diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:34:58 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:34:58 -0700 |
| commit | ac15b1a1118825b0ea70f4b8ef2b0174f4e16618 (patch) | |
| tree | 04439d776aa82ce83ffaa283a0dd042e11fe5ea0 /10684-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '10684-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 10684-h/10684-h.htm | 8582 |
1 files changed, 8582 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/10684-h/10684-h.htm b/10684-h/10684-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..852f1fd --- /dev/null +++ b/10684-h/10684-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,8582 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> +<head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" /> +<title>A History of Freedom of Thought</title> +<style type="text/css"> +h1 {text-align:center} +h2 {text-align:center} +h3 {text-align:center} +h4 {text-align:center;margin-top:12pt;margin-bottom:3pt} +div.front {page-break-before:always} +div.chapter {page-break-before:always} +div.footnote {margin-top:6pt} +p.footnote {margin-left:18pt;text-indent:-18pt} +p.editors {margin-left:24pt;text-indent:0pt;text-align:center; margin-top:12pt} +p.credits {text-align:center;text-indent:0pt;margin-top:6pt;margin-bottom:6pt} +p.copyright {text-align:center} +p {text-indent:12pt; margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify} +span.title {font-style:italic} +span.page {display:none} +div.song {margin-top:12pt;margin-bottom:12pt} +p.stanza {margin-left:24pt;text-indent:-18pt} +p.index {text-indent:0pt;margin-top:6pt;font-size:xx-small} +</style> +</head> +<body> +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 10684 ***</div> + +<div> +<h2>HOME UNIVERSITY LIBRARY +OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE</h2> + +<p class="editors" style="margin-bottom:24pt">No. 69</p> + +<p class="editors"><i>Editors:</i></p> + +<p class="editors">HERBERT FISHER, M.A., F.B.A.<br/> +Prof. GILBERT MURRAY, Litt.D., LL.D., F.B.A.<br/> +Prof. J. ARTHUR THOMSON, M.A.<br/> +Prof. WILLIAM T. BREWSTER, M.A.</p> +</div> + +<div class="front"> +<h1>A HISTORY OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT</h1> + +<p class="credits">BY</p> + +<h2>J. B. BURY, M.A., F.B.A</h2> + +<p class="credits">HON. D.LITT. OF OXFORD, DURHAM, AND DUBLIN, AND HON. LL.D. OF EDINBURGH, GLASGOW, AND ABERDEEN UNIVERSITIES; REGIUS PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY</p> + +<p class="credits">AUTHOR OF “HISTORY OF THE LATTER ROMAN EMPIRE,” “HISTORY OF GREECE,” “HISTORY OF THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE,” ETC.</p> +</div> +<div class="front"> +<span class="page">[IV]</span> +<p class="copyright">Copyright, 1913,<br/> +by<br/> +HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY</p> + +<p class="copyright" style="margin-top:24pt">THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, U.S.A.</p> +</div> +<div class="front"> +<span class="page">[V]</span> +<a name="TOC"></a><h2>CONTENTS</h2> + +<table> +<tr><td style="text-align:right">CHAP.</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td style="text-align:right"> I</td> <td><a href="#ch-1">Introductory</a></td></tr> +<tr><td style="text-align:right"> II</td> <td><a href="#ch-2">Reason Free (Greece And Rome)</a></td></tr> +<tr><td style="text-align:right"> III</td> <td><a href="#ch-3">Reason in Prison (The Middle Ages)</a></td></tr> +<tr><td style="text-align:right"> IV</td> <td><a href="#ch-4">Prospect of Deliverance (The Renaissance and the Reformation)</a></td></tr> +<tr><td style="text-align:right"> V</td> <td><a href="#ch-5">Religious Toleration</a></td></tr> +<tr><td style="text-align:right"> VI</td> <td><a href="#ch-6">The Growth of Rationalism (Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries)</a></td></tr> +<tr><td style="text-align:right"> VII</td> <td><a href="#ch-7">The Progress of Rationalism (Nineteenth Century)</a></td></tr> +<tr><td style="text-align:right">VIII</td> <td><a href="#ch-8">The Justification of Liberty of Thought</a></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td> <td><a href="#ch-bib">Bibliography</a></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td> <td><a href="#ch-index">Index</a></td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="chapter"> +<span class="page">[7]</span> +<h1>A HISTORY OF +FREEDOM OF THOUGHT</h1> + +<a name="ch-1"></a><h2>CHAPTER I</h2> + +<h3>FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND THE FORCES +AGAINST IT</h3> + +<h3>(INTRODUCTORY)</h3> + +<p>IT is a common saying that thought is free. +A man can never be hindered from thinking +whatever he chooses so long as he conceals +what he thinks. The working of his mind is +limited only by the bounds of his experience +and the power of his imagination. But this +natural liberty of private thinking is of little +value. It is unsatisfactory and even painful +to the thinker himself, if he is not permitted to +communicate his thoughts to others, and it +is obviously of no value to his neighbours. +Moreover it is extremely difficult to hide +thoughts that have any power over the +mind. If a man’s thinking leads him to call +in question ideas and customs which regulate +the behaviour of those about him, to reject +beliefs which they hold, to see better ways of +life than those they follow, it is almost + +<span class="page">[8]</span> +impossible for him, if he is convinced of the +truth of his own reasoning, not to betray +by silence, chance words, or general attitude +that he is different from them and does not +share their opinions. Some have preferred, +like Socrates, some would prefer to-day, to +face death rather than conceal their thoughts. +Thus freedom of thought, in any valuable +sense, includes freedom of speech.</p> + +<p>At present, in the most civilized countries, +freedom of speech is taken as a matter of +course and seems a perfectly simple thing. +We are so accustomed to it that we look on it +as a natural right. But this right has been +acquired only in quite recent times, and the +way to its attainment has lain through lakes +of blood. It has taken centuries to persuade +the most enlightened peoples that liberty to +publish one’s opinions and to discuss all +questions is a good and not a bad thing. +Human societies (there are some brilliant +exceptions) have been generally opposed to +freedom of thought, or, in other words, to +new ideas, and it is easy to see why.</p> + +<p>The average brain is naturally lazy and +tends to take the line of least resistance. The +mental world of the ordinary man consists of +beliefs which he has accepted without questioning +and to which he is firmly attached; +he is instinctively hostile to anything which + +<span class="page">[9]</span> +would upset the established order of this +familiar world. A new idea, inconsistent +with some of the beliefs which he holds, +means the necessity of rearranging his mind; +and this process is laborious, requiring a +painful expenditure of brain-energy. To +him and his fellows, who form the vast majority, +new ideas, and opinions which cast +doubt on established beliefs and institutions, +seem evil because they are disagreeable.</p> + +<p>The repugnance due to mere mental laziness +is increased by a positive feeling of fear. +The conservative instinct hardens into the +conservative doctrine that the foundations of +society are endangered by any alterations in +the structure. It is only recently that men +have been abandoning the belief that the +welfare of a state depends on rigid stability +and on the preservation of its traditions and +institutions unchanged. Wherever that belief +prevails, novel opinions are felt to be +dangerous as well as annoying, and any one +who asks inconvenient questions about the +why and the wherefore of accepted principles +is considered a pestilent person.</p> + +<p>The conservative instinct, and the conservative +doctrine which is its consequence, are +strengthened by superstition. If the social +structure, including the whole body of customs +and opinions, is associated intimately + +<span class="page">[10]</span> +with religious belief and is supposed to be +under divine patronage, criticism of the social +order savours of impiety, while criticism of +the religious belief is a direct challenge to the +wrath of supernatural powers.</p> + +<p>The psychological motives which produce +a conservative spirit hostile to new ideas +are reinforced by the active opposition of +certain powerful sections of the community, +such as a class, a caste, or a priesthood, whose +interests are bound up with the maintenance +of the established order and the ideas on +which it rests.</p> + +<p>Let us suppose, for instance, that a people +believes that solar eclipses are signs employed +by their Deity for the special purpose of communicating +useful information to them, and +that a clever man discovers the true cause of +eclipses. His compatriots in the first place +dislike his discovery because they find it very +difficult to reconcile with their other ideas; +in the second place, it disturbs them, because +it upsets an arrangement which they consider +highly advantageous to their community; +finally, it frightens them, as an offence to +their Divinity. The priests, one of whose +functions is to interpret the divine signs, are +alarmed and enraged at a doctrine which +menaces their power.</p> + +<p>In prehistoric days, these motives, operating + +<span class="page">[11]</span> +strongly, must have made change slow in +communities which progressed, and hindered +some communities from progressing at all. +But they have continued to operate more or +less throughout history, obstructing knowledge +and progress. We can observe them +at work to-day even in the most advanced +societies, where they have no longer the +power to arrest development or repress the +publication of revolutionary opinions. We +still meet people who consider a new idea an +annoyance and probably a danger. Of those +to whom socialism is repugnant, how many +are there who have never examined the +arguments for and against it, but turn away +in disgust simply because the notion disturbs +their mental universe and implies a drastic +criticism on the order of things to which they +are accustomed? And how many are there +who would refuse to consider any proposals +for altering our imperfect matrimonial institutions, +because such an idea offends a mass +of prejudice associated with religious sanctions? +They may be right or not, but if they +are, it is not their fault. They are actuated +by the same motives which were a bar to progress +in primitive societies. The existence of +people of this mentality, reared in an atmosphere +of freedom, side by side with others +who are always looking out for new ideas and + +<span class="page">[12]</span> +regretting that there are not more about, enables +us to realize how, when public opinion +was formed by the views of such men, thought +was fettered and the impediments to knowledge +enormous.</p> + +<p>Although the liberty to publish one’s +opinions on any subject without regard to +authority or the prejudices of one’s neighbours +is now a well-established principle, I +imagine that only the minority of those who +would be ready to fight to the death rather +than surrender it could defend it on rational +grounds. We are apt to take for granted +that freedom of speech is a natural and inalienable +birthright of man, and perhaps to +think that this is a sufficient answer to all that +can be said on the other side. But it is difficult +to see how such a right can be established.</p> + +<p>If a man has any “natural rights,” the +right to preserve his life and the right to +reproduce his kind are certainly such. Yet +human societies impose upon their members +restrictions in the exercise of both these rights. +A starving man is prohibited from taking +food which belongs to somebody else. Promiscuous +reproduction is restricted by various +laws or customs. It is admitted that society +is justified in restricting these elementary +rights, because without such restrictions an +ordered society could not exist. If then we + +<span class="page">[13]</span> +concede that the expression of opinion is a +right of the same kind, it is impossible to +contend that on this ground it can claim +immunity from interference or that society +acts unjustly in regulating it. But the concession +is too large. For whereas in the other +cases the limitations affect the conduct of +every one, restrictions on freedom of opinion +affect only the comparatively small number +who have any opinions, revolutionary or +unconventional, to express. The truth is +that no valid argument can be founded on +the conception of natural rights, because it +involves an untenable theory of the relations +between society and its members.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, those who have the +responsibility of governing a society can +argue that it is as incumbent on them to +prohibit the circulation of pernicious opinions +as to prohibit any anti-social actions. They +can argue that a man may do far more harm +by propagating anti-social doctrines than by +stealing his neighbour’s horse or making love +to his neighbour’s wife. They are responsible +for the welfare of the State, and if they are +convinced that an opinion is dangerous, by +menacing the political, religious, or moral +assumptions on which the society is based, it +is their duty to protect society against it, as +against any other danger.</p> + +<span class="page">[14]</span> + +<p>The true answer to this argument for +limiting freedom of thought will appear in +due course. It was far from obvious. A +long time was needed to arrive at the conclusion +that coercion of opinion is a mistake, +and only a part of the world is yet convinced. +That conclusion, so far as I can +judge, is the most important ever reached +by men. It was the issue of a continuous +struggle between authority and reason—the +subject of this volume. The word <i>authority</i> +requires some comment.</p> + +<p>If you ask somebody how he knows something, +he may say, “I have it on good +authority,” or, “I read it in a book,” or, “It +is a matter of common knowledge,” or, “I +learned it at school.” Any of these replies +means that he has accepted information from +others, trusting in their knowledge, without +verifying their statements or thinking the +matter out for himself. And the greater part +of most men’s knowledge and beliefs is of +this kind, taken without verification from +their parents, teachers, acquaintances, books, +newspapers. When an English boy learns +French, he takes the conjugations and the +meanings of the words on the authority of his +teacher or his grammar. The fact that in a +certain place, marked on the map, there is a +populous city called Calcutta, is for most + +<span class="page">[15]</span> +people a fact accepted on authority. So is +the existence of Napoleon or Julius Caesar. +Familiar astronomical facts are known only +in the same way, except by those who have +studied astronomy. It is obvious that every +one’s knowledge would be very limited indeed, +if we were not justified in accepting +facts on the authority of others.</p> + +<p>But we are justified only under one condition. +The facts which we can safely accept +must be capable of demonstration or verification. +The examples I have given belong to +this class. The boy can verify when he goes +to France or is able to read a French book that +the facts which he took on authority are true. +I am confronted every day with evidence +which proves to me that, if I took the trouble, +I could verify the existence of Calcutta for +myself. I cannot convince myself in this +way of the existence of Napoleon, but if I +have doubts about it, a simple process of +reasoning shows me that there are hosts of +facts which are incompatible with his non-existence. +I have no doubt that the earth is +some 93 millions of miles distant from the +sun, because all astronomers agree that it +has been demonstrated, and their agreement +is only explicable on the supposition that this +has been demonstrated and that, if I took the +trouble to work out the calculation, I should +reach the same result.</p> + +<span class="page">[16]</span> + +<p>But all our mental furniture is not of this +kind. The thoughts of the average man +consist not only of facts open to verification, +but also of many beliefs and opinions which +he has accepted on authority and cannot +verify or prove. Belief in the Trinity depends +on the authority of the Church and is +clearly of a different order from belief in the +existence of Calcutta. We cannot go behind +the authority and verify or prove it. If we +accept it, we do so because we have such +implicit faith in the authority that we credit +its assertions though incapable of proof.</p> + +<p>The distinction may seem so obvious as +to be hardly worth making. But it is important +to be quite clear about it. The +primitive man who had learned from his +elders that there were bears in the hills and +likewise evil spirits, soon verified the former +statement by seeing a bear, but if he did not +happen to meet an evil spirit, it did not occur +to him, unless he was a prodigy, that there +was a distinction between the two statements; +he would rather have argued, if he argued at +all, that as his tribesmen were right about the +bears they were sure to be right also about +the spirits. In the Middle Ages a man who +believed on authority that there is a city +called Constantinople and that comets are +portents signifying divine wrath, would not + +<span class="page">[17]</span> +distinguish the nature of the evidence in the +two cases. You may still sometimes hear +arguments amounting to this: since I believe +in Calcutta on authority, am I not entitled to +believe in the Devil on authority?</p> + +<p>Now people at all times have been commanded +or expected or invited to accept on +authority alone—the authority, for instance, +of public opinion, or a Church, or a sacred +book—doctrines which are not proved or are +not capable of proof. Most beliefs about +nature and man, which were not founded on +scientific observation, have served directly or +indirectly religious and social interests, and +hence they have been protected by force +against the criticisms of persons who have +the inconvenient habit of using their reason. +Nobody minds if his neighbour disbelieves a +demonstrable fact. If a sceptic denies that +Napoleon existed, or that water is composed +of oxygen and hydrogen, he causes amusement +or ridicule. But if he denies doctrines +which cannot be demonstrated, such as the +existence of a personal God or the immortality +of the soul, he incurs serious disapprobation +and at one time he might have been put +to death. Our mediaeval friend would have +only been called a fool if he doubted the +existence of Constantinople, but if he had +questioned the significance of comets he + +<span class="page">[18]</span> +might have got into trouble. It is possible +that if he had been so mad as to deny the +existence of Jerusalem he would not have +escaped with ridicule, for Jerusalem is mentioned +in the Bible.</p> + +<p>In the Middle Ages a large field was +covered by beliefs which authority claimed to +impose as true, and reason was warned off +the ground. But reason cannot recognize +arbitrary prohibitions or barriers, without +being untrue to herself. The universe of experience +is her province, and as its parts are +all linked together and interdependent, it is +impossible for her to recognize any territory +on which she may not tread, or to surrender +any of her rights to an authority whose credentials +she has not examined and approved.</p> + +<p>The uncompromising assertion by reason +of her absolute rights throughout the whole +domain of thought is termed <i>rationalism</i>, and +the slight stigma which is still attached to the +word reflects the bitterness of the struggle +between reason and the forces arrayed against +her. The term is limited to the field of +theology, because it was in that field that the +self-assertion of reason was most violently +and pertinaciously opposed. In the same +way <i>free thought</i>, the refusal of thought to be +controlled by any authority but its own, has a +definitely theological reference. Throughout + +<span class="page">[19]</span> +the conflict, authority has had great advantages. +At any time the people who really +care about reason have been a small minority, +and probably will be so for a long time +to come. Reason’s only weapon has been +argument. Authority has employed physical +and moral violence, legal coercion and social +displeasure. Sometimes she has attempted +to use the sword of her adversary, thereby +wounding herself. Indeed the weakest point +in the strategical position of authority was +that her champions, being human, could not +help making use of reasoning processes and +the result was that they were divided among +themselves. This gave reason her chance. +Operating, as it were, in the enemy’s camp +and professedly in the enemy’s cause, she +was preparing her own victory.</p> + +<p>It may be objected that there is a legitimate +domain for authority, consisting of doctrines +which lie outside human experience and +therefore cannot be proved or verified, but +at the same time cannot be disproved. Of +course, any number of propositions can be invented +which cannot be disproved, and it is +open to any one who possesses exuberant faith +to believe them; but no one will maintain that +they all deserve credence so long as their +falsehood is not demonstrated. And if only +some deserve credence, who, except reason, + +<span class="page">[20]</span> +is to decide which? If the reply is, Authority, +we are confronted by the difficulty +that many beliefs backed by authority have +been finally disproved and are universally +abandoned. Yet some people speak as if we +were not justified in rejecting a theological +doctrine unless we can prove it false. But +the burden of proof does not lie upon the +rejecter. I remember a conversation in +which, when some disrespectful remark was +made about hell, a loyal friend of that establishment +said triumphantly, “But, absurd as +it may seem, you cannot disprove it.” If you +were told that in a certain planet revolving +round Sirius there is a race of donkeys who +talk the English language and spend their +time in discussing eugenics, you could not +disprove the statement, but would it, on that +account, have any claim to be believed? +Some minds would be prepared to accept it, +if it were reiterated often enough, through +the potent force of suggestion. This force, +exercised largely by emphatic repetition (the +theoretical basis, as has been observed, of the +modern practice of advertising), has played +a great part in establishing authoritative +opinions and propagating religious creeds. +Reason fortunately is able to avail herself of +the same help.</p> + +<p>The following sketch is confined to Western + +<span class="page">[21]</span> +civilization. It begins with Greece and +attempts to indicate the chief phases. It is +the merest introduction to a vast and intricate +subject, which, treated adequately, would +involve not only the history of religion, of the +Churches, of heresies, of persecution, but also +the history of philosophy, of the natural +sciences and of political theories. From the +sixteenth century to the French Revolution +nearly all important historical events bore in +some way on the struggle for freedom of +thought. It would require a lifetime to +calculate, and many books to describe, all the +directions and interactions of the intellectual +and social forces which, since the fall of +ancient civilization, have hindered and helped +the emancipation of reason. All one can do, +all one could do even in a much bigger volume +than this, is to indicate the general course of +the struggle and dwell on some particular +aspects which the writer may happen to have +specially studied.</p> +</div> +<div class="chapter"> +<a name="ch-2"></a><h2>CHAPTER II</h2> + +<h3>REASON FREE</h3> + +<h3>(GREECE AND ROME)</h3> + +<p>WHEN we are asked to specify the debt +which civilization owes to the Greeks, their + +<span class="page">[22]</span> +achievements in literature and art naturally +occur to us first of all. But a truer answer +may be that our deepest gratitude is due to +them as the originators of liberty of thought +and discussion. For this freedom of spirit +was not only the condition of their speculations +in philosophy, their progress in science, +their experiments in political institutions; it +was also a condition of their literary and artistic +excellence. Their literature, for instance, +could not have been what it is if they +had been debarred from free criticism of life. +But apart from what they actually accomplished, +even if they had not achieved the +wonderful things they did in most of the +realms of human activity, their assertion of +the principle of liberty would place them in +the highest rank among the benefactors of the +race; for it was one of the greatest steps in +human progress.