence of the Roman See, is only a subsidiary
one. Doubtless the candidate has been long ago fixed upon.
The election will be made to turn in the Consistory, not
on French or Austrian influence, not on Cis or Transalpine
doctrines, not on liberal or anti-liberal tendencies, but on the
maintenance of the “ Temporal Power.” Louis Napoleon
is placed on the Temporal line; the Consistory is on the Tem
poral line. His candidate will be their candidate. That can
didate will be the Russian candidate. It matters not that Russia
has not now, and may not have even then, a representative at
Rome. It may be advantageous not to have one there, so as to
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
45
awaken no attention. It may be, that for this very reason the
rupture of intercourse was managed. Besides she has already
declared herself (1848) for “ the restoration of both the Spiritual
“ and the Temporal authority of the Pope.”
If there be a member of the Consistory who desires to know,
or rather who does not shrink from knowing, the truth, let him
render to himself an account of the operations of Louis Napo
leon since his accession, both externally and internally. Let
him inquire into the circumstances and agency which placed
him on the Imperial Throne. Is it France that has benefited
by his enterprises abroad ? Is it any Government which can
profit by what he is doing within ?
The “Temporal power of the Pope” is a word that has been
got up, just as the “ Integrity of the Danish Monarchy” and the
“Pacification of the Levant.” It will be used for a similar
purpose. This is the particular danger that threatens the world
at this moment, and that in conjunction with all the others;
for all are interwoven. There is no escape but in unravelling
the threads of the web of fallacy out of which it has sprung, and
in clearing away the false conclusions and the passions resulting
from the long series of measures by which Italy has been worked
up to her present state—measures which commenced in 1795, in
which the hand of Russia can be traced from the beginning,
and in which France, England, Austria, “ Italy,” and “ Revolu“ tion” have all been made successively, severally, and conjointly
to play their blind, servile, and suicidal parts.
Russia’s operations are secular. Her antagonists, who are but
dupes, revolve in the narrow limits of months and days. She
acts; they speculate. The horizon of their universe is made up
of the emotions of their own minds, for which she has furnished
the pasture out of the anterior acts which she has made them per
form ; and which acts they themselves, nevertheless, have for
gotten, never having known what it is they have done, because
haying no law in themselves, their eyes are without sight.
It is the “ Commandments of the Lord ” which “ enlighten the
the eyes.” Escape from this present terrible and hopeless danger
can only be by restoring the Law of God and man. Thus only
can the Consistory or the World be made to understand that to
speak of “ the Temporal power of the Pope” is to utter words
base and shameful, and is to weave a snare for their own feet.
.Why are the words “ Temporal power” substituted for Sove
reignty in the case of the Pope alone ? No one speaks of the
Temporal power of the Emperor of the French or of the Queen
of Spain. Yet there is no difference in regard to these Poten
tates as to the nature and quality of the supreme functions which
they exercise as rulers. It is true that the Pope superadds to
�46
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
the prerogative of Justices of Peace ancl War another quality
or Prerogative which is spiritual. But so does the Emperor of
Russia and the Sultan of Turkey, and yet no one speaks
of the “Temporal Power” of either. So does the King of
Prussia and the Queen of England, who dispose of the “ Tem
poralities” of their respective churches.
If, then, the “ Sovereignty” of the Pope has received a special
designation which is not applied to other sovereignties, it is that
there lurks beneath an insidious intention. That intention is to
deprive him of that Sovereignty by making men believe it to be
something different from other Sovereignties. Thus a discussion
can be raised respecting it on grounds which exclude all received
notions of right. It will so come about that men who would
not admit for a moment a proposition to take the crown off the
head of the Queen of England or of Spain, and to give it to
Victor Emmanuel because it- is a “ Temporal Power,” would
accept, and urge on that ground, the same proposition as regards
the Pope.
They will then go a step further, and say, “ We propose to
“ give—we who have no business therewith—the lands, cities,
“ and fortresses belonging to the Pope to the descendants of the
“ Dukes of Savoy (for that is the end in view), in order that
“ we may confer a great benefit on the Roman Catholic Church.
“We wish to improve and purify it. We wish to wash it clean
“ from all secular taints we desire to see it entirely spiritual, and
“ in all this we are actuated by the spirit of justice and the love
“ of Religion.”
Thus will this class of simple and perhaps devout persons find
themselves engaged in a common cause with those who seek to
“ abrogate all laws,” to revolutionise every Government, and to
upset every belief—men who not only work for “ disorder,” but
who avow to themselves that they do so.
To these, others join themselves with another motive—that of
Proselytism. They will see in this operation the breaking
down of the Catholic Church, and in the hopes of gaining con
verts to Protestantism, will join in the same clamour for the
“ unity of Italy.” Thus it is that the whole of England has not
only in effect aided and wildly applauded the atrocious proceed
ings of which Italy has been the theatre, but bowed itself down
before the man who has been the instrument employed for that
end, although as a man he combines every disqualification capable
of excluding him from intercourse with respectable persons.
This combination established, those on the other side will
“ accept the language of their enemies.”* Instead of unravelWords of the Bishop of Orleans at Malines
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
47
ling the fallacy of their terms, instead of exposing the immo
rality of their proceeding, instead of unmasking the perfidy of
their design, and the fatal consequences it must bring, they will
simply accept the term—which is accepting all—-and their rally
ing point will be to maintain the “ Temporal Power.” Thus it is
that a candidate coming forward as in favour of the “ Temporal
power” may be accepted by a future Consistory on that word
alone, and yet be the very agent selected for the undoing of
that very knot which links together this great and wonderful
system, which, unless it did possess a sovereignty in the sense of
territorial possession, could only be the dependency of some one
the Governments of Europe.
. It is in this sense that the case has been judged up to these
times by the Protestant Governments. They have always held
that the independence of the Pope was a vital point for them on
this ground : that the loss of his independence—which they saw
equally in external influence exerted at elections or in revolu
tionary movements affecting his authority—would be to the
benefit of some Catholic power and against themselves. It was
thus that England exerted herself, and at great expense, to secure
a free Consistory at Venice in 1799—Venice, which has now va
nished from the list of free states, and of which act she reaped so
signally the benefit a few years later, in being, by the aid of the
Pope, enabled to meet the effects of the Berlin and Milan De
crees. It was thus that she provided, at the settlement of 1814-5,
for the full restoration of the State and Possessions of the
Roman See.
Again, when the convulsions of Italy were beginning, and
the Revolutionists, expecting to be favourably looked on "by the
Protestant Governments, applied to the Representative of Prus
sia, they were told (by Mr. Bunsen) that they were “ greatly mis
taken if they thought that the Protestant Powers would favour
“ them because of religious differences with the Catholics.” The
above-stated reason .was then put in precise terms; the Prussian
Secretary of Legation explained why his Government could not
abet proceedings which, whatever the views and intentions of
those immediately engaged, could have no other result save that
of reducing the Pope to a condition of subserviency to some one
of the Catholic Governments, which then would turn his spiritual
supremacy over his flock, to its own advantage, against other
Powers.
The Pope has never sanctioned, or admitted, or employed,
the terms “Temporal power” as applied to his possessions. In
speaking of his sovereignty over the States of the Church, it is
always designated by him as the Civile Imperium, or the Principatus Civilis. (Syllabus, § ix. Errores de civile Romani Pontificis
4
�48
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
principati, Prop, lxxvi. et seq.) The word 44 Temporal Power,”
in Papal documents, refers to temporal judgments, and to the
effects attaching to excommunication. (Syllabus, § v. De Ecclesia ejusque Juribus Prop. xxiv. xxv. et al.) In fact it applies
to other Governments.
Those who desire to understand have got within their reach
the case of Denmark. There they may study Russia’s mode of
procedure in such matters. There 44 the Powers” combined to
impose a candidate. The internal laws were upset to let him
in. He was Russia’s nominee, yet she held aloof. She is now
mistress of Denmark, with all the advantages of not appearing to
be so. On that occasion the deceptive amphibology prepared for
men’s lips was “ The Integrity of Denmark.”
Who dreamt that there was anything in contemplation
against the Crown of Denmark, even on that morning (11th
May, 1852) when the Treaty was announced in the Times news
paper, although that profound and extensive conspiracy had
been in existence for eighty-five years ? Who has now compre
hended it, with the results before them1? If it be unquestionable
that those who do not anticipate events cannot counteract them,
so is it equally true that those who do not foresee them before
they happen, cannot understand them when they have taken
place. This is no reason for despair ; it is, on the contrary, an
inducement to strive, and in the first instance to study.