</p> + +<p>We do not know enough about the earliest +history of the Greeks to explain how it was +that they attained their free outlook upon +the world and came to possess the will and +courage to set no bounds to the range of their +criticism and curiosity. We have to take +this character as a fact. But it must be remembered +that the Greeks consisted of a large +number of separate peoples, who varied +largely in temper, customs and traditions, + +<span class="page">[23]</span> +though they had important features common +to all. Some were conservative, or backward, +or unintellectual compared with others. In +this chapter “the Greeks” does not mean all +the Greeks, but only those who count most +in the history of civilization, especially the +Ionians and Athenians.</p> + +<p>Ionia in Asia Minor was the cradle of free +speculation. The history of European science +and European philosophy begins in +Ionia. Here (in the sixth and fifth centuries +B.C.) the early philosophers by using their +reason sought to penetrate into the origin and +structure of the world. They could not of +course free their minds entirely from received +notions, but they began the work of destroying +orthodox views and religious faiths. +Xenophanes may specially be named among +these pioneers of thought (though he was not +the most important or the ablest), because +the toleration of his teaching illustrates the +freedom of the atmosphere in which these men +lived. He went about from city to city, +calling in question on moral grounds the +popular beliefs about the gods and goddesses, +and ridiculing the anthropomorphic conceptions +which the Greeks had formed of their +divinities. “If oxen had hands and the +capacities of men, they would make gods in +the shape of oxen.” This attack on received + +<span class="page">[24]</span> +theology was an attack on the veracity of the +old poets, especially Homer, who was considered +the highest authority on mythology. +Xenophanes criticized him severely for ascribing +to the gods acts which, committed by men, +would be considered highly disgraceful. We +do not hear that any attempt was made to +restrain him from thus assailing traditional +beliefs and branding Homer as immoral. We +must remember that the Homeric poems were +never supposed to be the word of God. It +has been said that Homer was the Bible of the +Greeks. The remark exactly misses the truth. +The Greeks fortunately had no Bible, and this +fact was both an expression and an important +condition of their freedom. Homer’s poems +were secular, not religious, and it may be +noted that they are freer from immorality and +savagery than sacred books that one could +mention. Their authority was immense; but +it was not binding like the authority of a +sacred book, and so Homeric criticism was +never hampered like Biblical criticism.</p> + +<p>In this connexion, notice may be taken of +another expression and condition of freedom, +the absence of sacerdotalism. The priests of +the temples never became powerful castes, +tyrannizing over the community in their own +interests and able to silence voices raised +against religious beliefs. The civil authorities + +<span class="page">[25]</span> +kept the general control of public worship in +their own hands, and, if some priestly families +might have considerable influence, yet as +a rule the priests were virtually State servants +whose voice carried no weight except concerning +the technical details of ritual.</p> + +<p>To return to the early philosophers, who +were mostly materialists, the record of their +speculations is an interesting chapter in the +history of rationalism. Two great names +may be selected, Heraclitus and Democritus, +because they did more perhaps than any of +the others, by sheer hard thinking, to train +reason to look upon the universe in new ways +and to shock the unreasoned conceptions of +common sense. It was startling to be taught, +for the first time, by Heraclitus, that the +appearance of stability and permanence which +material things present to our senses is a false +appearance, and that the world and everything +in it are changing every instant. +Democritus performed the amazing feat of +working out an atomic theory of the universe, +which was revived in the seventeenth century +and is connected, in the history of speculation, +with the most modern physical and +chemical theories of matter. No fantastic +tales of creation, imposed by sacred authority, +hampered these powerful brains.</p> + +<p>All this philosophical speculation prepared + +<span class="page">[26]</span> +the way for the educationalists who were +known as the Sophists. They begin to appear +after the middle of the fifth century. They +worked here and there throughout Greece, +constantly travelling, training young men for +public life, and teaching them to use their +reason. As educators they had practical ends +in view. They turned away from the problems +of the physical universe to the problems +of human life—morality and polities. Here +they were confronted with the difficulty of +distinguishing between truth and error, and +the ablest of them investigated the nature +of knowledge, the method of reason—logic— +and the instrument of reason—speech. Whatever +their particular theories might be, their +general spirit was that of free inquiry and +discussion. They sought to test everything +by reason. The second half of the fifth century +might be called the age of Illumination.</p> + +<p>It may be remarked that the knowledge +of foreign countries which the Greeks had +acquired had a considerable effect in promoting +a sceptical attitude towards authority. +When a man is acquainted only with the +habits of his own country, they seem so much +a matter of course that he ascribes them to +nature, but when he travels abroad and finds +totally different habits and standards of +conduct prevailing, he begins to understand + +<span class="page">[27]</span> +the power of custom; and learns that morality +and religion are matters of latitude. +This discovery tends to weaken authority, +and to raise disquieting reflections, as in the +case of one who, brought up as a Christian, +comes to realize that, if he had been born on +the Ganges or the Euphrates, he would have +firmly believed in entirely different dogmas.</p> + +<p>Of course these movements of intellectual +freedom were, as in all ages, confined to the +minority. Everywhere the masses were exceedingly +superstitious. They believed that +the safety of their cities depended on the +good-will of their gods. If this superstitious +spirit were alarmed, there was always a +danger that philosophical speculations might +be persecuted. And this occurred in Athens. +About the middle of the fifth century Athens +had not only become the most powerful State +in Greece, but was also taking the highest +place in literature and art. She was a full-fledged +democracy. Political discussion was +perfectly free. At this time she was guided +by the statesman Pericles, who was personally +a freethinker, or at least was in touch +with all the subversive speculations of the +day. He was especially intimate with the +philosopher Anaxagoras who had come from +Ionia to teach at Athens. In regard to the +popular gods Anaxagoras was a thorough-going + +<span class="page">[28]</span> +unbeliever. The political enemies of +Pericles struck at him by attacking his friend. +They introduced and carried a blasphemy +law, to the effect that unbelievers and those +who taught theories about the celestial world +might be impeached. It was easy to prove +that Anaxagoras was a blasphemer who +taught that the gods were abstractions and +that the sun, to which the ordinary Athenian +said prayers morning and evening, was a mass +of flaming matter. The influence of Pericles +saved him from death; he was heavily fined +and left Athens for Lampsacus, where he was +treated with consideration and honour.</p> + +<p>Other cases are recorded which show that +anti-religious thought was liable to be persecuted. +Protagoras, one of the greatest of the +Sophists, published a book <span class="title">On the Gods</span>, +the object of which seems to have been to +prove that one cannot know the gods by +reason. The first words ran: “Concerning +the gods, I cannot say that they exist nor +yet that they do not exist. There are more +reasons than one why we cannot know. +There is the obscurity of the subject and there +is the brevity of human life.” A charge of +blasphemy was lodged against him and he fled +from Athens. But there was no systematic +policy of suppressing free thought. Copies +of the work of Protagoras were collected and + +<span class="page">[29]</span> +burned, but the book of Anaxagoras setting +forth the views for which he had been condemned +was for sale on the Athenian book-stalls +at a popular price. Rationalistic ideas +moreover were venturing to appear on the +stage, though the dramatic performances, at +the feasts of the god Dionysus, were religious +solemnities. The poet Euripides was saturated +with modern speculation, and, while +different opinions may be held as to the tendencies +of some of his tragedies, he often allows +his characters to express highly unorthodox +views. He was prosecuted for impiety +by a popular politician. We may suspect +that during the last thirty years of the fifth +century unorthodoxy spread considerably +among the educated classes. There was a +large enough section of influential rationalists +to render impossible any organized repression +of liberty, and the chief evil of the blasphemy +law was that it could be used for personal +or party reasons. Some of the prosecutions, +about which we know, were certainly due to +such motives, others may have been prompted +by genuine bigotry and by the fear lest +sceptical thought should extend beyond the +highly educated and leisured class. It was +a generally accepted principle among the +Greeks, and afterwards among the Romans, +that religion was a good and necessary thing + +<span class="page">[30]</span> +for the common people. Men who did not +believe in its truth believed in its usefulness +as a political institution, and as a rule philosophers +did not seek to diffuse disturbing +“truth” among the masses. It was the custom, +much more than at the present day, for +those who did not believe in the established +cults to conform to them externally. Popular +higher education was not an article in the +programme of Greek statesmen or thinkers. +And perhaps it may be argued that in the +circumstances of the ancient world it would +have been hardly practicable.</p> + +<p>There was, however, one illustrious Athenian, +who thought differently—Socrates, the +philosopher. Socrates was the greatest of +the educationalists, but unlike the others he +taught gratuitously, though he was a poor +man. His teaching always took the form of +discussion; the discussion often ended in no +positive result, but had the effect of showing +that some received opinion was untenable +and that truth is difficult to ascertain. He +had indeed certain definite views about +knowledge and virtue, which are of the +highest importance in the history of philosophy, +but for our present purpose his significance +lies in his enthusiasm for discussion +and criticism. He taught those with +whom he conversed—and he conversed indiscriminately + +<span class="page">[31]</span> +with all who would listen to +him—to bring all popular beliefs before the +bar of reason, to approach every inquiry +with an open mind, and not to judge by the +opinion of majorities or the dictate of authority; +in short to seek for other tests of the +truth of an opinion than the fact that it is +held by a great many people. Among his +disciples were all the young men who were to +become the leading philosophers of the next +generation and some who played prominent +parts in Athenian history.</p> + +<p>If the Athenians had had a daily press, +Socrates would have been denounced by the +journalists as a dangerous person. They had +a comic drama, which constantly held up to +ridicule philosophers and sophists and their +vain doctrines. We possess one play (the +<span class="title">Clouds</span> of Aristophanes) in which Socrates +is pilloried as a typical representative of +impious and destructive speculations. Apart +from annoyances of this kind, Socrates +reached old age, pursuing the task of instructing +his fellow-citizens, without any evil +befalling him. Then, at the age of seventy, +he was prosecuted as an atheist and corrupter +of youth and was put to death (399 B.C.). +It is strange that if the Athenians really +thought him dangerous they should have +suffered him so long. There can, I think, be + +<span class="page">[32]</span> +little doubt that the motives of the accusation +were political. [<a href="#fn-2-1">1</a>] Socrates, looking at things +as he did, could not be sympathetic with +unlimited democracy, or approve of the principle +that the will of the ignorant majority +was a good guide. He was probably known +to sympathize with those who wished to limit +the franchise. When, after a struggle in +which the constitution had been more than +once overthrown, democracy emerged triumphant +(403 B.C.), there was a bitter feeling +against those who had not been its friends, +and of these disloyal persons Socrates was +chosen as a victim. If he had wished, he +could easily have escaped. If he had given +an undertaking to teach no more, he would +almost certainly have been acquitted. As +it was, of the 501 ordinary Athenians who +were his judges, a very large minority voted +for his acquittal. Even then, if he had +adopted a different tone, he would not have +been condemned to death.</p> + +<p>He rose to the great occasion and vindicated +freedom of discussion in a wonderful +unconventional speech. The <span class="title">Apology of +Socrates</span>, which was composed by his most +brilliant pupil, Plato the philosopher, reproduces + +<span class="page">[33]</span> +the general tenor of his defence. It is +clear that he was not able to meet satisfactorily +the charge that he did not acknowledge +the gods worshipped by the city, and +his explanations on this point are the weak +part of his speech. But he met the accusation +that he corrupted the minds of the young +by a splendid plea for free discussion. This +is the most valuable section of the <span class="title">Apology</span>; +it is as impressive to-day as ever. I think the +two principal points which he makes are +these—</p> + +<p>(1) He maintains that the individual +should at any cost refuse to be coerced by any +human authority or tribunal into a course +which his own mind condemns as wrong. +That is, he asserts <i>the supremacy of the individual +conscience</i>, as we should say, over +human law. He represents his own life-work +as a sort of religious quest; he feels convinced +that in devoting himself to philosophical +discussion he has done the bidding +of a super-human guide; and he goes to death +rather than be untrue to this personal conviction. +“If you propose to acquit me,” he +says, “on condition that I abandon my search +for truth, I will say: I thank you, O Athenians, +but I will obey God, who, as I believe, +set me this task, rather than you, and so long +as I have breath and strength I will never + +<span class="page">[34]</span> +cease from my occupation with philosophy. +I will continue the practice of accosting +whomever I meet and saying to him, ‘Are +you not ashamed of setting your heart on +wealth and honours while you have no care +for wisdom and truth and making your soul +better?’ I know not what death is—it may +be a good thing, and I am not afraid of it. +But I do know that it is a bad thing to desert +one’s post and I prefer what may be good to +what I know to be bad.”</p> + +<p>(2) He insists on <i>the public value of free +discussion</i>. “In me you have a stimulating +critic, persistently urging you with persuasion +and reproaches, persistently testing your +opinions and trying to show you that you are +really ignorant of what you suppose you +know. Daily discussion of the matters about +which you hear me conversing is the highest +good for man. Life that is not tested by such +discussion is not worth living.”</p> + +<p>Thus in what we may call the earliest +justification of liberty of thought we have +two significant claims affirmed: the indefeasible +right of the conscience of the individual +—a claim on which later struggles +for liberty were to turn; and the social +importance of discussion and criticism. The +former claim is not based on argument but +on intuition; it rests in fact on the assumption + +<span class="page">[35]</span> +of some sort of superhuman moral +principle, and to those who, not having the +same personal experience as Socrates, reject +this assumption, his pleading does not carry +weight. The second claim, after the experience +of more than 2,000 years, can be formulated +more comprehensively now with bearings +of which he did not dream.</p> + +<p>The circumstances of the trial of Socrates +illustrate both the tolerance and the intolerance +which prevailed at Athens. His long +immunity, the fact that he was at last indicted +from political motives and perhaps personal +also, the large minority in his favour, +all show that thought was normally free, and +that the mass of intolerance which existed +was only fitfully invoked, and perhaps most +often to serve other purposes. I may mention +the case of the philosopher Aristotle, +who some seventy years later left Athens +because he was menaced by a prosecution +for blasphemy, the charge being a pretext +for attacking one who belonged to a certain +political party. The persecution of opinion +was never organized.</p> + +<p>It may seem curious that to find the +persecuting spirit in Greece we have to turn +to the philosophers. Plato, the most brilliant +disciple of Socrates, constructed in his later +years an ideal State. In this State he instituted + +<span class="page">[36]</span> +a religion considerably different from +the current religion, and proposed to compel +all the citizens to believe in his gods on pain +of death or imprisonment. All freedom of +discussion was excluded under the cast-iron +system which he conceived. But the point +of interest in his attitude is that he did not +care much whether a religion was true, but +only whether it was morally useful; he was +prepared to promote morality by edifying +fables; and he condemned the popular +mythology not because it was false, but +because it did not make for righteousness.</p> + +<p>The outcome of the large freedom permitted +at Athens was a series of philosophies +which had a common source in the conversations +of Socrates. Plato, Aristotle, the +Stoics, the Epicureans, the Sceptics—it may +be maintained that the efforts of thought +represented by these names have had a +deeper influence on the progress of man than +any other continuous intellectual movement, +at least until the rise of modern science in a +new epoch of liberty.</p> + +<p>The doctrines of the Epicureans, Stoics, and +Sceptics all aimed at securing peace and +guidance for the individual soul. They were +widely propagated throughout the Greek +world from the third century B.C., and we +may say that from this time onward most + +<span class="page">[37]</span> +well-educated Greeks were more or less +rationalists. The teaching of Epicurus had +a distinct anti-religious tendency. He considered +fear to be the fundamental motive of +religion, and to free men’s minds from this +fear was a principal object of his teaching. +He was a Materialist, explaining the world by +the atomic theory of Democritus and denying +any divine government of the universe. [<a href="#fn-2-2">2</a>] He +did indeed hold the existence of gods, but, +so far as men are concerned, his gods are as +if they were not—living in some remote +abode and enjoying a “sacred and everlasting +calm.” They just served as an example of +the realization of the ideal Epicurean life.</p> + +<p>There was something in this philosophy +which had the power to inspire a poet of +singular genius to expound it in verse. The +Roman Lucretius (first century B.C.) regarded +Epicurus as the great deliverer of the human +race and determined to proclaim the glad +tidings of his philosophy in a poem <span class="title">On the +Nature of the World</span>. [<a href="#fn-2-3">3</a>] With all the fervour + +<span class="page">[38]</span> +of a religious enthusiast he denounces religion, +sounding every note of defiance, loathing, +and contempt, and branding in burning words +the crimes to which it had urged man on. He +rides forth as a leader of the hosts of atheism +against the walls of heaven. He explains the +scientific arguments as if they were the +radiant revelation of a new world; and the +rapture of his enthusiasm is a strange accompaniment +of a doctrine which aimed at perfect +calm. Although the Greek thinkers had +done all the work and the Latin poem is a +hymn of triumph over prostrate deities, yet +in the literature of free thought it must always +hold an eminent place by the sincerity +of its audacious, defiant spirit. In the history +of rationalism its interest would be +greater if it had exploded in the midst of an +orthodox community. But the educated +Romans in the days of Lucretius were sceptical +in religious matters, some of them were +Epicureans, and we may suspect that not +many of those who read it were shocked or +influenced by the audacities of the champion +of irreligion.</p> + +<p>The Stoic philosophy made notable contributions +to the cause of liberty and could +hardly have flourished in an atmosphere +where discussion was not free. It asserted +the rights of individuals against public + +<span class="page">[39]</span> +authority. Socrates had seen that laws may +be unjust and that peoples may go wrong, +but he had found no principle for the guidance +of society. The Stoics discovered it in +the law of nature, prior and superior to all +the customs and written laws of peoples, and +this doctrine, spreading outside Stoic circles, +caught hold of the Roman world and affected +Roman legislation.</p> + +<p>These philosophies have carried us from +Greece to Rome. In the later Roman Republic +and the early Empire, no restrictions +were imposed on opinion, and these philosophies, +which made the individual the first +consideration, spread widely. Most of the +leading men were unbelievers in the official +religion of the State, but they considered it +valuable for the purpose of keeping the uneducated +populace in order. A Greek historian +expresses high approval of the Roman +policy of cultivating superstition for the +benefit of the masses. This was the attitude +of Cicero, and the view that a false religion +is indispensable as a social machine was general +among ancient unbelievers. It is common, +in one form or another, to-day; at least, religions +are constantly defended on the ground +not of truth but of utility. This defence belongs +to the statecraft of Machiavelli, who +taught that religion is necessary for government, + +<span class="page">[40]</span> +and that it may be the duty of a ruler to +support a religion which he believes to be false.</p> + +<p>A word must be said of Lucian (second +century A.D.), the last Greek man of letters +whose writings appeal to everybody. He +attacked the popular mythology with open +ridicule. It is impossible to say whether his +satires had any effect at the time beyond +affording enjoyment to educated infidels who +read them. <span class="title">Zeus in a Tragedy Part</span> is one +of the most effective. The situation which +Lucian imagined here would be paralleled if a +modern writer were blasphemously to represent +the Persons of the Trinity with some +eminent angels and saints discussing in a +celestial smoke-room the alarming growth of +unbelief in England and then by means of a +telephonic apparatus overhearing a dispute +between a freethinker and a parson on a +public platform in London. The absurdities +of anthropomorphism have never been the +subject of more brilliant jesting than in +Lucian’s satires.</p> + +<p>The general rule of Roman policy was to +tolerate throughout the Empire all religions +and all opinions. Blasphemy was not punished. +The principle was expressed in the +maxim of the Emperor Tiberius: “If the +gods are insulted, let them see to it themselves.” +An exception to the rule of tolerance + +<span class="page">[41]</span> +was made in the case of the Christian sect, and +the treatment of this Oriental religion may +be said to have inaugurated religious persecution +in Europe. It is a matter of interest +to understand why Emperors who were able, +humane, and not in the least fanatical, +adopted this exceptional policy.