No doubt the Pope in the words he has spoken and in the
measures he proposes, offends the Catholic body This is his mis
*
fortune, not his fault. It is also his duty. He has the greatest of ex
amples to guide him, an example which is also a command. That
example is that of Christ. Our Saviour to the then 44 Church”
preached repentance. In the New Testament the words 44 con
vert” and 44 repentance ” are synonymous, so also 44 salvation.”
44 Saving the people from their sins,” is the expression used to
designate the object of the preaching of St. John, yet the sins
of that 44 Church” of Judea did not go to the extent of daily and
wholesale assassinations. St. Paul says of the 44 Christian”
after the crucifixion and ascension and the coming of the Holy
Ghost, 44 He that does not provide for his own household has
* The following words from the Monde show the schism introduced by the Syl
labus, “ Les divisions viennent de ceux qui refusent de comprendre les paroles de
Pie IX. dans le Syllabus : il y a injustice à mettre sur la même ligne avec eux les
Catholiques qui ne se sont pas départis des principes posés dans les Encycliques. Si
la voix du pasteur est écoutée, le camp des Catholiques se fortifiera, et leur action
peut devenir prépondérante. C’est à l’i/mon de VOuest et à la Gazette de France à en
prendre leur parti. Elles se bercent d’illusions si elles s’imaginent guider les Catho
liques, en restant dans leurs doctrines équivoques.
“ Elles croient servir la liberté; mais jusqu’ici elles n’ont servi que la liberté de
leurs adversaires. Ce métier de dupes ne vous va pas, quoique nous ne nous dissi
mulions pas que les Catholiques ne sont pas encore en mesure de faire prévaloir leur
volonté. L’inanité des doctrines modernes ramènera, après une longue expérience, et
s’il plaît à Dieu, les populations à uneyrnZ/i/yae chrétienne.-’
�DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
49
“ denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Yet he
spoke of neglect only, and neglect in reference to things which
had they been done would only have proved useful. With what
feelings would the apostles to-day behold, and in what terms
denounce, that community calling itself Christian 1 A true
successor of those apostles will feel and speak in like manner.
Pius IX. combines qualifications at once so dissimilar and so
eminent, that he appears to have been Providentially raised for
the need of the World, being at once an Ecclesiastic who has
applied his mind to analytical inquiries, and a Sovereign who is
so not in name only, as the other Sovereigns of Europe, but in
power also.
But there is in him not only capacity and qualifications. He has
put his hand to the work ; and that work is rendered by his own
words better than by any Commentary. He has said, “The
“ World is lost in darkness; I have published the Syllabus to be
to it a light, and to lead it back to the road of Truth.” And
again :—“ When the Pope speaks in a solemn act, it is that his
“ words shall be taken in their literal sense ; and that which he
“ has said, he has intended to say.”
Were the Catholic World of the same mind as the Pope, the
work would be done, or rather, it would not require to be clone.
But unfortunately it is not so; his difficulties are with his
own flock, alike incapable of following the thought, and of com
prehending and admiring the courage, displayed on so many
occasions by the greatest Pontiff that has ever sat on the throne
of St. Peter.
6th.
diplomatic college.
The really important point, and on which all hinges, is the
knowledge of what is doing in the world.
The subject is so vast, that to travel over it volumes would be
required. But, fortunately, it is also so simple that it can be
taken in at a glance. It has been thus enunciated by a
Prelate :—“ It must be laid down as the very first point that the
“ Church is ignorant, and that that ignorance must cease.”
There is an immediate and a practical point pressing for
instant solution, and bearing specially on the Church of Rome,
as a Church.
Russia, assuming to be the Eastern Church, aims at the de
struction of the Western Church. It is now at last known
that she has employed revolution as her instrument. It is
D
�50
DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
now by her openly acknowledged that to this end of subverting
the spiritual authority of the Pope, she has thrown Italy into
the hands of the King of Sardinia.
* This (as all the other
troubles and convulsions of Europe and the world) has not been
brought about by the power of Russia acting on circumstances,
but by hei capacity acting on opinion. That capacity consists
in her drawing from without able men wherever they were to be
found, and causing her own men to pass through an elaborate
mid laborious, discipline, such as the nations of Europe them
selves do employ to obtain legists, surgeons, or engineers. If,
then, the Papal Government would defend itself against the
Russian, or even know whether defence be possible and easy, or
difficult and impossible, it must employ the process which Russia
employs, that is, educate men.
Twenty-four years ago this plan was under contemplation by
Gregory XVI., but time was not granted him for its execu
tion. Yet then the belief of universal peace prevailed. They
thought “ that there were to be no more wars.” j- Confidence
in general wisdom prevailed. The year 1848 was still at a
distance.
Nothing is done in the world, but because at some previous
moment day, month, or year—two or three Russian diploma
tists have sate down to devise it, and also because there have
been none to sit down to consider how it could be prevented.
Some private individuals, engaged on the other side, have
prevented much that was in progress. They have prevented
great wars. These things may come out hereafter, in posthumous
memoirs; but they may also be known now to any who will
study. They have delayed, at least, the march of events, so
far as to afford time for the Church of Rome, at last to act.
The Council may take years; and what years are before us !
It suffices for one man of authority in the Roman State to be
informed, for prevention and counteraction to commence. This
is easy beyond expression, for whoever knows what is doing, and
at the same time has access to the saloons of Ministers. It is out
of false measures in each State that Russia works her way.
These come either from delusions that are spread, perfidious
counsels that are offered, falsified news that is presented, or
traitors that are employed. A Papal Nuncio duly informed, or
say a Prelate or a Priest, or a simple Layman, in a position to
be listened to, can rectify such false conclusions, or unmask
The Moscow Gazette says:—“To Russia it is necessary that Italy should be
united; but united she cannot be except at Rome, her natural capital. Is not the
fall of the Temporal Powers the triumph of orthodoxy (the Greek Church) in Rome
itself? Yes, it is in a higher capacity than that of mere spectators that we watch
this culminating point of Italian history.”
t Mr. Stewart Mill.
�DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
51
such secret agent. Russia has only the vices of men to use
to the undoing of each particular State. We have the virtues
of men for our allies, and we work for the honour and interest
of each Sovereign and each people, and for the common good
of all.
The repugnance of the Governments of Europe to the forma
tion of Diplomatic men for themselves, has to be well considered,
and perfectly understood, to perceive, how the proposed measure
would affect the world.
No public man, in England, France, Germany, or Italy, will
refuse to admit, if pressed in conversation, the following propo
sitions :—
1. That Russia is more dexterous than any other State.
2. That it is dangerous to allow her to proceed unwatched,
seeing that the affairs of all countries are mixed up together, and
— are conducted in secret.
3. That she cannot be watched, unless by persons cognisant
of her purposes and methods.
4. That it would be very desirable to have a body of men,
chosen and trained, as she chooses and trains her Diplomatists.
If, on these admissions, it be proposed to him to introduce a
measure for the carrying out of such a design, he will decline,
and start back in fear or aversion. The cause of this repugnance
is, that each would consider the mere proposal an offence and an
insult to himself individually, for it implies not only that he had
been wrong, but also that he is ignorant, and unfit for the station
he holds, has held, or aspires to hold. Also that “ public opinion”
has been wrong, and is ignorant. Dread, aversion, and disgust
must therefore be excited by the proposition, proceeding from
a Sovereign who exercises a practical and social influence over a
large number of the subjects of every other State, many of
whom sit in the representative assemblies, in the Senates of those
States, and who approach the Sovereign and share his councils.
These Governments would stand towards such a body exactly
in the position of a society of criminals, or at least of persons
not hitherto under the restraint of police or fear of the law, to
wards a newly introduced court of justice.
.The Law of Nations is not the only law violated by a public
crime, but the municipal law also. In the preceding pages this
branch has not been referred to, but it must be noticed to com
plete the subject.
The Law of Nations requires that war shall be declared only
by the sovereign authority. The municipal law defines the
conditions under which such functions shall be exercised. In
this country the Prerogative of Peace and War, as all other
Prerogatives, can be “ exercised only through the Privy Coun
�52
DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
cil.” It .is, indeed, through the evading of this law, and by the
surreptitious substitution of another body, to which also the title
of council has been given (Cabinet Council), that the disorder
has crept in, and that causeless and lawless wars have been
made.
It may therefore so happen that a war may be lawful and
just and necessary as regards the enemy, and nevertheless cri
minal as regards the subjects and the servants of the Crown.
The Pope, in his endeavour to bring back public business to
a normal state, must take this matter into consideration, and lav
down the obligation in nations possessing such institutions,
though neglected now, to restore them.
In doing so he will, as regards England, point to a far more
practical means of prevention than any other, whilst it comes as
supplementary to the rest.