</p> + +<p>For a long time the Christians were only +known to those Romans who happened to +hear of them, as a sect of the Jews. The +Jewish was the one religion which, on account +of its exclusiveness and intolerance, was +regarded by the tolerant pagans with disfavour +and suspicion. But though it sometimes +came into collision with the Roman +authorities and some ill-advised attacks upon +it were made, it was the constant policy of +the Emperors to let it alone and to protect +the Jews against the hatred which their own +fanaticism aroused. But while the Jewish +religion was endured so long as it was confined +to those who were born into it, the prospect +of its dissemination raised a new question. +Grave misgivings might arise in the +mind of a ruler at seeing a creed spreading +which was aggressively hostile to all the other +creeds of the world—creeds which lived together +in amity—and had earned for its adherents +the reputation of being the enemies +of the human race. Might not its expansion + +<span class="page">[42]</span> +beyond the Israelites involve ultimately a +danger to the Empire? For its spirit was incompatible +with the traditions and basis of +Roman society. The Emperor Domitian +seems to have seen the question in this light, +and he took severe measures to hinder the +proselytizing of Roman citizens. Some of +those whom he struck may have been Christians, +but if he was aware of the distinction, +there was from his point of view no difference. +Christianity resembled Judaism, from which +it sprang, in intolerance and in hostility +towards Roman society, but it differed by +the fact that it made many proselytes while +Judaism made few.</p> + +<p>Under Trajan we find that the principle +has been laid down that to be a Christian is +an offence punishable by death. Henceforward +Christianity remained an illegal religion. +But in practice the law was not applied rigorously +or logically. The Emperors desired, +if possible, to extirpate Christianity without +shedding blood. Trajan laid down that +Christians were not to be sought out, that no +anonymous charges were to be noticed, and +that an informer who failed to make good +his charge should be liable to be punished +under the laws against calumny. Christians +themselves recognized that this edict +practically protected them. There were + +<span class="page">[43]</span> +some executions in the second century—not +many that are well attested—and Christians +courted the pain and glory of martyrdom. +There is evidence to show that when they +were arrested their escape was often connived +at. In general, the persecution of the Christians +was rather provoked by the populace +than desired by the authorities. The populace +felt a horror of this mysterious Oriental +sect which openly hated all the gods and +prayed for the destruction of the world. +When floods, famines, and especially fires +occurred they were apt to be attributed to the +black magic of the Christians.</p> + +<p>When any one was accused of Christianity, +he was required, as a means of testing the +truth of the charge, to offer incense to the +gods or to the statues of deified Emperors. +His compliance at once exonerated him. The +objection of the Christians—they and the +Jews were the only objectors—to the worship +of the Emperors was, in the eyes of the +Romans, one of the most sinister signs that +their religion was dangerous. The purpose +of this worship was to symbolize the unity +and solidarity of an Empire which embraced +so many peoples of different beliefs and +different gods; its intention was political, +to promote union and loyalty; and it is not +surprising that those who denounced it should + +<span class="page">[44]</span> +be suspected of a disloyal spirit. But it +must be noted that there was no necessity for +any citizen to take part in this worship. No +conformity was required from any inhabitants +of the Empire who were not serving the +State as soldiers or civil functionaries. Thus +the effect was to debar Christians from military +and official careers.</p> + +<p>The Apologies for Christianity which appeared +at this period (second century) might +have helped, if the Emperors (to whom +some of them were addressed) had read them, +to confirm the view that it was a political +danger. It would have been easy to read +between the lines that, if the Christians ever +got the upper hand, they would not spare the +cults of the State. The contemporary work +of Tatian (<span class="title">A Discourse to the Greeks</span>) reveals +what the Apologists more or less sought +to disguise, invincible hatred towards the +civilization in which they lived. Any reader +of the Christian literature of the time could +not fail to see that in a State where Christians +had the power there would be no tolerance of +other religious practices. [<a href="#fn-2-4">4</a>] If the Emperors +made an exception to their tolerant policy +in the case of Christianity, their purpose was +to safeguard tolerance.</p> + +<span class="page">[45]</span> + +<p>In the third century the religion, though +still forbidden, was quite openly tolerated; +the Church organized itself without concealment; +ecclesiastical councils assembled without +interference. There were some brief and +local attempts at repression, there was only +one grave persecution (begun by Decius, +A.D. 250, and continued by Valerian). In +fact, throughout this century, there were not +many victims, though afterwards the Christians +invented a whole mythology of martyrdoms. +Many cruelties were imputed to +Emperors under whom we know that the +Church enjoyed perfect peace.</p> + +<p>A long period of civil confusion, in which +the Empire seemed to be tottering to its +fall, had been terminated by the Emperor +Diocletian, who, by his radical administrative +reforms, helped to preserve the Roman power +in its integrity for another century. He +desired to support his work of political +consolidation by reviving the Roman spirit, +and he attempted to infuse new life into the +official religion. To this end he determined +to suppress the growing influence of the +Christians, who, though a minority, were very +numerous, and he organized a persecution. +It was long, cruel and bloody; it was the +most whole-hearted, general and systematic +effort to crush the forbidden faith. It was a + +<span class="page">[46]</span> +failure, the Christians were now too numerous +to be crushed. After the abdication of +Diocletian, the Emperors who reigned in +different parts of the realm did not agree as +to the expediency of his policy, and the +persecution ended by edicts of toleration +(A.D. 311 and 313). These documents have +an interest for the history of religious liberty.</p> + +<p>The first, issued in the eastern provinces, +ran as follows:—</p> + +<p>“We were particularly desirous of reclaiming +into the way of reason and nature the +deluded Christians, who had renounced the +religion and ceremonies instituted by their +fathers and, presumptuously despising the +practice of antiquity, had invented extravagant +laws and opinions according to the dictates +of their fancy, and had collected a +various society from the different provinces +of our Empire. The edicts which we have +published to enforce the worship of the gods, +having exposed many of the Christians to +danger and distress, many having suffered +death and many more, who still persist in +their impious folly, being left destitute of +<i>any</i> public exercise of religion, we are disposed +to extend to those unhappy men the +effects of our wonted clemency. We permit +them, therefore, freely to profess their private +opinions, and to assemble in their conventicles + +<span class="page">[47]</span> +without fear or molestation, provided +always that they preserve a due respect to +the established laws and government.” [<a href="#fn-2-5">5</a>]</p> + +<p>The second, of which Constantine was the +author, known as the Edict of Milan, was to +a similar effect, and based toleration on the +Emperor’s care for the peace and happiness +of his subjects and on the hope of appeasing +the Deity whose seat is in heaven.</p> + +<p>The relations between the Roman government +and the Christians raised the general +question of persecution and freedom of conscience. +A State, with an official religion, +but perfectly tolerant of all creeds and cults, +finds that a society had arisen in its midst +which is uncompromisingly hostile to all +creeds but its own and which, if it had the +power, would suppress all but its own. The +government, in self-defence, decides to check +the dissemination of these subversive ideas +and makes the profession of that creed a +crime, not on account of its particular tenets, +but on account of the social consequences of +those tenets. The members of the society +cannot without violating their consciences +and incurring damnation abandon their exclusive +doctrine. The principle of freedom +of conscience is asserted as superior to all +obligations to the State, and the State, confronted + +<span class="page">[48]</span> +by this new claim, is unable to admit +it. Persecution is the result.</p> + +<p>Even from the standpoint of an orthodox +and loyal pagan the persecution of the +Christians is indefensible, because blood was +shed uselessly. In other words, it was a great +mistake because it was unsuccessful. For +persecution is a choice between two evils. +The alternatives are violence (which no reasonable +defender of persecution would deny +to be an evil in itself) and the spread of dangerous +opinions. The first is chosen simply +to avoid the second, on the ground that the +second is the greater evil. But if the persecution +is not so devised and carried out as to +accomplish its end, then you have two evils +instead of one, and nothing can justify this. +From their point of view, the Emperors had +good reasons for regarding Christianity as +dangerous and anti-social, but they should +either have let it alone or taken systematic +measures to destroy it. If at an early stage +they had established a drastic and systematic +inquisition, they might possibly have exterminated +it. This at least would have been +statesmanlike. But they had no conception +of extreme measures, and they did not understand +—they had no experience to guide them +—the sort of problem they had to deal with. +They hoped to succeed by intimidation. + +<span class="page">[49]</span> +Their attempts at suppression were vacillating, +fitful, and ridiculously ineffectual. The +later persecutions (of A.D. 250 and 303) had no +prospect of success. It is particularly to be +observed that no effort was made to suppress +Christian literature.</p> + +<p>The higher problem whether persecution, +even if it attains the desired end, is justifiable, +was not considered. The struggle hinged +on antagonism between the conscience of the +individual and the authority and supposed +interests of the State. It was the question +which had been raised by Socrates, raised +now on a wider platform in a more pressing +and formidable shape: what is to happen +when obedience to the law is inconsistent +with obedience to an invisible master? Is it +incumbent on the State to respect the conscience +of the individual at all costs, or within +what limits? The Christians did not attempt +a solution, the general problem did not +interest them. They claimed the right of +freedom exclusively for themselves from a +non-Christian government; and it is hardly +going too far to suspect that they would have +applauded the government if it had suppressed +the Gnostic sects whom they hated +and calumniated. In any case, when a +Christian State was established, they would +completely forget the principle which they + +<span class="page">[50]</span> +had invoked. The martyrs died for conscience, +but not for liberty. To-day the +greatest of the Churches demands freedom +of conscience in the modern States which +she does not control, but refuses to admit +that, where she had the power, it would be +incumbent on her to concede it.</p> + +<p>If we review the history of classical antiquity +as a whole, we may almost say that +freedom of thought was like the air men +breathed. It was taken for granted and +nobody thought about it. If seven or eight +thinkers at Athens were penalized for heterodoxy, +in some and perhaps in most of these +cases heterodoxy was only a pretext. They +do not invalidate the general facts that the +advance of knowledge was not impeded by +prejudice, or science retarded by the weight +of unscientific authority. The educated +Greeks were tolerant because they were +friends of reason and did not set up any +authority to overrule reason. Opinions were +not imposed except by argument; you were +not expected to receive some “kingdom of +heaven” like a little child, or to prostrate +your intellect before an authority claiming +to be infallible.</p> + +<p>But this liberty was not the result of a +conscious policy or deliberate conviction, and +therefore it was precarious. The problems + +<span class="page">[51]</span> +of freedom of thought, religious liberty, toleration, +had not been forced upon society +and were never seriously considered. When +Christianity confronted the Roman government, +no one saw that in the treatment of a +small, obscure, and, to pagan thinkers, uninteresting +or repugnant sect, a principle of the +deepest social importance was involved. A +long experience of the theory and practice of +persecution was required to base securely the +theory of freedom of thought. The lurid +policy of coercion which the Christian Church +adopted, and its consequences, would at last +compel reason to wrestle with the problem +and discover the justification of intellectual +liberty. The spirit of the Greeks and Romans, +alive in their works, would, after a long +period of obscuration, again enlighten the +world and aid in re-establishing the reign of +reason, which they had carelessly enjoyed +without assuring its foundations.</p> +<div class="footnote"> +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-2-1"></a>[1] This has been shown very clearly by Professor +Jackson in the article on “Socrates” in the <span class="title">Encyclopoedia +Britannica</span>, last edition.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-2-2"></a>[2] He stated the theological difficulty as to the origin +of evil in this form: God either wishes to abolish evil and +cannot, or can and will not, or neither can nor will, or +both can and will. The first three are unthinkable, if +he is a God worthy of the name; therefore the last alternative +must be true. Why then does evil exist? The +inference is that there is no God, in the sense of a governor +of the world.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-2-3"></a>[3] An admirable appreciation of the poem will be +found in R. V. Tyrrell’s <span class="title">Lectures on Latin Poetry</span>.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-2-4"></a>[4] For the evidence of the Apologists see A. Bouché-Leclercq, <span class="title">Religious Intolerance and Politics</span> (French, 1911) +—a valuable review of the whole subject.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-2-5"></a>[5] This is Gibbon’s translation.</p> +</div> +</div> + +<div class="chapter"> +<a name="ch-3"></a><h2>CHAPTER III</h2> + +<h3>REASON IN PRISON</h3> + +<h3>(THE MIDDLE AGES)</h3> + +<p>ABOUT ten years after the Edict of Toleration, +Constantine the Great adopted Christianity. +This momentous decision inaugurated + +<span class="page">[52]</span> +a millennium in which reason was enchained, +thought was enslaved, and knowledge made +no progress.</p> + +<p>During the two centuries in which they had +been a forbidden sect the Christians had +claimed toleration on the ground that religious +belief is voluntary and not a thing +which can be enforced. When their faith +became the predominant creed and had the +power of the State behind it, they abandoned +this view. They embarked on the hopeful +enterprise of bringing about a complete uniformity +in men’s opinions on the mysteries +of the universe, and began a more or less +definite policy of coercing thought. This +policy was adopted by Emperors and Governments +partly on political grounds; religious +divisions, bitter as they were, seemed +dangerous to the unity of the State. But +the fundamental principle lay in the doctrine +that salvation is to be found exclusively in the +Christian Church. The profound conviction +that those who did not believe in its doctrines +would be damned eternally, and that God +punishes theological error as if it were the +most heinous of crimes, led naturally to persecution. +It was a duty to impose on men +the only true doctrine, seeing that their own +eternal interests were at stake, and to hinder +errors from spreading. Heretics were more + +<span class="page">[53]</span> +than ordinary criminals and the pains that +man could inflict on them were as nothing to +the tortures awaiting them in hell. To rid +the earth of men who, however virtuous, were, +through their religious errors, enemies of the +Almighty, was a plain duty. Their virtues +were no excuse. We must remember that, +according to the humane doctrine of the +Christians, pagan, that is, merely human, +virtues were vices, and infants who died unbaptized +passed the rest of time in creeping +on the floor of hell. The intolerance arising +from such views could not but differ in kind +and intensity from anything that the world +had yet witnessed.</p> + +<p>Besides the logic of its doctrines, the character +of its Sacred Book must also be held +partly accountable for the intolerant principles +of the Christian Church. It was +unfortunate that the early Christians had +included in their Scripture the Jewish writings +which reflect the ideas of a low stage of +civilization and are full of savagery. It +would be difficult to say how much harm has +been done, in corrupting the morals of men, +by the precepts and examples of inhumanity, +violence, and bigotry which the reverent +reader of the Old Testament, implicitly believing +in its inspiration, is bound to approve. +It furnished an armoury for the theory of + +<span class="page">[54]</span> +persecution. The truth is that Sacred Books +are an obstacle to moral and intellectual progress, +because they consecrate the ideas of a +given epoch, and its customs, as divinely appointed. +Christianity, by adopting books +of a long past age, placed in the path of +human development a particularly nasty +stumbling-block. It may occur to one to +wonder how history might have been altered +—altered it surely would have been—if the +Christians had cut Jehovah out of their +programme and, content with the New Testament, +had rejected the inspiration of the +Old.</p> + +<p>Under Constantine the Great and his successors, +edict after edict fulminated against +the worship of the old pagan gods and against +heretical Christian sects. Julian the Apostate, +who in his brief reign (A.D. 361–3) +sought to revive the old order of things, proclaimed +universal toleration, but he placed +Christians at a disadvantage by forbidding +them to teach in schools. This was only +a momentary check. Paganism was finally +shattered by the severe laws of Theodosius I +(end of fourth century). It lingered on here +and there for more than another century, +especially at Rome and Athens, but had little +importance. The Christians were more concerned +in striving among themselves than in + +<span class="page">[55]</span> +crushing the prostrate spirit of antiquity. +The execution of the heretic Priscillian in +Spain (fourth century) inaugurated the punishment +of heresy by death. It is interesting +to see a non-Christian of this age teaching the +Christian sects that they should suffer one +another. Themistius in an address to the +Emperor Valens urged him to repeal his +edicts against the Christians with whom he +did not agree, and expounded a theory of +toleration. “The religious beliefs of individuals +are a field in which the authority of +a government cannot be effective; compliance +can only lead to hypocritical professions. +Every faith should be allowed; the civil +government should govern orthodox and +heterodox to the common good. God himself +plainly shows that he wishes various +forms of worship; there are many roads by +which one can reach him.”</p> + +<p>No father of the Church has been more +esteemed or enjoyed higher authority than +St. Augustine (died A.D. 410). He formulated +the principle of persecution for the +guidance of future generations, basing it on +the firm foundation of Scripture—on words +used by Jesus Christ in one of his parables, +“Compel them to come in.” Till the end of +the twelfth century the Church worked hard +to suppress heterodoxies. There was much + +<span class="page">[56]</span> +persecution, but it was not systematic. +There is reason to think that in the pursuit +of heresy the Church was mainly guided by +considerations of its temporal interest, and +was roused to severe action only when the +spread of false doctrine threatened to reduce +its revenues or seemed a menace to society. +At the end of the twelfth century Innocent +III became Pope and under him the Church +of Western Europe reached the height of its +power. He and his immediate successors +are responsible for imagining and beginning +an organized movement to sweep heretics +out of Christendom. Languedoc in Southwestern +France was largely populated by heretics, +whose opinions were considered particularly +offensive, known as the Albigeois. +They were the subjects of the Count of +Toulouse, and were an industrious and respectable +people. But the Church got far too +little money out of this anti-clerical population, +and Innocent called upon the Count +to extirpate heresy from his dominion. As +he would not obey, the Pope announced a +Crusade against the Albigeois, and offered to +all who would bear a hand the usual rewards +granted to Crusaders, including absolution +from all their sins. A series of sanguinary +wars followed in which the Englishman, +Simon de Montfort, took part. There were + +<span class="page">[57]</span> +wholesale burnings and hangings of men, +women and children. The resistance of the +people was broken down, though the heresy +was not eradicated, and the struggle ended in +1229 with the complete humiliation of the +Count of Toulouse. The important point +of the episode is this: the Church introduced +into the public law of Europe the new principle +that a sovran held his crown on the condition +that he should extirpate heresy. If +he hesitated to persecute at the command of +the Pope, he must be coerced; his lands +were forfeited; and his dominions were +thrown open to be seized by any one whom +the Church could induce to attack him. The +Popes thus established a theocratic system +in which all other interests were to be subordinated +to the grand duty of maintaining +the purity of the Faith.</p> + +<p>But in order to root out heresy it was +necessary to discover it in its most secret +retreats. The Albigeois had been crushed, +but the poison of their doctrine was not yet +destroyed. The organized system of searching +out heretics known as the Inquisition was +founded by Pope Gregory IX about A.D. +1233, and fully established by a Bull of Innocent +IV (A.D. 1252) which regulated the machinery +of persecution “as an integral part +of the social edifice in every city and every + +<span class="page">[58]</span> +State.” This powerful engine for the suppression +of the freedom of men’s religious +opinions is unique in history.</p> + +<p>The bishops were not equal to the new talk +undertaken by the Church, and in every +ecclesiastical province suitable monks were +selected and to them was delegated the +authority of the Pope for discovering heretics. +These inquisitors had unlimited authority, +they were subject to no supervision and +responsible to no man. It would not have +been easy to establish this system but for +the fact that contemporary secular rulers +had inaugurated independently a merciless +legislation against heresy. The Emperor +Frederick II, who was himself undoubtedly +a freethinker, made laws for his extensive +dominions in Italy and Germany (between +1220 and 1235), enacting that all heretics +should be outlawed, that those who did not +recant should be burned, those who recanted +should be imprisoned, but if they +relapsed should be executed; that their +property should be confiscated, their houses +destroyed, and their children, to the second +generation, ineligible to positions of emolument +unless they had betrayed their father or +some other heretic.</p> + +<p>Frederick’s legislation consecrated the stake +as the proper punishment for heresy. This + +<span class="page">[59]</span> +cruel form of death for that crime seems to +have been first inflicted on heretics by a +French king (1017). We must remember +that in the Middle Ages, and much later, +crimes of all kinds were punished with the +utmost cruelty. In England in the reign +of Henry VIII there is a case of prisoners +being boiled to death. Heresy was the foulest +of all crimes; and to prevail against it +was to prevail against the legions of hell. +The cruel enactments against heretics were +strongly supported by the public opinion of +the masses.</p> + +<p>When the Inquisition was fully developed +it covered Western Christendom with a net +from the meshes of which it was difficult for +a heretic to escape. The inquisitors in the +various kingdoms co-operated, and communicated +information; there was “a chain of +tribunals throughout continental Europe.” +England stood outside the system, but from +the age of Henry IV and Henry V the government +repressed heresy by the stake under a +special statute (A.D. 1400; repealed 1533; revived +under Mary; finally repealed in 1676).</p> + +<p>In its task of imposing unity of belief the +Inquisition was most successful in Spain. +Here towards the end of the fifteenth century +a system was instituted which had peculiarities +of its own and was very jealous of + +<span class="page">[60]</span> +Roman interference. One of the achievements +of the Spanish Inquisition (which was +not abolished till the nineteenth century) was +to expel the Moriscos or converted Moors, +who retained many of their old Mohammedan +opinions and customs. It is also +said to have eradicated Judaism and to have +preserved the country from the zeal of +Protestant missionaries. But it cannot be +proved that it deserves the credit of having +protected Spain against Protestantism, for +it is quite possible that if the seeds of Protestant +opinion had been sown they would, +in any case, have fallen dead on an uncongenial +soil. Freedom of thought however +was entirely suppressed.</p> + +<p>One of the most efficacious means for +hunting down heresy was the “Edict of +Faith,” which enlisted the people in the +service of the Inquisition and required every +man to be an informer. From time to time +a certain district was visited and an edict +issued commanding those who knew anything +of any heresy to come forward and reveal it, +under fearful penalties temporal and spiritual. +In consequence, no one was free from the +suspicion of his neighbours or even of his own +family. “No more ingenious device has +been invented to subjugate a whole population, +to paralyze its intellect, and to reduce it + +<span class="page">[61]</span> +to blind obedience. It elevated delation to +the rank of high religious duty.”</p> + +<p>The process employed in the trials of those +accused of heresy in Spain rejected every +reasonable means for the ascertainment of +truth. The prisoner was assumed to be +guilty, the burden of proving his innocence +rested on him; his judge was virtually his +prosecutor. All witnesses against him, however +infamous, were admitted. The rules +for allowing witnesses for the prosecution +were lax; those for rejecting witnesses for +the defence were rigid. Jews, Moriscos, and +servants could give evidence against the +prisoner but not for him, and the same rule +applied to kinsmen to the fourth degree. The +principle on which the Inquisition proceeded +was that better a hundred innocent should +suffer than one guilty person escape. Indulgences +were granted to any one who contributed +wood to the pile. But the tribunal of +the Inquisition did not itself condemn to the +stake, for the Church must not be guilty of +the shedding of blood. The ecclesiastical +judge pronounced the prisoner to be a heretic +of whose conversion there was no hope, and +handed him over (“relaxed” him was the +official term) to the secular authority, asking +and charging the magistrate “to treat +him benignantly and mercifully.” But this + +<span class="page">[62]</span> +formal plea for mercy could not be entertained +by the civil power; it had no choice +but to inflict death; if it did otherwise, it +was a promoter of heresy. All princes and +officials, according to the Canon Law, must +punish duly and promptly heretics handed +over to them by the Inquisition, under pain of +excommunication. It is to be noted that the +number of deaths at the stake has been much +over-estimated by popular imagination; but +the sum of suffering caused by the methods +of the system and the punishments that fell +short of death can hardly be exaggerated.</p> + +<p>The legal processes employed by the +Church in these persecutions exercised a +corrupting influence on the criminal jurisprudence +of the Continent. Lea, the historian +of the Inquisition, observes: “Of all +the curses which the Inquisition brought in +its train, this perhaps was the greatest—that, +until the closing years of the eighteenth century, +throughout the greater part of Europe, +the inquisitorial process, as developed for the +destruction of heresy, became the customary +method of dealing with all who were under +any accusation.”</p> + +<p>The Inquisitors who, as Gibbon says, +“defended nonsense by cruelties,” are often +regarded as monsters. It may be said for +them and for the kings who did their will that + +<span class="page">[63]</span> +they were not a bit worse than the priests and +monarchs of primitive ages who sacrificed +human beings to their deities. The Greek +king, Agamemnon, who immolated his daughter +Iphigenia to obtain favourable winds +from the gods, was perhaps a most affectionate +father, and the seer who advised him +to do so may have been a man of high integrity. +They acted according to their beliefs. +And so in the Middle Ages and afterwards +men of kindly temper and the purest +zeal for morality were absolutely devoid of +mercy where heresy was suspected. Hatred +of heresy was a sort of infectious germ, generated +by the doctrine of exclusive salvation.</p> + +<p>It has been observed that this dogma also +injured the sense of truth. As man’s eternal +fate was at stake, it seemed plainly legitimate +or rather imperative to use any means to +enforce the true belief—even falsehood and +imposture. There was no scruple about the +invention of miracles or any fictions that +were edifying. A disinterested appreciation +of truth will not begin to prevail till the seventeenth +century.</p> + +<p>While this principle, with the associated +doctrines of sin, hell, and the last judgment, +led to such consequences, there were other +doctrines and implications in Christianity +which, forming a solid rampart against the + +<span class="page">[64]</span> +advance of knowledge, blocked the paths of +science in the Middle Ages, and obstructed +its progress till the latter half of the nineteenth +century. In every important field +of scientific research, the ground was occupied +by false views which the Church declared to +be true on the infallible authority of the Bible. +The Jewish account of Creation and the Fall +of Man, inextricably bound up with the +Christian theory of Redemption, excluded +from free inquiry geology, zoology, and +anthropology. The literal interpretation of +the Bible involved the truth that the sun +revolves round the earth. The Church condemned +the theory of the antipodes. One +of the charges against Servetus (who was +burned in the sixteenth century; see below, +p. <a href="#p-79">79</a>) was that he believed the statement of a +Greek geographer that Judea is a wretched +barren country in spite of the fact that the +Bible describes it as a land flowing with milk +and honey. The Greek physician Hippocrates +had based the study of medicine and +disease on experience and methodical research. +In the Middle Ages men relapsed +to the primitive notions of a barbarous age. +Bodily ailments were ascribed to occult +agencies—the malice of the Devil or the +wrath of God. St. Augustine said that the +diseases of Christians were caused by demons, + +<span class="page">[65]</span> +and Luther in the same way attributed them +to Satan. It was only logical that supernatural +remedies should be sought to counteract +the effects of supernatural causes. +There was an immense traffic in relics with +miraculous virtues, and this had the advantage +of bringing in a large revenue to the +Church. Physicians were often exposed to +suspicions of sorcery and unbelief. Anatomy +was forbidden, partly perhaps on account of +the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. +The opposition of ecclesiastics to inoculation +in the eighteenth century was a survival of +the mediaeval view of disease. Chemistry +(alchemy) was considered a diabolical art +and in 1317 was condemned by the Pope. +The long imprisonment of Roger Bacon +(thirteenth century) who, while he professed +zeal for orthodoxy, had an inconvenient +instinct for scientific research, illustrates the +mediaeval distrust of science.</p> + +<p>It is possible that the knowledge of nature +would have progressed little, even if this +distrust of science on theological grounds had +not prevailed. For Greek science had ceased +to advance five hundred years before Christianity +became powerful. After about 200 B.C. +no important discoveries were made. +The explanation of this decay is not easy, but +we may be sure that it is to be sought in the + +<span class="page">[66]</span> +social conditions of the Greek and Roman +world. And we may suspect that the social +conditions of the Middle Ages would have +proved unfavourable to the scientific spirit— +the disinterested quest of facts—even if the +controlling beliefs had not been hostile. We +may suspect that the rebirth of science +would in any case have been postponed till +new social conditions, which began to appear +in the thirteenth century (see next Chapter), +had reached a certain maturity. Theological +prejudice may have injured knowledge +principally by its survival after the Middle +Ages had passed away. In other words, the +harm done by Christian doctrines, in this +respect, may lie less in the obscurantism of +the dark interval between ancient and modern +civilization, than in the obstructions which +they offered when science had revived in +spite of them and could no longer be crushed.</p> + +<p>The firm belief in witchcraft, magic, and +demons was inherited by the Middle Ages +from antiquity, but it became far more lurid +and made the world terrible. Men believed +that they were surrounded by fiends watching +for every opportunity to harm them, that +pestilences, storms, eclipses, and famines +were the work of the Devil; but they believed +as firmly that ecclesiastical rites were capable +of coping with these enemies. Some of the + +<span class="page">[67]</span> +early Christian Emperors legislated against +magic, but till the fourteenth century there +was no systematic attempt to root out witchcraft. +The fearful epidemic, known as the +Black Death, which devastated Europe in +that century, seems to have aggravated the +haunting terror of the invisible world of +demons. Trials for witchcraft multiplied, +and for three hundred years the discovery +of witchcraft and the destruction of those +who were accused of practising it, chiefly +women, was a standing feature of European +civilization. Both the theory and the persecution +were supported by Holy Scripture. +“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” was +the clear injunction of the highest authority. +Pope Innocent VIII issued a Bull on the +matter (1484) in which he asserted that +plagues and storms are the work of witches, +and the ablest minds believed in the reality +of their devilish powers.</p> + +<p>No story is more painful than the persecution +of witches, and nowhere was it more +atrocious than in England and Scotland. I +mention it because it was the direct result +of theological doctrines, and because, as we +shall see, it was rationalism which brought +the long chapter of horrors to an end.</p> + +<p>In the period, then, in which the Church +exercised its greatest influence, reason was + +<span class="page">[68]</span> +enchained in the prison which Christianity +had built around the human mind. It was +not indeed inactive, but its activity took the +form of heresy; or, to pursue the metaphor, +those who broke chains were unable for the +most part to scale the walls of the prison; +their freedom extended only so far as to arrive +at beliefs, which, like orthodoxy itself, were +based on Christian mythology. There were +some exceptions to the rule. At the end of +the twelfth century a stimulus from another +world began to make itself felt. The philosophy +of Aristotle became known to learned +men in Western Christendom; their teachers +were Jews and Mohammedans. Among the +Mohammedans there was a certain amount +of free thought, provoked by their knowledge +of ancient Greek speculation. The works of +the freethinker Averroes (twelfth century) +which were based on Aristotle’s philosophy, +propagated a small wave of rationalism in +Christian countries. Averroes held the eternity +of matter and denied the immortality +of the soul; his general view may be described +as pantheism. But he sought to avoid difficulties +with the orthodox authorities of +Islam by laying down the doctrine of <i>double +truth</i>, that is the coexistence of two independent +and contradictory truths, the one +philosophical, and the other religious. This + +<span class="page">[69]</span> +did not save him from being banished from +the court of the Spanish caliph. In the +University of Paris his teaching produced a +school of freethinkers who held that the +Creation, the resurrection of the body, and +other essential dogmas, might be true from +the standpoint of religion but are false from +the standpoint of reason. To a plain mind +this seems much as if one said that the +doctrine of immortality is true on Sundays +but not on week-days, or that the Apostles’ +Creed is false in the drawing-room and true +in the kitchen. This dangerous movement +was crushed, and the saving principle of +double truth condemned, by Pope John XXI. +The spread of Averroistic and similar speculations +called forth the Theology of Thomas, of +Aquino in South Italy (died 1274), a most +subtle thinker, whose mind had a natural +turn for scepticism. He enlisted Aristotle, +hitherto the guide of infidelity, on the side +of orthodoxy, and constructed an ingenious +Christian philosophy which is still authoritative +in the Roman Church. But Aristotle and +reason are dangerous allies for faith, and the +treatise of Thomas is perhaps more calculated +to unsettle a believing mind by the doubts +which it powerfully states than to quiet the +scruples of a doubter by its solutions.</p> + +<p>There must always have been some private + +<span class="page">[70]</span> +and underground unbelief here and there, +which did not lead to any serious consequences. +The blasphemous statement that +the world had been deceived by three impostors, +Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, +was current in the thirteenth century. It +was attributed to the freethinking Emperor +Frederick II (died 1250), who has been +described as “the first modern man.” The +same idea, in a milder form, was expressed +in the story of the Three Rings, which is at +least as old. A Mohammedan ruler, desiring +to extort money from a rich Jew, summoned +him to his court and laid a snare for him. +“My friend,” he said, “I have often heard it +reported that thou art a very wise man. Tell +me therefore which of the three religions, +that of the Jews, that of the Mohammedans, +and that of the Christians, thou believest to +be the truest.” The Jew saw that a trap was +laid for him and answered as follows: “My +lord, there was once a rich man who among +his treasures had a ring of such great value +that he wished to leave it as a perpetual heirloom +to his successors. So he made a will +that whichever of his sons should be found +in possession of this ring after his death should +be considered his heir. The son to whom he +gave the ring acted in the same way as his +father, and so the ring passed from hand to + +<span class="page">[71]</span> +hand. At last it came into the possession of +a man who had three sons whom he loved +equally. Unable to make up his mind to +which of them he should leave the ring, he +promised it to each of them privately, and +then in order to satisfy them all caused a +goldsmith to make two other rings so closely +resembling the true ring that he was unable +to distinguish them himself. On his death-bed +he gave each of them a ring, and each claimed +to be his heir, but no one could prove his title +because the rings were indistinguishable, and +the suit at law lasts till this day. It is even so, +my lord, with the three religions, given by God +to the three peoples. They each think they +have the true religion, but which of them +really has it, is a question, like that of the +rings, still undecided.” This sceptical story +became famous in the eighteenth century, +when the German poet, Lessing, built upon it +his drama <span class="title">Nathan the Sage</span>, which was intended +to show the unreasonableness of intolerance.</p> +</div> +<div class="chapter"> +<a name="ch-4"></a><h2>CHAPTER IV</h2> + +<h3>PROSPECT OF DELIVERANCE</h3> + +<h3>(THE RENAISSANCE AND THE REFORMATION)</h3> + +<p>THE intellectual and social movement +which was to dispel the darkness of the + +<span class="page">[72]</span> +Middle Ages and prepare the way for those +who would ultimately deliver reason from +her prison, began in Italy in the thirteenth +century. The misty veil woven of credulity +and infantile naïveté which had hung over +men’s souls and protected them from understanding +either themselves or their relation +to the world began to lift. The individual +began to feel his separate individuality, to +be conscious of his own value as a person apart +from his race or country (as in the later ages +of Greece and Rome); and the world around +him began to emerge from the mists of mediaeval +dreams. The change was due to the +political and social conditions of the little +Italian States, of which some were republics +and others governed by tyrants.</p> + +<p>To the human world, thus unveiling itself, +the individual who sought to make it serve +his purposes required a guide; and the guide +was found in the ancient literature of Greece +and Rome. Hence the whole transformation, +which presently extended from Italy to +Northern Europe, is known as the <i>Renaissance</i>, +or rebirth of classical antiquity. But +the awakened interest in classical literature +while it coloured the character and stimulated +the growth of the movement, supplying new +ideals and suggesting new points of view, was +only the form in which the change of spirit + +<span class="page">[73]</span> +began to express itself in the fourteenth +century. The change might conceivably +have taken some other shape. Its true name +is Humanism.</p> + +<p>At the time men hardly felt that they were +passing into a new age of civilization, nor did +the culture of the Renaissance immediately +produce any open or general intellectual +rebellion against orthodox beliefs. The world +was gradually assuming an aspect decidedly +unfriendly to the teaching of mediaeval +orthodoxy; but there was no explosion of +hostility; it was not till the seventeenth +century that war between religion and authority +was systematically waged. The +humanists were not hostile to theological +authority or to the claims of religious dogma; +but they had discovered a purely human +curiosity about this world and it absorbed +their interest. They idolized pagan literature +which abounded in poisonous germs; the +secular side of education became all-important; +religion and theology were kept in a +separate compartment. Some speculative +minds, which were sensitive to the contradiction, +might seek to reconcile the old religion +with new ideas; but the general tendency of +thinkers in the Renaissance period was to +keep the two worlds distinct, and to practise +outward conformity to the creed without any +real intellectual submission.</p> + +<span class="page">[74]</span> + +<p>I may illustrate this double-facedness of +the Renaissance by Montaigne (second half +of sixteenth century). His <span class="title">Essays</span> make for +rationalism, but contain frequent professions +of orthodox Catholicism, in which he was +perfectly sincere. There is no attempt to +reconcile the two points of view; in fact, he +takes the sceptical position that there is no +bridge between reason and religion. The +human intellect is incapable in the domain of +theology, and religion must be placed aloft, +out of reach and beyond the interference of +reason; to be humbly accepted. But while +he humbly accepted it, on sceptical grounds +which would have induced him to accept +Mohammadanism if he had been born in +Cairo, his soul was not in its dominion. It +was the philosophers and wise men of antiquity, +Cicero, and Seneca, and Plutarch, +who moulded and possessed his mind. It is to +them, and not to the consolations of Christianity, +that he turns when he discusses the +problem of death. The religious wars in +France which he witnessed and the Massacre +of St. Bartholomew’s Day (1572) were calculated +to confirm him in his scepticism. His +attitude to persecution is expressed in the remark +that “it is setting a high value on one’s +opinions to roast men on account of them.”</p> + +<p>The logical results of Montaigne’s scepticism + +<span class="page">[75]</span> +were made visible by his friend Charron, +who published a book <span class="title">On Wisdom</span> in 1601. +Here it is taught that true morality is not +founded on religion, and the author surveys +the history of Christianity to show the evils +which it had produced. He says of immortality +that it is the most generally received +doctrine, the most usefully believed, and the +most weakly established by human reasons; +but he modified this and some other passages +in a second edition. A contemporary Jesuit +placed Charron in the catalogue of the most +dangerous and wicked atheists. He was +really a deist; but in those days, and long +after, no one scrupled to call a non-Christian +deist an atheist. His book would doubtless +have been suppressed and he would have +suffered but for the support of King Henry +IV. It has a particular interest because it +transports us directly from the atmosphere +of the Renaissance, represented by Montaigne, +into the new age of more or less aggressive +rationalism.</p> + +<p>What Humanism did in the fourteenth, +fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, at first in +Italy, then in other countries, was to create +an intellectual atmosphere in which the +emancipation of reason could begin and +knowledge could resume its progress. The +period saw the invention of printing and + +<span class="page">[76]</span> +the discovery of new parts of the globe, and +these things were to aid powerfully in the +future defeat of authority.</p> + +<p>But the triumph of freedom depended on +other causes also; it was not to be brought +about by the intellect alone. The chief +political facts of the period were the decline +of the power of the Pope in Europe, the +decay of the Holy Roman Empire, and the +growth of strong monarchies, in which worldly +interests determined and dictated ecclesiastical +policy, and from which the modern +State was to develop. The success of the +<i>Reformation</i> was made possible by these +conditions. Its victory in North Germany +was due to the secular interest of the princes, +who profited by the confiscation of Church +lands. In England there was no popular +movement; the change was carried through +by the government for its own purposes.</p> + +<p>The principal cause of the Reformation was +the general corruption of the Church and the +flagrancy of its oppression. For a long time +the Papacy had had no higher aim than to +be a secular power exploiting its spiritual +authority for the purpose of promoting its +worldly interests, by which it was exclusively +governed. All the European States based +their diplomacy on this assumption. Since +the fourteenth century every one acknowledged + +<span class="page">[77]</span> +the need of reforming the Church, and +reform had been promised, but things went +from bad to worse, and there was no resource +but rebellion. The rebellion led by Luther +was the result not of a revolt of reason against +dogmas, but of widely spread anti-clerical +feeling due to the ecclesiastical methods of +extorting money, particularly by the sale of +Indulgences, the most glaring abuse of the +time. It was his study of the theory of +Papal Indulgences that led Luther on to his +theological heresies.