Further, in urging on the nations the adoption of legal and
constitutional means of controling the executives, and thereby
putting an end to the violences which have called for his inter
vention, he will, whilst pointing, out the most feasible means of
obtaining the desired end, prevent much of the hesitation, oppo
sition, or abuse which may be provoked by his act. He will
show that it is not power that he covets, but crime that he
.abhors.
Rome has a Diplomacy and a Diplomatic College already.
Objections and fears are therefore out of place. It is true that
it is not connected with treaties and ordinary transactions, but
with concordats, and confined to the religious aspect. The
basis, however, exists, and is capable of extension. The system
dates from the period which preceded permanent embassies, and
when, therefore, the intercourse of nations took place only when
there was something to do, not when a subsisting intercourse
was converted into the means of giving them something to do.
Diplomacy derives its origin from the Byzantines. The word
.signifies “ duplicate,” and the office was equivalent to what we
now term archivist. It was a record of contracts; it was not the
having of agents reciprocally located in the various courts to
interfere day by day in all affairs.
It is by no means the object of this proposal that the Court of
Rome should involve itself in this odious and maleficent system;
but, on the contrary, that, being cognisant of it, it should frus
trate the deceptions it produces, and counteract the false maxims
.which it propagates, and by which it is suffered to exist.
*
* Prince Adam Czatoryski, formerly Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, says, in his
work, “ La Diplomatie—■“ It passes belief that nations should allow themselves to be
disposed of by a body of men having another conscience and another God, and also
hat they should look thereon, not only without abhorrence and fear, but consider it
tust and proper.” This was written in 1826 !
�CONCLUSION.
53
The “Academia Ecclesiastica ” has a branch entitled “Diplomacia Sacra,” of the nature of the Byzantine College. It is
devoted to the record and study of concordats, and the jurispru
dence thereto belonging. Through it the Nuncios pass, to pre
pare them for their functions. A natural subdivision of this
body would be a college of Secular Diplomacy, the fundamental
and primordial studies of which would necessarily consist of
Jurisprudence and the Law of Nations. This would be the
most simple and natural course, but it is not the only one.
These studies are not special. It is requisite that every man
born into the world—far more every teacher of other men—
should be possessed of them. Duties have reference to circum
stances. Before the epoch of lawless wars, such studies were
not needed, being superfluous ; but they become of the last ne
cessity to every single conscience in an age, when no one knows
what constitutes a lawful war, and when, consequently, unlawful
ones can be made without hindrance or comment.
There is the whole Priesthood to be instructed. There are the
numerous regular Oommunities, with power, devotion, libraries,
and leisure, to be employed. The resources of the Church of
Borne are overwhelming from the moment that it is perceived
that it is by the culture of the intellectual arm that the war is
to be carried on against religious infidelity, social disorganisa
tion, or the plots of those who employ these means and spread
this corruption.
Conclusion.
Danger has come near. It has been seen under its most re
volting and alarming features. The Papal Court must now see
in the destroyer of Poland, the patron of Revolution, and the
mover and the director of all the Governments, of Europe.
But that Cabinet has now itself thrown off the mask and pro
claims its identification with Italian “unity,” not as directed to
subvert (as heretofore put forward) the “temporal,” but also
the “ spiritual ” authority of the Pope. It pretends, at the same
time, to enter the CEcumenic Council; not to enter only, but to
displace from it alike the Pope and the Western Church,
offering its faith and its power for the restoration of religion,
harmony, and political rest in Christendom. Warning cannot
further go, nor provocation.
In respect to courage, that great quality is not wanting.
The Pope has already defied Russia, denounced her, and dis
missed her 1 epresentative. The time must have come for him to
�54
CONCLUSION.
think of devising means to restrain and counteract her. These
have but to be sought to be found. This great power can come
into being only on the condition of perfect knowledge and
of perfect integrity. These may appear beyond the reach, not
of this, but of every age. Still, no more is required than that
which Russia possesses in every one of her Diplomatists, and
all would be achieved with such a man as England recently
possessed in Lord Stowell. Nothing more is wanted than
what could be obtained from a British Court of Justice to-day,
were a case framed so as to be brought before it.
The affairs of States which appear under the present condition
of secret mismanagement and malversation on the part of rulers,
and of confusion as produced by parliamentary discussion and
ephemeral comments in the Press, are in themselves of the
utmost simplicity, and present neither difficulty nor ambiguity
when approached with the knowledge of the law and with
sincerity.