</p> + +<p>It is an elementary error, but one which is +still shared by many people who have read +history superficially, that the Reformation +established religious liberty and the right of +private judgment. What it did was to bring +about a new set of political and social conditions, +under which religious liberty could +ultimately be secured, and, by virtue of its +inherent inconsistencies, to lead to results at +which its leaders would have shuddered. +But nothing was further from the minds of +the leading Reformers than the toleration of +doctrines differing from their own. They +replaced one authority by another. They set +up the authority of the Bible instead of that +of the Church, but it was the Bible according +to Luther or the Bible according to Calvin. +So far as the spirit of intolerance went, there + +<span class="page">[78]</span> +was nothing to choose between the new and +the old Churches. The religious wars were +not for the cause of freedom, but for particular +sets of doctrines; and in France, if the +Protestants had been victorious, it is certain +that they would not have given more liberal +terms to the Catholics than the Catholics +gave to them.</p> + +<p>Luther was quite opposed to liberty of +conscience and worship, a doctrine which was +inconsistent with Scripture as he read it. He +might protest against coercion and condemn +the burning of heretics, when he was in fear +that he and his party might be victims, but +when he was safe and in power, he asserted +his real view that it was the duty of the State +to impose the true doctrine and exterminate +heresy, which was an abomination, that unlimited +obedience to their prince in religious +as in other matters was the duty of subjects, +and that the end of the State was to defend +the faith. He held that Anabaptists should +be put to the sword. With Protestants and +Catholics alike the dogma of exclusive salvation +led to the same place.</p> + +<p>Calvin’s fame for intolerance is blackest. +He did not, like Luther, advocate the absolute +power of the civil ruler; he stood for the +control of the State by the Church—a form of +government which is commonly called theocracy; + +<a name="p-79"></a><span class="page">[79]</span> +and he established a theocracy at +Geneva. Here liberty was completely +crushed; false doctrines were put down by +imprisonment, exile, and death. The punishment +of Servetus is the most famous exploit +of Calvin’s warfare against heresy. The +Spaniard Servetus, who had written against +the dogma of the Trinity, was imprisoned at +Lyons (partly through the machinations of +Calvin) and having escaped came rashly to +Geneva. He was tried for heresy and committed +to the flames (1553), though Geneva +had no jurisdiction over him. Melanchthon, +who formulated the principles of persecution, +praised this act as a memorable example to +posterity. Posterity however was one day +to be ashamed of that example. In 1903 +the Calvinists of Geneva felt impelled to +erect an expiatory monument, in which Calvin +“our great Reformer” is excused as guilty +of an error “which was that of his century.”</p> + +<p>Thus the Reformers, like the Church from +which they parted, cared nothing for freedom, +they only cared for “truth.” If the mediaeval +ideal was to purge the world of heretics, the +object of the Protestant was to exclude all +dissidents from his own land. The people at +large were to be driven into a fold, to accept +their faith at the command of their sovran. +This was the principle laid down in the + +<span class="page">[80]</span> +religious peace which (1555) composed the +struggle between the Catholic Emperor and +the Protestant German princes. It was +recognized by Catherine de’ Medici when +she massacred the French Protestants and +signified to Queen Elizabeth that <i>she</i> might +do likewise with English Catholics.</p> + +<p>Nor did the Protestant creeds represent +enlightenment. The Reformation on the +Continent was as hostile to enlightenment as +it was to liberty; and science, if it seemed +to contradict the Bible, has as little chance +with Luther as with the Pope. The Bible, +interpreted by the Protestants or the Roman +Church, was equally fatal to witches. In +Germany the development of learning received +a long set-back.</p> + +<p>Yet the Reformation involuntarily helped +the cause of liberty. The result was contrary +to the intentions of its leaders, was indirect, +and long delayed. In the first place, the +great rent in Western Christianity, substituting +a number of theological authorities +instead of one—several gods, we may say, +instead of one God—produced a weakening +of ecclesiastical authority in general. The +religious tradition was broken. In the second +place, in the Protestant States, the supreme +ecclesiastical power was vested in the sovran; +the sovran had other interests besides those of + +<span class="page">[81]</span> +the Church to consider; and political reasons +would compel him sooner or later to modify +the principle of ecclesiastical intolerance. +Catholic States in the same way were forced +to depart from the duty of not suffering heretics. +The religious wars in France ended in a +limited toleration of Protestants. The policy +of Cardinal Richelieu, who supported the +Protestant cause in Germany, illustrates how +secular interests obstructed the cause of faith.</p> + +<p>Again, the intellectual justification of the +Protestant rebellion against the Church had +been the right of private judgment, that is, +the principle of religious liberty. But the +Reformers had asserted it only for themselves, +and as soon as they had framed their +own articles of faith, they had practically +repudiated it. This was the most glaring +inconsistency in the Protestant position; and +the claim which they had thrust aside could +not be permanently suppressed. Once more, +the Protestant doctrines rested on an insecure +foundation which no logic could defend, and +inevitably led from one untenable position to +another. If we are to believe on authority, +why should we prefer the upstart dictation of +the Lutheran Confession of Augsburg or the +English Thirty-nine Articles to the venerable +authority of the Church of Rome? If we +decide against Rome, we must do so by means + +<span class="page">[82]</span> +of reason; but once we exercise reason in the +matter, why should we stop where Luther or +Calvin or any of the other rebels stopped, +unless we assume that one of them was +inspired? If we reject superstitions which +they rejected, there is nothing except <i>their</i> +authority to prevent us from rejecting all or +some of the superstitions which they retained. +Moreover, their Bible-worship promoted results +which they did not foresee. [<a href="#fn-4-1">1</a>] The +inspired record on which the creeds depend +became an open book. Public attention was +directed to it as never before, though it cannot +be said to have been universally read before +the nineteenth century. Study led to criticism, +the difficulties of the dogma of inspiration +were appreciated, and the Bible was +ultimately to be submitted to a remorseless +dissection which has altered at least the +quality of its authority in the eyes of intelligent +believers. This process of Biblical +criticism has been conducted mainly in a +Protestant atmosphere and the new position +in which the Bible was placed by the Reformation +must be held partly accountable. In +these ways, Protestantism was adapted to +be a stepping-stone to rationalism, and thus +served the cause of freedom.</p> + +<span class="page">[83]</span> + +<p>That cause however was powerfully and +directly promoted by one sect of Reformers, +who in the eyes of all the others were blasphemers +and of whom most people never +think when they talk of the Reformation. I +mean the Socinians. Of their far-reaching +influence something will be said in the next +chapter.</p> + +<p>Another result of the Reformation has still +to be mentioned, its renovating effect on the +Roman Church, which had now to fight for +its existence. A new series of Popes who were +in earnest about religion began with Paul III +(1534) and reorganized the Papacy and its +resources for a struggle of centuries. [<a href="#fn-4-2">2</a>] The +institution of the Jesuit order, the establishment +of the Inquisition at Rome, the Council +of Trent, the censorship of the Press (Index +of Forbidden Books) were the expression of +the new spirit and the means to cope with +the new situation. The reformed Papacy +was good fortune for believing children of +the Church, but what here concerns us is that +one of its chief objects was to repress freedom +more effectually. Savonarola who preached +right living at Florence had been executed +(1498) under Pope Alexander VI who was a +notorious profligate. If Savonarola had lived + +<span class="page">[84]</span> +in the new era he might have been canonized, +but Giordano Bruno was burned.</p> + +<p>Giordano Bruno had constructed a religious +philosophy, based partly upon Epicurus, +from whom he took the theory of the infinity +of the universe. But Epicurean materialism +was transformed into a pantheistic mysticism +by the doctrine that God is the soul of matter. +Accepting the recent discovery of Copernicus, +which Catholics and Protestants +alike rejected, that the earth revolves round +the sun, Bruno took the further step of regarding +the fixed stars as suns, each with its invisible +satellites. He sought to come to an +understanding with the Bible, which (he held) +being intended for the vulgar had to accommodate +itself to their prejudices. Leaving +Italy, because he was suspected of heresy, he +lived successively in Switzerland, France, England, +and Germany, and in 1592, induced by a +false friend to return to Venice he was seized +by order of the Inquisition. Finally condemned +in Rome, he was burned (1600) in +the Campo de’ Fiori, where a monument now +stands in his honour, erected some years ago, +to the great chagrin of the Roman Church.</p> + +<p>Much is made of the fate of Bruno because +he is one of the world’s famous men. No +country has so illustrious a victim of that era +to commemorate as Italy, but in other lands + +<span class="page">[85]</span> +blood just as innocent was shed for heterodox +opinions. In France there was rather more +freedom than elsewhere under the relatively +tolerant government of Henry IV and of the +Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin, till about +1660. But at Toulouse (1619) Lucilio Vanini, +a learned Italian who like Bruno wandered +about Europe, was convicted as an atheist +and blasphemer; his tongue was torn out +and he was burned. Protestant England, +under Elizabeth and James I, did not lag +behind the Roman Inquisition, but on account +of the obscurity of the victims her zeal +for faith has been unduly forgotten. Yet, +but for an accident, she might have covered +herself with the glory of having done to death +a heretic not less famous than Giordano +Bruno. The poet Marlowe was accused of +atheism, but while the prosecution was hanging +over him he was killed in a sordid quarrel +in a tavern (1593). Another dramatist +(Kyd) who was implicated in the charge was +put to the torture. At the same time Sir +Walter Raleigh was prosecuted for unbelief +but not convicted. Others were not so fortunate. +Three or four persons were burned +at Norwich in the reign of Elizabeth for unchristian +doctrines, among them Francis +Kett who had been a Fellow of Corpus +Christi, Cambridge. Under James I, who + +<span class="page">[86]</span> +interested himself personally in such matters, +Bartholomew Legate was charged with holding +various pestilent opinions. The king +summoned him to his presence and asked him +whether he did not pray daily to Jesus Christ. +Legate replied he had prayed to Christ in the +days of his ignorance, but not for the last +seven years. “Away, base fellow,” said +James, spurning him with his foot, “it shall +never be said that one stayeth in my palace +that hath never prayed to our Saviour for +seven years together.” Legate, having been +imprisoned for some time in Newgate, was +declared an incorrigible heretic and burned +at Smithfield (1611). Just a month later, +one Wightman was burned at Lichfield, by +the Bishop of Coventry, for heterodox doctrines. +It is possible that public opinion +was shocked by these two burnings. They +were the last cases in England of death for +unbelief. Puritan intolerance, indeed, passed +an ordinance in 1648, by which all who denied +the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, the inspiration +of Scripture, or a future state, were liable to +death, and persons guilty of other heresies, +to imprisonment. But this did not lead to +any executions.</p> + +<p>The Renaissance age saw the first signs of +the beginning of modern science, but the +mediaeval prejudices against the investigation + +<span class="page">[87]</span> +of nature were not dissipated till the +seventeenth century, and in Italy they continued +to a much later period. The history +of modern astronomy begins in 1543, with the +publication of the work of Copernicus revealing +the truth about the motions of the earth. +The appearance of this work is important in +the history of free thought, because it raised +a clear and definite issue between science +and Scripture; and Osiander, who edited it +(Copernicus was dying), forseeing the outcry +it would raise, stated untruly in the preface +that the earth’s motion was put forward only +as a hypothesis. The theory was denounced +by Catholics and Reformers, and it did not +convince some men (<i>e.g.</i> Bacon) who were +not influenced by theological prejudice. The +observations of the Italian astronomer Galileo +de’ Galilei demonstrated the Copernican +theory beyond question. His telescope discovered +the moons of Jupiter, and his observation +of the spots in the sun confirmed the +earth’s rotation. In the pulpits of Florence, +where he lived under the protection of the +Grand Duke, his sensational discoveries were +condemned. “Men of <i>Galilee</i>, why stand +ye gazing up into heaven?” He was then +denounced to the Holy Office of the Inquisition +by two Dominican monks. Learning +that his investigations were being considered + +<span class="page">[88]</span> +at Rome, Galileo went thither, confident +that he would be able to convince the ecclesiastical +authorities of the manifest truth +of Copernicanism. He did not realize what +theology was capable of. In February 1616 +the Holy Office decided that the Copernican +system was in itself absurd, and, in respect of +Scripture, heretical. Cardinal Bellarmin, by +the Pope’s direction, summoned Galileo and +officially admonished him to abandon his +opinion and cease to teach it, otherwise the +Inquisition would proceed against him. Galileo +promised to obey. The book of Copernicus +was placed on the Index. It has been +remarked that Galileo’s book on <span class="title">Solar Spots</span> +contains no mention of Scripture, and thus +the Holy Office, in its decree which related +to that book, passed judgment on a scientific, +not a theological, question.</p> + +<p>Galileo was silenced for a while, but it was +impossible for him to be mute for ever. +Under a new Pope (Urban VIII) he looked +for greater liberty, and there were many in +the Papal circle who were well disposed to +him. He hoped to avoid difficulties by the +device of placing the arguments for the old +and the new theories side by side, and pretending +not to judge between them. He +wrote a treatise on the two systems (the +Ptolemaic and the Copernican) in the form + +<span class="page">[89]</span> +of <span class="title">Dialogues</span>, of which the preface declares +that the purpose is to explain the pros and +cons of the two views. But the spirit of the +work is Copernican. He received permission, +quite definite as he thought, from Father +Riccardi (master of the Sacred Palace) to +print it, and it appeared in 1632. The Pope +however disapproved of it, the book was examined +by a commission, and Galileo was +summoned before the Inquisition. He was +old and ill, and the humiliations which +he had to endure are a painful story. He +would probably have been more severely +treated, if one of the members of the tribunal +had not been a man of scientific training +(Macolano, a Dominican), who was able to +appreciate his ability. Under examination, +Galileo denied that he had upheld the motion +of the earth in the <span class="title">Dialogues</span>, and asserted +that he had shown the reasons of +Copernicus to be inconclusive. This defence +was in accordance with the statement +in his preface, but contradicted his deepest +conviction. In struggling with such a tribunal, +it was the only line which a man who +was not a hero could take. At a later +session, he forced himself ignominiously +to confess that some of the arguments on the +Copernican side had been put too strongly +and to declare himself ready to confute the + +<span class="page">[90]</span> +theory. In the final examination, he was +threatened with torture. He said that before +the decree of 1616 he had held the truth of the +Copernican system to be arguable, but since +then he had held the Ptolemaic to be true. +Next day, he publicly abjured the scientific +truth which he had demonstrated. He was +allowed to retire to the country, on condition +that he saw no one. In the last months of +his life he wrote to a friend to this effect: +“The falsity of the Copernican system cannot +be doubted, especially by us Catholics. +It is refuted by the irrefragable authority of +Scripture. The conjectures of Copernicus +and his disciples were all disposed of by the +one solid argument: God’s omnipotence can +operate in infinitely various ways. If something +appears to our observation to happen +in one particular way, we must not curtail +God’s arm, and sustain a thing in which we +may be deceived.” The irony is evident.</p> + +<p>Rome did not permit the truth about the +solar system to be taught till after the middle +of the eighteenth century, and Galileo’s books +remained on the Index till 1835. The prohibition +was fatal to the study of natural +science in Italy.</p> + +<p>The Roman Index reminds us of the +significance of the invention of printing in +the struggle for freedom of thought, by making + +<span class="page">[91]</span> +it easy to propagate new ideas far and +wide. Authority speedily realized the danger, +and took measures to place its yoke on +the new contrivance, which promised to +be such a powerful ally of reason. Pope +Alexander VI inaugurated censorship of the +Press by his Bull against unlicensed printing +(1501). In France King Henry II made +printing without official permission punishable +by death. In Germany, censorship was introduced +in 1529. In England, under Elizabeth, +books could not be printed without a license, +and printing presses were not allowed except +in London, Oxford, and Cambridge; the regulation +of the Press was under the authority +of the Star Chamber. Nowhere did the Press +become really free till the nineteenth century.</p> + +<p>While the Reformation and the renovated +Roman Church meant a reaction against the +Renaissance, the vital changes which the +Renaissance signified—individualism, a new +intellectual attitude to the world, the cultivation +of secular knowledge—were permanent +and destined to lead, amid the competing +intolerances of Catholic and Protestant +powers, to the goal of liberty. We shall see +how reason and the growth of knowledge +undermined the bases of theological authority. +At each step in this process, in +which philosophical speculation, historical + +<span class="page">[92]</span> +criticism, natural science have all taken part, +the opposition between reason and faith +deepened; doubt, clear or vague, increased; +and secularism, derived from the Humanists, +and always implying scepticism, whether latent +or conscious, substituted an interest in +the fortunes of the human race upon earth for +the interest in a future world. And along +with this steady intellectual advance, toleration +gained ground and freedom won more +champions. In the meantime the force of +political circumstances was compelling governments +to mitigate their maintenance of +one religious creed by measures of relief to +other Christian sects, and the principle of +exclusiveness was broken down for reasons +of worldly expediency. <i>Religious</i> liberty was +an important step towards complete freedom +of opinion.</p> +<div class="footnote"> +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-4-1"></a>[1] The danger, however, was felt in Germany, and in +the seventeenth century the study of Scripture was not +encouraged at German Universities.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-4-2"></a>[2] See Barry, <span class="title">Papacy and Modern Times</span> (in this series), +113 seq.</p> +</div> +</div> +<div class="chapter"> +<a name="ch-5"></a><h2>CHAPTER V</h2> + +<h3>RELIGIOUS TOLERATION</h3> + +<p>IN the third century B.C. the Indian king +Asoka, a man of religious zeal but of tolerant +spirit, confronted by the struggle between two +hostile religions (Brahmanism and Buddhism), +decided that both should be equally +privileged and honoured in his dominions. +His ordinances on the matter are memorable + +<span class="page">[93]</span> +as the earliest existing Edicts of toleration. +In Europe, as we saw, the principle of toleration +was for the first time definitely expressed +in the Roman Imperial Edicts which terminated +the persecution of the Christians.</p> + +<p>The religious strife of the sixteenth century +raised the question in its modern form, and +for many generations it was one of the chief +problems of statesmen and the subject of +endless controversial pamphlets. Toleration +means incomplete religious liberty, and there +are many degrees of it. It might be granted +to certain Christian sects; it might be granted +to Christian sects, but these alone; it might +be granted to all religions, but not to freethinkers; +or to deists, but not to atheists. It +might mean the concession of some civil +rights, but not of others; it might mean the +exclusion of those who are tolerated from +public offices or from certain professions. +The religious liberty now enjoyed in Western +lands has been gained through various stages +of toleration.</p> + +<p>We owe the modern principle of toleration +to the Italian group of Reformers, who rejected +the doctrine of the Trinity and were +the fathers of Unitarianism. The Reformation +movement had spread to Italy, but Rome +was successful in suppressing it, and many +heretics fled to Switzerland. The anti-Trinitarian + +<span class="page">[94]</span> +group were forced by the intolerance +of Calvin to flee to Transylvania and +Poland where they propagated their doctrines. +The Unitarian creed was moulded +by Fausto Sozzini, generally known as +Socinus, and in the catechism of his sect +(1574) persecution is condemned. This repudiation +of the use of force in the interest of +religion is a consequence of the Socinian doctrines. +For, unlike Luther and Calvin, the +Socinians conceded such a wide room to individual +judgment in the interpretation of +Scripture that to impose Socinianism would +have been inconsistent with its principles. +In other words, there was a strong rationalistic +element which was lacking in the Trinitarian +creeds.</p> + +<p>It was under the influence of the Socinian +spirit that Castellion of Savoy sounded the +trumpet of toleration in a pamphlet denouncing +the burning of Servetus, whereby he +earned the malignant hatred of Calvin. He +maintained the innocence of error and ridiculed +the importance which the Churches +laid on obscure questions such as predestination +and the Trinity. “To discuss the difference +between the Law and the Gospel, +gratuitous remission of sins or imputed righteousness, +is as if a man were to discuss +whether a prince was to come on horseback, + +<span class="page">[95]</span> +or in a chariot, or dressed in white or in red.” [<a href="#fn-5-1">1</a>] +Religion is a curse if persecution is a necessary +part of it.</p> + +<p>For a long time the Socinians and those +who came under their influence when, driven +from Poland, they passed into Germany and +Holland, were the only sects which advocated +toleration. It was adopted from them by the +Anabaptists and by the Arminian section of +the Reformed Church of Holland. And in +Holland, the founder of the English Congregationalists, +who (under the name of Independents) +played such an important part in the history +of the Civil War and the Commonwealth, +learned the principle of liberty of conscience. + +Socinus thought that this principle could +be realized without abolishing the State +Church. He contemplated a close union +between the State and the prevailing Church, +combined with complete toleration for other +sects. It is under this system (which has +been called <i>jurisdictional</i>) that religious liberty +has been realized in European States. +But there is another and simpler method, that +of <i>separating</i> Church from State and placing +all religions on an equality. This was the +solution which the Anabaptists would have +preferred. They detested the State; and +the doctrine of religious liberty was not + +<span class="page">[96]</span> +precious to them. Their ideal system would +have been an Anabaptist theocracy; separation +was the second best.</p> + +<p>In Europe, public opinion was not ripe for +separation, inasmuch as the most powerful +religious bodies were alike in regarding toleration +as wicked indifference. But it was +introduced in a small corner of the new world +beyond the Atlantic in the seventeenth +century. The Puritans who fled from the +intolerance of the English Church and State +and founded colonies in New England, were +themselves equally intolerant, not only to +Anglicans and Catholics, but to Baptists and +Quakers. They set up theocratical governments +from which all who did not belong to +their own sect were excluded. Roger Williams +had imbibed from the Dutch Arminians +the idea of separation of Church from State. +On account of this heresy he was driven +from Massachusetts, and he founded Providence +to be a refuge for those whom the Puritan +colonists persecuted. Here he set up a +democratic constitution in which the magistrates +had power only in civil matters and +could not interfere with religion. Other +towns were presently founded in Rhode +Island, and a charter of Charles II (1663) +confirmed the constitution, which secured to +all citizens professing Christianity, of whatever + +<span class="page">[97]</span> +form, the full enjoyment of political +rights. Non-Christians were tolerated, but +were not admitted to the political rights of +Christians. So far, the new State fell short +of perfect liberty. But the fact that Jews +were soon admitted, notwithstanding, to full +citizenship shows how free the atmosphere +was. To Roger Williams belongs the glory +of having founded the first modern State +which was really tolerant and was based on +the principle of taking the control of religious +matters entirely out of the hands of the civil +government.</p> + +<p>Toleration was also established in the +Roman Catholic colony of Maryland, but in +a different way. Through the influence of +Lord Baltimore an Act of Toleration was +passed in 1649, notable as the first decree, +voted by a legal assembly, granting complete +freedom to all Christians. No one professing +faith in Christ was to be molested in regard +to his religion. But the law was heavy on all +outside this pale. Any one who blasphemed +God or attacked the Trinity or any member +of the Trinity was threatened by the penalty +of death. The tolerance of Maryland attracted +so many Protestant settlers from +Virginia that the Protestants became a +majority, and as soon as they won political +preponderance, they introduced an Act (1654) + +<span class="page">[98]</span> +excluding Papists and Prelatists from toleration. +The rule of the Baltimores was restored +after 1660, and the old religious freedom was +revived, but with the accession of William +III the Protestants again came into power and +the toleration which the Catholics had instituted +in Maryland came to an end.</p> + +<p>It will be observed that in both these cases +freedom was incomplete; but it was much +larger and more fundamental in Rhode +Island, where it had been ultimately derived +from the doctrine of Socinus. [<a href="#fn-5-2">2</a>] When the +colonies became independent of England the +Federal Constitution which they set up was +absolutely secular, but it was left to each +member of the Union to adopt Separation or +not (1789). If separation has become the +rule in the American States, it may be largely +due to the fact that on any other system the +governments would have found it difficult +to impose mutual tolerance on the sects. It +must be added that in Maryland and a few +southern States atheists still suffer from some +political disabilities.</p> + +<p>In England, the experiment of Separation +would have been tried under the Commonwealth, +if the Independents had had their +way. This policy was overruled by Cromwell. + +<span class="page">[99]</span> +The new national Church included +Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, +but liberty of worship was granted to all +Christian sects, except Roman Catholics and +Anglicans. If the parliament had had the +power, this toleration would have been a mere +name. The Presbyterians regarded toleration +as a work of the Devil, and would have +persecuted the Independents if they could. +But under Cromwell’s autocratic rule even +the Anglicans lived in peace, and toleration +was extended to the Jews. In these days, +voices were raised from various quarters +advocating toleration on general grounds. [<a href="#fn-5-3">3</a>] +The most illustrious advocate was Milton, +the poet, who was in favour of the severance +of Church from State.</p> + +<p>In Milton’s <span class="title">Areopagitica: a speech for the +liberty of unlicensed printing</span> (1644), the +freedom of the Press is eloquently sustained +by arguments which are valid for freedom of +thought in general. It is shown that the +censorship will conduce “to the discouragement +of all learning and the stop of truth, +not only by disexercising and blunting our +abilities in what we know already, but by +hindering and cropping the discovery that +might be yet further made, both in religious + +<span class="page">[100]</span> +and civil wisdom.” For knowledge is advanced +through the utterance of new opinions, +and truth is discovered by free discussion. +If the waters of truth “flow not +in a perpetual progression they sicken into a +muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” +Books which are authorized by the licensers +are apt to be, as Bacon said, “but the language +of the times,” and do not contribute +to progress. The examples of the countries +where the censorship is severe do not suggest +that it is useful for morals: “look into Italy +and Spain, whether those places be one +scruple the better, the honester, the wiser, +the chaster, since all the inquisitional rigour +that hath been executed upon books.” Spain +indeed could reply, “We are, what is more important, +more orthodox.” It is interesting to +notice that Milton places freedom of thought +above civil liberty: “Give me the liberty to +know, to utter, and to argue freely according +to conscience, above all other liberties.”</p> + +<p>With the restoration of the Monarchy and +the Anglican Church, religious liberty was +extinguished by a series of laws against +Dissenters. To the Revolution we owe the +Act of Toleration (1689) from which the +religious freedom which England enjoys at +present is derived. It granted freedom of +worship to Presbyterians, Congregationalists, + +<span class="page">[101]</span> +Baptists and Quakers, but only to these; +Catholics and Unitarians were expressly +excepted and the repressive legislation of +Charles II remained in force against them. +It was a characteristically English measure, +logically inconsistent and absurd, a mixture +of tolerance and intolerance, but suitable to +the circumstances and the state of public +opinion at the time.</p> + +<p>In the same year John Locke’s famous +(first) <span class="title">Letter concerning Toleration</span> appeared +in Latin. Three subsequent letters developed +and illustrated his thesis. The main +argument is based on the principle that +the business of civil government is quite +distinct from that of religion, that the State +is a society constituted only for preserving +and promoting the civil interests of its members +—civil interests meaning life, liberty, +health, and the possession of property. The +care of souls is not committed to magistrates +more than to other men. For the magistrate +can only use outward force; but true religion +means the inward persuasion of the mind, and +the mind is so made that force cannot compel +it to believe. So too it is absurd for a State +to make laws to enforce a religion, for laws are +useless without penalties, and penalties are +impertinent because they cannot convince.</p> + +<p>Moreover, even if penalties could change + +<span class="page">[102]</span> +men’s beliefs, this would not conduce to the +salvation of souls. Would more men be +saved if all blindly resigned themselves to the +will of their rulers and accepted the religion +of their country? For as the princes of the +world are divided in religion, one country +alone would be in the right, and all the rest +of the world would have to follow <i>their</i> princes +to destruction; “and that which heightens +the absurdity, and very ill suits the notion of +a deity, men would owe their eternal happiness +or their eternal misery to the places +of their nativity.” This is a principle on +which Locke repeatedly insists. If a State +is justified in imposing a creed, it follows +that in all the lands, except the one or few +in which the true faith prevails, it is the +duty of the subjects to embrace a false religion. +If Protestantism is promoted in +England, Popery by the same rule will be +promoted in France. “What is true and +good in England will be true and good at +Rome too, in China, or Geneva.” Toleration +is the principle which gives to the true +faith the best chance of prevailing.</p> + +<p>Locke would concede full liberty to idolaters, +by whom he means the Indians of +North America, and he makes some scathing +remarks on the ecclesiastical zeal which +forced these “innocent pagans” to forsake + +<span class="page">[103]</span> +their ancient religion. But his toleration, +though it extends beyond the Christian pale, +is not complete. He excepts in the first +place Roman Catholics, not on account of +their theological dogmas but because they +“teach that faith is not to be kept with +heretics,” that “kings excommunicated forfeit +their crowns and kingdoms,” and because +they deliver themselves up to the protection +and service of a foreign prince—the Pope. +In other words, they are politically dangerous. +His other exception is atheists. +“Those are not all to be tolerated who deny +the being of God. Promises, covenants and +oaths, which are the bonds of human society, +can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking +away of God, though but even in thought, +dissolves all. Besides also, those that by +their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, +can have no pretence of religion to +challenge the privilege of a Toleration.”</p> + +<p>Thus Locke is not free from the prejudices +of his time. These exceptions contradict +his own principle that “it is absurd that +things should be enjoined by laws which are +not in men’s power to perform. And to believe +this or that to be true does not depend +upon our will.” This applies to Roman +Catholics as to Protestants, to atheists as to +deists. Locke, however, perhaps thought + +<span class="page">[104]</span> +that the speculative opinion of atheism, which +was uncommon in his day, does depend on +the will. He would have excluded from his +State his great contemporary Spinoza.</p> + +<p>But in spite of its limitations Locke’s +<span class="title">Toleration</span> is a work of the highest value, and +its argument takes us further than its author +went. It asserts unrestrictedly the secular +principle, and its logical issue is Disestablishment. +A Church is merely “a free and +voluntary society.” I may notice the remark +that if infidels were to be converted by force, +it was easier for God to do it “with armies +of heavenly legions than for any son of the +Church, how potent soever, with all his +dragoons.” This is a polite way of stating +a maxim analogous to that of the Emperor +Tiberius (above, p. 41). If false beliefs are +an offence to God, it is, really, his affair.</p> + +<p>The toleration of Nonconformists was far +from pleasing extreme Anglicans, and the +influence of this party at the beginning of the +eighteenth century menaced the liberty of +Dissenters. The situation provoked Defoe, +who was a zealous Nonconformist, to write his +pamphlet, The <span class="title">Shortest Way with the Dissenters</span> +(1702), an ironical attack upon the +principle of toleration. It pretends to show +that the Dissenters are at heart incorrigible +rebels, that a gentle policy is useless, and suggests + +<span class="page">[105]</span> +that all preachers at conventicles should +be hanged and all persons found attending such +meetings should be banished. This exceedingly +amusing but terribly earnest caricature +of the sentiments of the High Anglican party +at first deceived and alarmed the Dissenters +themselves. But the High Churchmen were +furious. Defoe was fined, exposed in the pillory +three times, and sent to Newgate prison.</p> + +<p>But the Tory reaction was only temporary. +During the eighteenth century a relatively +tolerant spirit prevailed among the Christian +sects and new sects were founded. The +official Church became less fanatical; many +of its leading divines were influenced by +rationalistic thought. If it had not been +for the opposition of King George III, the +Catholics might have been freed from their +disabilities before the end of the century. +This measure, eloquently advocated by Burke +and desired by Pitt, was not carried till 1829, +and then under the threat of a revolution in +Ireland. In the meantime legal toleration had +been extended to the Unitarians in 1813, but +they were not relieved from all disabilities till +the forties. Jews were not admitted to the +full rights of citizenship till 1858.</p> + +<p>The achievement of religious liberty in +England in the nineteenth century has been +mainly the work of Liberals. The Liberal + +<span class="page">[106]</span> +party has been moving towards the ultimate +goal of complete secularization and the separation +of the Church from the State— +the logical results of Locke’s theory of civil +government. The Disestablishment of the +Church in Ireland in 1869 partly realized this +ideal, and now more than forty years later +the Liberal party is seeking to apply the +principle to Wales. It is highly characteristic +of English politics and English psychology +that the change should be carried out in this +piecemeal fashion. In the other countries of +the British Empire the system of Separation +prevails; there is no connection between the +State and any sect; no Church is anything +more than a voluntary society. But secularization +has advanced under the State +Church system. It is enough to mention the +Education Act of 1870 and the abolition of +religious tests at Universities (1871). Other +gains for freedom will be noticed when I +come to speak in another chapter of the +progress of rationalism.</p> + +<p>If we compare the religious situation in +France in the seventeenth with that in the +eighteenth century, it seems to be sharply +contrasted with the development in England. +In England there was a great advance towards +religious liberty, in France there was a +falling away. Until 1676 the French Protestants + +<a name="p-107"></a><span class="page">[107]</span> +(Huguenots) were tolerated; for the +next hundred years they were outlaws. But +the toleration, which their charter (the Edict +of Nantes, 1598) secured them, was of a +limited kind. They were excluded, for instance, +from the army; they were excluded +from Paris and other cities and districts. And +the liberty which they enjoyed was confined +to them; it was not granted to any other +sect. The charter was faithfully maintained +by the two great Cardinals (Richelieu and +Mazarin) who governed France under Louis +XIII and Louis XIV, but when the latter assumed +the active power in 1661 he began a +series of laws against the Protestants which culminated +in the revoking of the charter (1676) +and the beginning of a Protestant persecution.</p> + +<p>The French clergy justified this policy by +the notorious text “Compel them to come +in,” and appealed to St. Augustine. Their +arguments evoked a defence of toleration by +Bayle, a French Protestant who had taken +refuge in Holland. It was entitled a <span class="title">Philosophical +Commentary on the text “Compel +them to come in”</span> (1686) and in importance +stands beside Locke’s work which was being +composed at the same time. Many of the +arguments urged by the two writers are +identical. They agreed, and for the same +reasons, in excluding Roman Catholics. The + +<span class="page">[108]</span> +most characteristic thing in Bayle’s treatise is +his sceptical argument that, even if it were a +right principle to suppress error by force, no +truth is certain enough to justify us in applying +the theory. We shall see (next chapter) this +eminent scholar’s contribution to rationalism.</p> + +<p>Though there was an immense exodus of +Protestants from France, Louis did not succeed +in his design of extirpating heresy from +his lands. In the eighteenth century, under +Louis XV, the presence of Protestants was +tolerated though they were outlaws; their +marriages were not recognized as legal, and +they were liable at any moment to persecution. +About the middle of the century a +literary agitation began, conducted mainly +by rationalists, but finally supported by +enlightened Catholics, to relieve the affliction +of the oppressed sect. It resulted at last in +an Edict of Toleration (1787), which made the +position of the Protestants endurable, though +it excluded them from certain careers.</p> + +<p>The most energetic and forceful leader in +the campaign against intolerance was Voltaire +(see next chapter), and his exposure of +some glaring cases of unjust persecution did +more than general arguments to achieve the +object. The most infamous case was that of +Jean Calas, a Protestant merchant of Toulouse, +whose son committed suicide. A report + +<span class="page">[109]</span> +was set abroad that the young man had decided +to join the Catholic Church, and that +his father, mother, and brother, filled with +Protestant bigotry, killed him, with the help +of a friend. They were all put in irons, tried, +and condemned, though there were no arguments +for their guilt, except the conjecture of +bigotry. Jean Calas was broken on the +wheel, his son and daughter cast into convents, +his wife left to starve. Through the activity of +Voltaire, then living near Geneva, the widow +was induced to go to Paris, where she was +kindly received, and assisted by eminent +lawyers; a judicial inquiry was made; the +Toulouse sentence was reversed and the King +granted pensions to those who had suffered. +This scandal could only have happened in the +provinces, according to Voltaire: “at Paris,” +he says, “fanaticism, powerful though it may +be, is always controlled by reason.”</p> + +<p>The case of Sirven, though it did not end +tragically, was similar, and the government +of Toulouse was again responsible. He was +accused of having drowned his daughter in a +well to hinder her from becoming a Catholic, +and was, with his wife, sentenced to death. +Fortunately he and his family had escaped to +Switzerland, where they persuaded Voltaire +of their innocence. To get the sentence +reversed was the work of nine years, and this + +<span class="page">[110]</span> +time it was reversed at Toulouse. When +Voltaire visited Paris in 1778 he was acclaimed +by crowds as the “defender of Calas +and the Sirvens.” His disinterested practical +activity against persecution was of far +more value than the treatise on <span class="title">Toleration</span> +which he wrote in connexion with the Calas +episode. It is a poor work compared with +those of Locke and Bayle. The tolerance +which he advocates is of a limited kind; he +would confine public offices and dignities to +those who belong to the State religion.</p> + +<p>But if Voltaire’s system of toleration is +limited, it is wide compared with the religious +establishment advocated by his contemporary, +Rousseau. Though of Swiss birth, +Rousseau belongs to the literature and +history of France; but it was not for nothing +that he was brought up in the traditions +of Calvinistic Geneva. His ideal State +would, in its way, have been little better +than any theocracy. He proposed to establish +a “civil religion” which was to be a sort +of undogmatic Christianity. But certain +dogmas, which he considered essential, were +to be imposed on all citizens on pain of +banishment. Such were the existence of a +deity, the future bliss of the good and punishment +of the bad, the duty of tolerance +towards all those who accepted the fundamental + +<span class="page">[111]</span> +articles of faith. It may be said that +a State founded on this basis would be fairly +inclusive—that all Christian sects and many +deists could find a place in it. But by imposing +indispensable beliefs, it denies the principle +of toleration. The importance of Rousseau’s +idea lies in the fact that it inspired one of +the experiments in religious policy which were +made during the French Revolution.</p> + +<p>The Revolution established religious liberty +in France. Most of the leaders were unorthodox. +Their rationalism was naturally +of the eighteenth-century type, and in the +preamble to the Declaration of Rights (1789) +deism was asserted by the words “in the +presence and under the auspices of the Supreme +Being” (against which only one voice +protested). The Declaration laid down that +no one was to be vexed on account of his +religious opinions provided he did not thereby +trouble public order. Catholicism was retained +as the “dominant” religion; Protestants +(but not Jews) were admitted to +public office. Mirabeau, the greatest statesman +of the day, protested strongly against +the use of words like “tolerance” and “dominant.” +He said: “The most unlimited +liberty of religion is in my eyes a right so +sacred that to express it by the word ‘toleration’ +seems to me itself a sort of tyranny, + +<span class="page">[112]</span> +since the authority which tolerates might +also not tolerate.” The same protest was +made in Thomas Paine’s <span class="title">Rights of Man</span> which +appeared two years later: “Toleration is not +the <i>opposite</i> of Intolerance, but is the <i>counterfeit</i> +of it. Both are despotisms. The one +assumes itself the right of withholding liberty +of conscience, and the other of granting it.” +Paine was an ardent deist, and he added: +“Were a bill brought into any parliament, entitled +‘An Act to tolerate or grant liberty to +the Almighty to receive the worship of a Jew +or a Turk,’ or ‘to prohibit the Almighty from +receiving it,’ all men would startle and call +it blasphemy. There would be an uproar. +The presumption of toleration in religious +matters would then present itself unmasked.”</p> + +<p>The Revolution began well, but the spirit +of Mirabeau was not in the ascendant +throughout its course. The vicissitudes in +religious policy from 1789 to 1801 have a +particular interest, because they show that +the principle of liberty of conscience was far +from possessing the minds of the men who +were proud of abolishing the intolerance of +the government which they had overthrown. +The State Church was reorganized by the +Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790), by +which French citizens were forbidden to +acknowledge the authority of the Pope and + +<span class="page">[113]</span> +the appointment of Bishops was transferred +to the Electors of the Departments, so +that the commanding influence passed from +the Crown to the nation. Doctrine and +worship were not touched. Under the democratic +Republic which succeeded the fall of +the monarchy (1792–5) this Constitution +was maintained, but a movement to dechristianize +France was inaugurated, and the +Commune of Paris ordered the churches of +all religions to be closed. The worship of +Reason, with rites modelled on the Catholic, +was organized in Paris and the provinces. +The government, violently anti-Catholic, +did not care to use force against the prevalent +faith; direct persecution would have +weakened the national defence and scandalized +Europe. They naïvely hoped that the +superstition would disappear by degrees. +Robespierre declared against the policy of +unchristianizing France, and when he had +the power (April, 1795), he established as a +State religion the worship of the Supreme +Being. “The French people recognizes the +existence of the Supreme Being and the immortality +of the Soul”; the liberty of other +cults was maintained. Thus, for a few +months, Rousseau’s idea was more or less +realized. It meant intolerance. Atheism +was regarded as a vice, and “all were atheists +who did not think like Robespierre.” + +<span class="page">[114]</span> + +The democratic was succeeded by the +middle-class Republic (1795–9), and the policy +of its government was to hinder the +preponderance of any one religious group; +to hold the balance among all the creeds, +but with a certain partiality against the +strongest, the Catholic, which threatened, as +was thought, to destroy the others or even +the Republic. The plan was to favour the +growth of new rationalistic cults, and to +undermine revealed religion by a secular +system of education. Accordingly the +Church was separated from the State by the +Constitution of 1795, which affirmed the liberty +of all worship and withdrew from the +Catholic clergy the salaries which the State +had hitherto paid. The elementary schools +were laicized. The Declaration of Rights, +the articles of the Constitution, and republican +morality were taught instead of religion. +An enthusiast declared that “the religion of +Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, and Cicero would +soon be the religion of the world.”