Unless a stop be put to our present course, Christendom, after
passing through long agonies of internecine strife, must pass
under the Muscovite sceptre, and thus reap a just and merited
retribution.
Such are the convictions which inspire with fervour and in
dustry those who do see; and in all times of peril, the fate of
armies, or of nations, or of ages will and must depend on single
men : nor is their station and capacity much to be taken into
account; it suffices that they see where the others do not.
Slaughter on the battle-field, without just cause and due
warrant, is individual murder. This no man can deny when
the case is put to him. The question with which the Church
has now to deal is thus reduced to very narrow limits. It is—
TO DECLARE MURDER TO BE SIN.
On this simple issue depend all the afore-stated sequences.
On the one side, the acceptance of all causes of social degra
dation ; on the other, the reversal of the present course of im
morality, financial dilapidation, political despotism, agitation for
change, rebellion, and apostacy.
If Rome is to restore the law, it is in this fashion that it has
to be done—that is by making individuals upright; in other
words, by making them citizens and gentlemen. Ten just”
men might have saved Sodom and Gomorrah. Ten just men
can save England, by preventing successively each of the acts,
by which she is perishing.
The great compiler of the “Law of Nations” concludes in
these words:—
“ May God (who alone can do it) inscribe these things on the
“ hearts of those who have the affairs of Christendom in their
�CONCLUSION.
55
“ hands, and grant them a mind intelligent of divine and human
“ Right, remembering that it is appointed by Him to govern
“ man, a creature most dear to Himself.”*
Grotius was not a member of the Church of Rome. If
his life was expended on the study of that Public Law then
obscured, and overthrown by religious wars and animosities,
so likewise was his heart given to the composing of religious
strife, and the reconciling of the rival Churches which equally
acknowledge Christ as their head. The Protestant Grotius,
dedicated his work to the Catholic King of France, Louis
XIII. In doing so he appeals to him, in the name of Justice, that
he may “ revive her buried Laws, that he may oppose himself to
“ a declining age, so that it may submit to the judgment of that
£i former age which all Christians acknowledge to have been
“ truly and sincerely Christian : and thus restore peace amongst
“ men. The task,” he says, “ is difficult, but nothing is worthy
“ of such excellent Princes (Louis XIII. and Charles I.)
“ but that which is in itself difficult, and which is even despaired
“ of by all others? ”f
* St. Chrysostom. Serm. de Elemosyna.
f Difficile negotiatium, propter studia partium, glesentibus in dies odiis inflaminata:
sed tantis regebus nihil dignum, nisi quod difficile, nisi quod ab aliis omnibus des
peratum.
�NOTE ON GROTIUS.
*
Note
on
Grotius.
The Bishop of Orleans has recommended the study of
Grotius as an essential part of education. He has added,
as an inducement, that Grotius was about to adhere to
the Church of Rome at the time of his death. This does not
appear from his common biographers. Were it so, the case
would not be altered, as his work was composed whilst he was a
Protestant, and the authority of his writings depend, not on his
religious belief, but on the soundness of his propositions. He
has, moreover, drawn largely, not only from the Sacred Writings,
but also from the early Fathers, whose words are reproduced in
almost every page.
It might have been supposed that the Protestant character of
this writer would have been seized upon by the Bishop of
Orleans, and made use of, to urge his co-religionaries by very
shame to apply themselves to this, the highest and most essential
branch of human knowledge, the foundation of all society, and
the ^handmaid of all religion. It is true that at the time that
B
* ishop
the
of Orleans wrote his treatise on Education the
Syllabus of the Pope had not appeared, and no General Council
had been announced; so that nothing was then in contemplation
by the Church of Rome, as a Church, for the rectification of the
human understanding, or the arrestation of the decay of human
affairs.
THE END.
LONDON:
'UHINTBD BY c. "WHITING, BEAUFORT HOUSE, STRAND
�
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
Appeal of a Protestant to the Pope to restore the law of nations: reply to six questions on the business for the announced sixth Lateran Council
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 56 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by G. Whiting, Strand, London. Contains bibliographical references.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Urquhart, David
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1868
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Diplomatic Review Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
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 (Appeal of a Protestant to the Pope to restore the law of nations: reply to six questions on the business for the announced sixth Lateran Council), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5236
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
Conway Tracts
Foreign Relations
International Law
Protestantism