</p> + +<p>A new rationalistic religion was introduced +under the name of Theophilanthropy. It +was the “natural religion” of the philosophers +and poets of the century, of Voltaire and the +English deists—not the purified Christianity +of Rousseau, but anterior and superior to +Christianity. Its doctrines, briefly formulated, + +<span class="page">[115]</span> +were: God, immortality, fraternity, +humanity; no attacks on other religions, but +respect and honour towards all; gatherings +in a family, or in a temple, to encourage one +another to practise morality. Protected by +the government sometimes secretly, sometimes +openly, it had a certain success among +the cultivated classes.</p> + +<p>The idea of the lay State was popularized +under this rule, and by the end of the century +there was virtually religious peace in +France. Under the Consulate (from 1799) +the same system continued, but Napoleon +ceased to protect Theophilanthropy. In +1801, though there seems to have been little +discontent with the existing arrangement, +Napoleon decided to upset it and bring the +Pope upon the scene. The Catholic religion, +as that of the majority, was again taken under +the special protection of the State, the salaries +of the clergy again paid by the nation, and the +Papal authority over the Church again recognized +within well-defined limits; while full +toleration of other religions was maintained. +This was the effect of the Concordat between +the French Republic and the Pope. It is the +judgment of a high authority that the nation, if +it had been consulted, would have pronounced +against the change. It may be doubted +whether this is true. But Napoleon’s policy + +<span class="page">[116]</span> +seems to have been prompted by the calculation +that, using the Pope as an instrument, +he could control the consciences of men, and +more easily carry out his plans of empire.</p> + +<p>Apart from its ecclesiastical policies and its +experiments in new creeds based on the +principles of rationalistic thinkers, the French +Revolution itself has an interest, in connexion +with our subject, as an example of the coercion +of reason by an intolerant faith.</p> + +<p>The leaders believed that, by applying +certain principles, they could regenerate +France and show the world how the lasting +happiness of mankind can be secured. They +acted in the name of reason, but their principles +were articles of faith, which were +accepted just as blindly and irrationally as +the dogmas of any supernatural creed. One +of these dogmas was the false doctrine of +Rousseau that man is a being who is naturally +good and loves justice and order. Another +was the illusion that all men are equal by +nature. The puerile conviction prevailed +that legislation could completely blot out the +past and radically transform the character of +a society. “Liberty, equality, and fraternity” +was as much a creed as the Creed of +the Apostles; it hypnotized men’s minds like +a revelation from on high; and reason had as +little part in its propagation as in the spread + +<span class="page">[117]</span> +of Christianity or of Protestantism. It +meant anything but equality, fraternity, or +liberty, especially liberty, when it was translated +into action by the fanatical apostles of +“Reason,” who were blind to the facts of +human nature and defied the facts of econnomics. +Terror, the usual instrument in +propagating religions, was never more mercilessly +applied. Any one who questioned the +doctrines was a heretic and deserved a heretic’s +fate. And, as in most religious movements, +the milder and less unreasonable +spirits succumbed to the fanatics. Never +was the name of reason more grievously +abused than by those who believed they were +inaugurating her reign.</p> + +<p>Religious liberty, however, among other +good things, did emerge from the Revolution, +at first in the form of Separation, and +then under the Concordat. The Concordat +lasted for more than a century, under +monarchies and republics, till it was abolished +in December, 1905, when the system of +Separation was introduced again.</p> + +<p>In the German States the history of religious +liberty differs in many ways, but it +resembles the development in France in so far +as toleration in a limited form was at first +brought about by war. The Thirty Years’ +War, which divided Germany in the first half + +<span class="page">[118]</span> +of the seventeenth century, and in which, as +in the English Civil War, religion and politics +were mixed, was terminated by the Peace of +Westphalia (1648). By this act, three religions, +the Catholic, the Lutheran, and the +Reformed [<a href="#fn-5-4">4</a>] were legally recognized by the +Holy Roman Empire, and placed on an +equality; all other religious were excluded. +But it was left to each of the German States, +of which the Empire consisted, to tolerate or +not any religion it pleased. That is, every +prince could impose on his subjects whichever +of the three religions he chose, and refuse to +tolerate the others in his territory. But he +might also admit one or both of the others, +and he might allow the followers of other +creeds to reside in his dominion, and practise +their religion within the precincts of their +own houses. Thus toleration varied, from +State to State, according to the policy of each +particular prince.</p> + +<p>As elsewhere, so in Germany, considerations +of political expediency promoted the +growth of toleration, especially in Prussia; +and as elsewhere, theoretical advocates exercised +great influence on public opinion. But +the case for toleration was based by its +German defenders chiefly on legal, not, as in + +<span class="page">[119]</span> +England and France, on moral and intellectual +grounds. They regarded it as a question +of law, and discussed it from the point of +view of the legal relations between State and +Church. It had been considered long ago +from this standpoint by an original Italian +thinker, Marsilius of Padua (thirteenth century), +who had maintained that the Church +had no power to employ physical coercion, +and that if the lay authority punished heretics, +the punishment was inflicted for the +violation not of divine ordinances but of the +law of the State, which excluded heretics +from its territory.</p> + +<p>Christian Thomasius may be taken as a +leading exponent of the theory that religious +liberty logically follows from a right conception +of law. He laid down in a series of +pamphlets (1693–1697) that the prince, who +alone has the power of coercion, has no right +to interfere in spiritual matters, while the +clergy step beyond their province if they +interfere in secular matters or defend their +faith by any other means than teaching. But +the secular power has no legal right to coerce +heretics unless heresy is a crime. And heresy +is not a crime, but an error; for it is not a +matter of will. Thomasius, moreover, urges +the view that the public welfare has nothing +to gain from unity of faith, that it makes no + +<span class="page">[120]</span> +difference what faith a man professes so long as +he is loyal to the State. His toleration indeed +is not complete. He was much influenced by +the writings of his contemporary Locke, and +he excepts from the benefit of toleration the +same classes which Locke excepted.</p> + +<p>Besides the influence of the jurists, we +may note that the Pietistic movement—a +reaction of religious enthusiasm against the +formal theology of the Lutheran divines—was +animated by a spirit favourable to toleration; +and that the cause was promoted by the +leading men of letters, especially by Lessing, +in the second half of the eighteenth century.</p> + +<p>But perhaps the most important fact of +all in hastening the realization of religious +liberty in Germany was the accession of a +rationalist to the throne of Prussia, in the +person of Frederick the Great. A few months +after his accession (1740) he wrote in the +margin of a State paper, in which a question +of religious policy occurred, that every one +should be allowed to get to heaven in his own +way. His view that morality was independent +of religion and therefore compatible +with all religions, and that thus a man could +be a good citizen—the only thing which the +State was entitled to demand—whatever +faith he might profess, led to the logical consequence +of complete religious liberty. Catholics + +<span class="page">[121]</span> +were placed on an equality with Protestants, +and the Treaty of Westphalia was +violated by the extension of full toleration +to all the forbidden sects. Frederick even +conceived the idea of introducing Mohammedan +settlers into some parts of his realm. +Contrast England under George III, France +under Louis XV, Italy under the shadow of +the Popes. It is an important fact in history, +which has hardly been duly emphasized, that +full <i>religious</i> liberty was for the first time, in +any country in modern Europe, realized under +a free-thinking ruler, the friend of the great +“blasphemer” Voltaire.</p> + +<p>The policy and principles of Frederick were +formulated in the Prussian Territorial Code +of 1794, by which unrestricted liberty of conscience +was guaranteed, and the three chief +religions, the Lutheran, the Reformed, and +the Catholic, were placed on the same footing +and enjoyed the same privileges. The system +is “jurisdictional”; only, three Churches +here occupy the position which the Anglican +Church alone occupies in England. The rest +of Germany did not begin to move in the +direction pointed out by Prussia until, by one +of the last acts of the Holy Roman Empire +(1803), the Westphalian settlement had +been modified. Before the foundation of the +new Empire (1870), freedom was established +throughout Germany.</p> + +<span class="page">[122]</span> + +<p>In Austria, the Emperor Joseph II issued +an Edict of Toleration in 1781, which may be +considered a broad measure for a Catholic +State at that time. Joseph was a sincere +Catholic, but he was not impervious to the +enlightened ideas of his age; he was an +admirer of Frederick, and his edict was +prompted by a genuinely tolerant spirit, such +as had not inspired the English Act of 1689. +It extended only to the Lutheran and Reformed +sects and the communities of the +Greek Church which had entered into union +with Rome, and it was of a limited kind. Religious +liberty was not established till 1867.</p> + +<p>The measure of Joseph applied to the +Austrian States in Italy, and helped to prepare +that country for the idea of religious +freedom. It is notable that in Italy in the +eighteenth century toleration found its advocate, +not in a rationalist or a philosopher, +but in a Catholic ecclesiastic, Tamburinni, +who (under the name of his friend Trautmansdorf) +published a work <span class="title">On Ecclesiastical +and Civil Toleration</span> (1783). A sharp line is +drawn between the provinces of the Church +and the State, persecution and the Inquisition +are condemned, coercion of conscience +is declared inconsistent with the Christian +spirit, and the principle is laid down that the +sovran should only exercise coercion where + +<span class="page">[123]</span> +the interests of public safety are concerned. +Like Locke, the author thinks that atheism +is a legitimate case for such coercion.</p> + +<p>The new States which Napoleon set up in +Italy exhibited toleration in various degrees, +but real liberty was first introduced in +Piedmont by Cavour (1848), a measure which +prepared the way for the full liberty which +was one of the first-fruits of the foundation +of the Italian kingdom in 1870. The union of +Italy, with all that it meant, is the most +signal and dramatic act in the triumph of the +ideas of the modern State over the traditional +principles of the Christian Church. Rome, +which preserved those principles most faithfully, +has offered a steadfast, we may say a +heroic, resistance to the liberal ideas which +swept Europe in the nineteenth century. +The guides of her policy grasped thoroughly +the danger which liberal thought meant for +an institution which, founded in a remote +past, claimed to be unchangeable and never +out of date. Gregory XVI issued a solemn +protest maintaining authority against freedom, +the mediaeval against the modern ideal, +in an Encyclical Letter (1832), which was +intended as a rebuke to some young French +Catholics (Lamennais and his friends) who +had conceived the promising idea of transforming +the Church by the Liberal spirit + +<span class="page">[124]</span> +of the day. The Pope denounces “the absurd +and erroneous maxim, or rather insanity, +that liberty of conscience should be procured +and guaranteed to every one. The path to +this pernicious error is prepared by that full +and unlimited liberty of thought which is +spread abroad to the misfortune of Church +and State and which certain persons, with excessive +impudence, venture to represent as +an advantage for religion. Hence comes the +corruption of youth, contempt for religion +and for the most venerable laws, and a general +mental change in the world—in short the +most deadly scourge of society; since the experience +of history has shown that the States +which have shone by their wealth and power +and glory have perished just by this evil— +immoderate freedom of opinion, licence of +conversation, and love of novelties. With +this is connected the liberty of publishing +any writing of any kind. This is a deadly +and execrable liberty for which we cannot +feel sufficient horror, though some men dare +to acclaim it noisily and enthusiastically.” +A generation later Pius IX was to astonish +the world by a similar manifesto—his Syllabus +of Modern Errors (1864). Yet, notwithstanding +the fundamental antagonism +between the principles of the Church and the +drift of modern civilization, the Papacy survives, + +<span class="page">[125]</span> +powerful and respected, in a world +where the ideas which it condemned have +become the commonplace conditions of life.</p> + +<p>The progress of Western nations from the +system of unity which prevailed in the fifteenth, +to the system of liberty which was +the rule in the nineteenth century, was slow +and painful, illogical and wavering, generally +dictated by political necessities, seldom inspired +by deliberate conviction. We have +seen how religious liberty has been realized, +so far as the law is concerned, under two +distinct systems, “Jurisdiction” and “Separation.” +But legal toleration may coexist +with much practical intolerance, and liberty +before the law is compatible with serious +disabilities of which the law cannot take +account. For instance, the expression of +unorthodox opinions may exclude a man from +obtaining a secular post or hinder his advancement. +The question has been asked, which +of the two systems is more favourable to the +creation of a tolerant social atmosphere? +Ruffini (of whose excellent work on <span class="title">Religious +Liberty</span> I have made much use in this chapter) +decides in favour of Jurisdiction. He +points out that while Socinus, a true friend +of liberty of thought, contemplated this +system, the Anabaptists, whose spirit was +intolerant, sought Separation. More important + +<span class="page">[126]</span> +is the observation that in Germany, +England, and Italy, where the most powerful +Church or Churches are under the control of +the State, there is more freedom, more tolerance +of opinion, than in many of the American +States where Separation prevails. A +hundred years ago the Americans showed +appalling ingratitude to Thomas Paine, who +had done them eminent service in the War of +Independence, simply because he published +a very unorthodox book. It is notorious +that free thought is still a serious hindrance +and handicap to an American, even in most +of the Universities. This proves that Separation +is not an infallible receipt for producing +tolerance. But I see no reason to +suppose that public opinion in America would +be different, if either the Federal Republic or +the particular States had adopted Jurisdiction. +Given legal liberty under either system, +I should say that the tolerance of public +opinion depends on social conditions and especially +on the degree of culture among the +educated classes.</p> + +<p>From this sketch it will be seen that toleration +was the outcome of new political +circumstances and necessities, brought about +by the disunion of the Church through the +Reformation. But it meant that in those +States which granted toleration the opinion of + +<span class="page">[127]</span> +a sufficiently influential group of the governing +class was ripe for the change, and this +new mental attitude was in a great measure +due to the scepticism and rationalism which +were diffused by the Renaissance movement, +and which subtly and unconsciously had +affected the minds of many who were sincerely +devoted to rigidly orthodox beliefs; +so effective is the force of suggestion. In the +next two chapters the advance of reason at +the expense of faith will be traced through +the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth +centuries.</p> +<div class="footnote"> +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-5-1"></a>[1] Translated by Lecky.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-5-2"></a>[2] Complete toleration was established by Penn in the +Quaker Colony of Pennsylvania in 1682.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-5-3"></a>[3] Especially Chillingworth’s <span class="title">Religion of Protestants</span>, (1637), +and Jeremy Taylor’s <span class="title">Liberty of Prophesying</span> (1646).</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-5-4"></a>[4] The Reformed Church consists of the followers of Calvin +and Zwingli.</p> +</div> +</div> +<div class="chapter"> +<a name="ch-6"></a><h2>CHAPTER VI</h2> + +<h3>THE GROWTH OF RATIONALISM</h3> + +<h3>(SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH +CENTURIES)</h3> + +<p>DURING the last three hundred years reason +has been slowly but steadily destroying Christian +mythology and exposing the pretensions +of supernatural revelation. The progress of +rationalism falls naturally into two periods. +(1) In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries +those thinkers who rejected Christian +theology and the book on which it relies were +mainly influenced by the inconsistencies, +contradictions, and absurdities which they +discovered in the evidence, and by the moral + +<span class="page">[128]</span> +difficulties of the creed. Some scientific +facts were known which seemed to reflect on +the accuracy of Revelation, but arguments +based on science were subsidiary. (2) In the +nineteenth century the discoveries of science +in many fields bore with full force upon +fabrics which had been constructed in a naïve +and ignorant age; and historical criticism +undermined methodically the authority of the +sacred documents which had hitherto been +exposed chiefly to the acute but unmethodical +criticisms of common sense.</p> + +<p>A disinterested love of facts, without any +regard to the bearing which those facts may +have on one’s hopes or fears or destiny, is a +rare quality in all ages, and it had been very +rare indeed since the ancient days of Greece +and Rome. It means the scientific spirit. +Now in the seventeenth century we may say +(without disrespect to a few precursors) that +the modern study of natural science began, +and in the same period we have a series of +famous thinkers who were guided by a disinterested +love of truth. Of the most acute +minds some reached the conclusion that the +Christian scheme of the world is irrational, +and according to their temperament some +rejected it, whilst others, like the great +Frenchman Pascal, fell back upon an unreasoning +act of faith. Bacon, who professed + +<span class="page">[129]</span> +orthodoxy, was perhaps at heart a +deist, but in any case the whole spirit of his +writings was to exclude authority from the +domain of scientific investigation which he did +so much to stimulate. Descartes, illustrious +not only as the founder of modern metaphysics +but also by his original contributions +to science, might seek to conciliate the ecclesiastical +authorities—his temper was timid— +but his philosophical method was a powerful +incentive to rationalistic thought. The +general tendency of superior intellects was +to exalt reason at the expense of authority; +and in England this principle was established +so firmly by Locke, that throughout the theological +warfare of the eighteenth century +both parties relied on reason, and no theologian +of repute assumed faith to be a higher +faculty.</p> + +<p>A striking illustration of the gradual +encroachments of reason is the change which +was silently wrought in public opinion on the +subject of witchcraft. The famous efforts of +James I to carry out the Biblical command, +“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” were +outdone by the zeal of the Puritans under the +Commonwealth to suppress the wicked old +women who had commerce with Satan. +After the Restoration, the belief in witchcraft +declined among educated people—though + +<span class="page">[130]</span> +some able writers maintained it—and there +were few executions. The last trial of a +witch was in 1712, when some clergymen in +Hertfordshire prosecuted Jane Wenham. +The jury found her guilty, but the judge, +who had summed up in her favour, was able +to procure the remission of her sentence; +and the laws against witchcraft were repealed +in 1735. John Wesley said with perfect +truth that to disbelieve in witchcraft is to +disbelieve in the Bible. In France and in +Holland the decline of belief and interest in +this particular form of Satan’s activity was +simultaneous. In Scotland, where theology +was very powerful, a woman was burnt in +1722. It can be no mere coincidence that +the general decline of this superstition belongs +to the age which saw the rise of modern science +and modern philosophy.</p> + +<p>Hobbes, who was perhaps the most brilliant +English thinker of the seventeenth century, +was a freethinker and materialist. He had +come under the influence of his friend the +French philosopher Gassendi, who had revived +materialism in its Epicurean shape. +Yet he was a champion not of freedom of +conscience but of coercion in its most uncompromising +form. In the political theory +which he expounded in <span class="title">Leviathan</span>, the sovran +has autocratic power in the domain of doctrine, + +<span class="page">[131]</span> +as in everything else, and it is the duty +of subjects to conform to the religion which +the sovran imposes. Religious persecution +is thus defended, but no independent power +is left to the Church. But the principles on +which Hobbes built up his theory were rationalistic. +He separated morality from religion +and identified “the true moral philosophy” +with the “true doctrine of the laws of nature.” +What he really thought of religion could be +inferred from his remark that the fanciful fear +of things invisible (due to ignorance) is the +natural seed of that feeling which, in himself, +a man calls religion, but, in those who fear +or worship the invisible power differently, +superstition. In the reign of Charles II +Hobbes was silenced and his books were +burned.</p> + +<p>Spinoza, the Jewish philosopher of Holland, +owed a great deal to Descartes and (in political +speculation) to Hobbes, but his philosophy +meant a far wider and more open breach with +orthodox opinion than either of his masters +had ventured on. He conceived ultimate +reality, which he called God, as an absolutely +perfect, <i>impersonal</i> Being, a substance whose +nature is constituted by two “attributes”— +thought and spatial extension. When Spinoza +speaks of love of God, in which he considered +happiness to consist, he means knowledge + +<span class="page">[132]</span> +and contemplation of the order of nature, +including human nature, which is subject to +fixed, invariable laws. He rejects free-will +and the “superstition,” as he calls it, of final +causes in nature. If we want to label his +philosophy, we may say that it is a form of +pantheism. It has often been described as +atheism. If atheism means, as I suppose in +ordinary use it is generally taken to mean, +rejection of a personal God, Spinoza was an +atheist. It should be observed that in the +seventeenth and eighteenth centuries atheist +was used in the wildest way as a term of +abuse for freethinkers, and when we read +of atheists (except in careful writers) we may +generally assume that the persons so stigmatized +were really deists, that is, they believed +in a personal God but not in Revelation. [<a href="#fn-6-1">1</a>]</p> + +<p>Spinoza’s daring philosophy was not in +harmony with the general trend of speculation +at the time, and did not exert any +profound influence on thought till a much +later period. The thinker whose writings +appealed most to the men of his age and were +most opportune and effective was John Locke, +who professed more or less orthodox Anglicanism. +His great contribution to philosophy +is equivalent to a very powerful defence + +<span class="page">[133]</span> +of reason against the usurpations of authority. +The object of his <span class="title">Essay on the Human Understanding</span> +(1690) is to show that all knowledge +is derived from experience. He subordinated +faith completely to reason. While he accepted +the Christian revelation, he held that +revelation if it contradicted the higher tribunal +of reason must be rejected, and that +revelation cannot give us knowledge as certain +as the knowledge which reason gives. +“He that takes away reason to make room for +revelation puts out the light of both; and +does much what the same as if he would persuade +a man to put out his eyes, the better to +receive the remote light of an invisible star +by a telescope.” He wrote a book to show +that the Christian revelation is not contrary +to reason, and its title, <span class="title">The Reasonableness of +Christianity</span>, sounds the note of all religious +controversy in England during the next hundred +years. Both the orthodox and their +opponents warmly agreed that reasonableness +was the only test of the claims of revealed +religion. It was under the direct influence +of Locke that Toland, an Irishman who had +been converted from Roman Catholicism, +composed a sensational book, <span class="title">Christianity +Not Mysterious</span> (1696). He assumes that +Christianity is true and argues that there can +be no mysteries in it, because mysteries, that + +<span class="page">[134]</span> +is, unintelligible dogmas, cannot be accepted +by reason. And if a reasonable Deity gave a +revelation, its purpose must be to enlighten, +not to puzzle. The assumption of the truth +of Christianity was a mere pretence, as an +intelligent reader could not fail to see. The +work was important because it drew the +logical inference from Locke’s philosophy, +and it had a wide circulation. Lady Mary +Wortley Montagu met a Turkish Effendi at +Belgrade who asked her for news of Mr. +Toland.</p> + +<p>It is characteristic of this stage of the +struggle between reason and authority that +(excepting the leading French thinkers in +the eighteenth century) the rationalists, who +attacked theology, generally feigned to acknowledge +the truth of the ideas which they +were assailing. They pretended that their +speculations did not affect religion; they +could separate the domains of reason and +of faith; they could show that Revelation +was superfluous without questioning it; they +could do homage to orthodoxy and lay +down views with which orthodoxy was irreconcilable. +The errors which they exposed +in the sphere of reason were ironically allowed +to be truths in the sphere of theology. The +mediaeval principle of double truth and other +shifts were resorted to, in self-protection + +<span class="page">[135]</span> +against the tyranny of orthodoxy—though +they did not always avail; and in reading +much of the rationalistic literature of this +period we have to read between the lines. +Bayle is an interesting instance.</p> + +<p>If Locke’s philosophy, by setting authority +in its place and deriving all knowledge from +experience, was a powerful aid to rationalism, +his contemporary Bayle worked in the same +direction by the investigation of history. +Driven from France (see above, p. <a href="#p-107">107</a>), he +lived at Amsterdam, where he published his +<span class="title">Philosophical Dictionary</span>. He was really a +freethinker, but he never dropped the disguise +of orthodoxy, and this lends a particular +piquancy to his work. He takes a delight +in marshalling all the objections which +heretics had made to essential Christian +dogmas. He exposed without mercy the +crimes and brutalities of David, and showed +that this favourite of the Almighty was a +person with whom one would refuse to shake +hands. There was a great outcry at this +unedifying candour. Bayle, in replying, +adopted the attitude of Montaigne and +Pascal, and opposed faith to reason.</p> + +<p>The theological virtue of faith, he said, +consists in believing revealed truths simply +and solely on God’s authority. If you +believe in the immortality of the soul for + +<span class="page">[136]</span> +philosophical reasons, you are orthodox, but +you have no part in faith. The merit of +faith becomes greater, in proportion as the +revealed truth surpasses all the powers of +our mind; the more incomprehensible the +truth and the more repugnant to reason, the +greater is the sacrifice we make in accepting +it, the deeper our submission to God. Therefore +a merciless inventory of the objections +which reason has to urge against fundamental +doctrines serves to exalt the merits of faith.</p> + +<p>The <span class="title">Dictionary</span> was also criticized for +the justice done to the moral excellencies of +persons who denied the existence of God. +Bayle replies that if he had been able to find +any atheistical thinkers who lived bad lives, +he would have been delighted to dwell on +their vices, but he knew of none such. As +for the criminals you meet in history, whose +abominable actions make you tremble, their +impieties and blasphemies prove they believed +in a Divinity. This is a natural consequence +of the theological doctrine that the +Devil, who is incapable of atheism, is the +instigator of all the sins of men. For man’s +wickedness must clearly resemble that of the +Devil and must therefore be joined to a belief +in God’s existence, since the Devil is not +an atheist. And is it not a proof of the infinite +wisdom of God that the worst criminals + +<span class="page">[137]</span> +are not atheists, and that most of the atheists +whose names are recorded have been honest +men? By this arrangement Providence sets +bounds to the corruption of man; for if +atheism and moral wickedness were united in +the same persons, the societies of earth would +be exposed to a fatal inundation of sin.</p> + +<p>There was much more in the same vein; +and the upshot was, under the thin veil of +serving faith, to show that the Christian +dogmas were essentially unreasonable.</p> + +<p>Bayle’s work, marked by scholarship and +extraordinary learning, had a great influence +in England as well as in France. It supplied +weapons to assailants of Christianity in both +countries. At first the assault was carried +on with most vigour and ability by the English +deists, who, though their writings are +little read now, did memorable work by their +polemic against the authority of revealed +religion.</p> + +<p>The controversy between the deists and +their orthodox opponents turned on the +question whether the Deity of natural religion +—the God whose existence, as was +thought, could be proved by reason—can be +identified with the author of the Christian +revelation. To the deists this seemed impossible. +The nature of the alleged revelation +seemed inconsistent with the character + +<a name="p-138"></a><span class="page">[138]</span> +of the God to whom reason pointed. The +defenders of revelation, at least all the most +competent, agreed with the deists in making +reason supreme, and through this reliance +on reason some of them fell into heresies. +Clarke, for instance, one of the ablest, was +very unsound on the dogma of the Trinity. +It is also to be noticed that with both sections +the interest of morality was the principal +motive. The orthodox held that the +revealed doctrine of future rewards and +punishments is necessary for morality; the +deists, that morality depends on reason +alone, and that revelation contains a great +deal that is repugnant to moral ideals. +Throughout the eighteenth century morality +was the guiding consideration with Anglican +Churchmen, and religious emotion, +finding no satisfaction within the Church, +was driven, as it were, outside, and sought +an outlet in the Methodism of Wesley and +Whitefield.</p> + +<p>Spinoza had laid down the principle that +Scripture must be interpreted like any other +book (1670), [<a href="#fn-6-2">2</a>] and with the deists this principle +was fundamental. In order to avoid +persecution they generally veiled their conclusions + +<a name="p-139"></a><span class="page">[139]</span> +under sufficiently thin disguises. +Hitherto the Press Licensing Act (1662) had +very effectually prevented the publication +of heterodox works, and it is from orthodox +works denouncing infidel opinions that we +know how rationalism was spreading. But +in 1695, the Press Law was allowed to drop, +and immediately deistic literature began to +appear. There was, however, the danger +of prosecution under the Blasphemy laws. +There were three legal weapons for coercing +those who attacked Christianity: (1) The +Ecclesiastical Courts had and have the power +of imprisoning for a maximum term of six +months, for atheism, blasphemy, heresy, and +damnable opinions. (2) The common law +as interpreted by Lord Chief Justice Hale in +1676, when a certain Taylor was charged +with having said that religion was a cheat +and blasphemed against Christ. The accused +was condemned to a fine and the pillory +by the Judge, who ruled that the Court of +King’s Bench has jurisdiction in such a case, +inasmuch as blasphemous words of the kind +are an offence against the laws and the State, +and to speak against Christianity is to speak +in subversion of the law, since Christianity is +“parcel of the laws of England.” (3) The +statute of 1698 enacts that if any person +educated in the Christian religion “shall by + +<span class="page">[140]</span> +writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking +deny any one of the persons in the Holy +Trinity to be God, or shall assert or maintain +there are more gods than one, or shall deny +the Christian religion to be true, or shall +deny the Holy Scriptures of the Old and +New Testament to be of divine authority,” is +convicted, he shall for the first offence be +adjudged incapable to hold any public offices +or employments, and on the second shall lose +his civil rights and be imprisoned for three +years. This Statute expressly states as its +motive the fact that “many persons have of +late years openly avowed and published +many blasphemous and impious opinions +contrary to the doctrine and principles of the +Christian religion.”</p> + +<p>As a matter of fact, most trials for blasphemy +during the past two hundred years fall +under the second head. But the new Statute +of 1698 was very intimidating, and we can +easily understand how it drove heterodox +writers to ambiguous disguises. One of +these disguises was allegorical interpretation +of Scripture. They showed that literal interpretation +led to absurdities or to inconsistencies +with the wisdom and justice of +God, and pretended to infer that allegorical +interpretation must be substituted. But +they meant the reader to reject their pretended + +<span class="page">[141]</span> +solution and draw a conclusion +damaging to Revelation.</p> + +<p>Among the arguments used in favour of the +truth of Revelation the fulfilment of prophecies +and the miracles of the New Testament +were conspicuous. Anthony Collins, a country +gentleman who was a disciple of Locke, +published in 1733 his <span class="title">Discourse on the +Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion</span>, +in which he drastically exposed the weakness +of the evidence for fulfilment of prophecy, +depending as it does on forced and unnatural +figurative interpretations. Twenty years +before he had written a <span class="title">Discourse of Free-thinking</span> +(in which Bayle’s influence is evident) +pleading for free discussion and the +reference of all religious questions to reason. +He complained of the general intolerance +which prevailed; but the same facts which +testify to intolerance testify also to the +spread of unbelief.</p> + +<p>Collins escaped with comparative impunity, +but Thomas Woolston, a Fellow of +Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, who +wrote six aggressive <span class="title">Discourses on the Miracles +of our Saviour</span> (1727—1730) paid the penalty +for his audacity. Deprived of his Fellowship, +he was prosecuted for libel, and sentenced +to a fine of £100 and a year’s imprisonment. +Unable to pay, he died in prison. He does + +<span class="page">[142]</span> +not adopt the line of arguing that miracles +are incredible or impossible. He examines +the chief miracles related in the Gospels, +and shows with great ability and shrewd +common sense that they are absurd or +unworthy of the performer. He pointed +out, as Huxley was to point out in a controversy +with Gladstone, that the miraculous +driving of devils into a herd of swine was an +unwarrantable injury to somebody’s property. +On the story of the Divine blasting +of the fig tree, he remarks: “What if a yeoman +of Kent should go to look for pippins in +his orchard at Easter (the supposed time that +Jesus sought for these figs) and because of a +disappointment cut down his trees? What +then would his neighbours make of him? +Nothing less than a laughing-stock; and if +the story got into our Publick News, he +would be the jest and ridicule of mankind.”</p> + +<p>Or take his comment on the miracle of the +Pool of Bethesda, where an angel used to +trouble the waters and the man who first +entered the pool was cured of his infirmity. +“An odd and a merry way of conferring a +Divine mercy. And one would think that +the angels of God did this for their own +diversion more than to do good to mankind. +Just as some throw a bone among a kennel +of hounds for the pleasure of seeing them + +<span class="page">[143]</span> +quarrel for it, or as others cast a piece of +money among a company of boys for the +sport of seeing them scramble for it, so was +the pastime of the angels here.” In dealing +with the healing of the woman who suffered +from a bloody flux, he asks: “What if +we had been told of the Pope’s curing an +haemorrhage like this before us, what would +Protestants have said to it? Why, ‘that a +foolish, credulous, and superstitious woman +had fancied herself cured of some slight +indisposition, and the crafty Pope and his +adherents, aspiring after popular applause, +magnified the presumed cure into a miracle.’ +The application of such a supposed story of +a miracle wrought by the Pope is easy; and +if Infidels, Jews, and Mahometans, who have +no better opinion of Jesus than we have of +the Pope, should make it, there’s no help +for it.”</p> + +<p>Woolston professed no doubts of the inspiration +of Scripture. While he argued that +it was out of the question to suppose the +miracles literally true, he pretended to believe +in the fantastic theory that they were +intended allegorically as figures of Christ’s +mysterious operations in the soul of man. +Origen, a not very orthodox Christian Father, +had employed the allegorical method, and +Woolston quotes him in his favour. His + +<span class="page">[144]</span> +vigorous criticisms vary in value, but many +of them hit the nail on the head, and the +fashion of some modern critics to pass over +Woolston’s productions as unimportant because +they are “ribald” or coarse, is +perfectly unjust. The pamphlets had an +enormous sale, and Woolston’s notoriety is +illustrated by the anecdote of the “jolly +young woman” who met him walking abroad +and accosted him with “You old rogue, are +you not hanged yet?” Mr. Woolston answered, +“Good woman, I know you not; +pray what have I done to offend you?” +“You have writ against my Saviour,” she +said; “what would become of my poor sinful +soul if it was not for my dear Saviour?”</p> + +<p>About the same time, Matthew Tindal (a +Fellow of All Souls) attacked Revelation +from a more general point of view. In his +<span class="title">Christianity as old as the Creation</span> (1730) he +undertook to show that the Bible as a revelation +is superfluous, for it adds nothing to +natural religion, which God revealed to man +from the very first by the sole light of reason. +He argues that those who defend Revealed +religion by its agreement with Natural +religion, and thus set up a double government +of reason and authority, fall between +the two. “It ’s an odd jumble,” he observes, +“to prove the truth of a book by the truth + +<span class="page">[145]</span> +of the doctrines it contains, and at the same +time conclude those doctrines to be true +because contained in that book.” He goes +on to criticize the Bible in detail. In order +to maintain its infallibility, without doing +violence to reason, you have, when you find +irrational statements, to torture them and +depart from the literal sense. Would you +think that a Mohammedan was governed by +his Koran, who on all occasions departed +from the literal sense? “Nay, would you +not tell him that his inspired book fell +infinitely short of Cicero’s uninspired writings, +where there is no such occasion to +recede from the letter?”</p> + +<p>As to chronological and physical errors, +which seemed to endanger the infallibility +of the Scriptures, a bishop had met the argument +by saying, reasonably enough, that +in the Bible God speaks according to the +conceptions of those to whom he speaks, and +that it is not the business of Revelation to +rectify their opinions in such matters. Tindal +made this rejoinder:—</p> + +<p>“Is there no difference between God’s not +rectifying men’s sentiments in those matters +and using himself such sentiments as needs +be rectified; or between God’s not mending +men’s logic and rhetoric where ’t is defective +and using such himself; or between God’s + +<span class="page">[146]</span> +not contradicting vulgar notions and confirming +them by speaking according to them? +Can infinite wisdom despair of gaining or +keeping people’s affections without having +recourse to such mean acts?”</p> + +<p>He exposes with considerable effect the +monstrosity of the doctrine of exclusive +salvation. Must we not consider, he asks, +whether one can be said to be sent as a +Saviour of mankind, if he comes to shut +Heaven’s gate against those to whom, before +he came, it was open provided they followed +the dictates of their reason? He +criticizes the inconsistency of the impartial +and universal goodness of God, known to us +by the light of nature, with acts committed +by Jehovah or his prophets. Take the cases +in which the order of nature is violated to +punish men for crimes of which they were not +guilty, such as Elijah’s hindering rain from +falling for three years and a half. If God +could break in upon the ordinary rules of his +providence to punish the innocent for the +guilty, we have no guarantee that if he deals +thus with us in this life, he will not act in +the same way in the life to come, “since if +the eternal rules of justice are once broken +how can we imagine any stop?” But the +ideals of holiness and justice in the Old Testament +are strange indeed. The holier men + +<span class="page">[147]</span> +are represented to be, the more cruel they +seem and the more addicted to cursing. +How surprising to find the holy prophet +Elisha cursing in the name of the Lord little +children for calling him Bald-pate! And, +what is still more surprising, two she-bears +immediately devoured forty-two little +children.</p> + +<p>I have remarked that theologians at this +time generally took the line of basing Christianity +on reason and not on faith. An interesting +little book, <span class="title">Christianity not founded +on Argument</span>, couched in the form of a letter +to a young gentleman at Oxford, by Henry +Dodwell (Junior), appeared in 1741, and +pointed out the dangers of such confidence +in reason. It is an ironical development of +the principle of Bayle, working out the thesis +that Christianity is essentially unreasonable, +and that if you want to believe, reasoning is +fatal. The cultivation of faith and reasoning +produce contrary effects; the philosopher is +disqualified for Divine influences by his very +progress in carnal wisdom; the Gospel must +be received with all the obsequious submission +of a babe who has no other disposition +but to learn his lesson. Christ did not propose +his doctrines to investigation; he did +not lay the arguments for his mission before +his disciples and give them time to consider + +<span class="page">[148]</span> +calmly of their force, and liberty to determine +as their reason should direct them; the +apostles had no qualifications for the task, +being the most artless and illiterate persons +living. Dodwell exposes the absurdity of the +Protestant position. To give all men liberty +to judge for themselves and to expect at the +same time that they shall be of the Preacher’s +mind is such a scheme for unanimity as one +would scarcely imagine any one could be weak +enough to devise in speculation and much +less that any could ever be found hardy +enough to avow and propose it to practice. +The men of Rome “shall rise up in the judgment +(of all considering persons) against this +generation and shall condemn it; for they +invented but the one absurdity of infallibility, +and behold a greater absurdity than +infallibility is here.”</p> + +<p>I have still to speak of the (Third) Earl of +Shaftesbury, whose style has rescued his +writings from entire neglect. His special +interest was ethics. While the valuable +work of most of the heterodox writers of this +period lay in their destructive criticism of +supernatural religion, they clung, as we have +seen, to what was called natural religion— +the belief in a kind and wise personal God, +who created the world, governs it by natural +laws, and desires our happiness. The idea + +<span class="page">[149]</span> +was derived from ancient philosophers and +had been revived by Lord Herbert of Cherbury +in his Latin treatise <span class="title">On Truth</span> (in the +reign of James I). The deists contended +that this was a sufficient basis for morality +and that the Christian inducements to good +behaviour were unnecessary. Shaftesbury in +his <span class="title">Inquiry concerning Virtue</span> (1699) debated +the question and argued that the scheme of +heaven and hell, with the selfish hopes and +fears which they inspire, corrupts morality +and that the only worthy motive for conduct +is the beauty of virtue in itself. He does +not even consider deism a necessary assumption +for a moral code; he admits that the +opinion of atheists does not undermine ethics. +But he thinks that the belief in a good +governor of the universe is a powerful support +to the practice of virtue. He is a thorough +optimist, and is perfectly satisfied with +the admirable adaptation of means to ends, +whereby it is the function of one animal to +be food for another. He makes no attempt to +reconcile the red claws and teeth of nature +with the beneficence of its powerful artist. +“In the main all things are kindly and well +disposed.” The atheist might have said +that he preferred to be at the mercy of blind +chance than in the hands of an autocrat +who, if he pleased Lord Shaftesbury’s sense + +<a name="p-150"></a><span class="page">[150]</span> +of order, had created flies to be devoured +by spiders. But this was an aspect of the +universe which did not much trouble thinkers +in the eighteenth century. On the other +hand, the character of the God of the Old +Testament roused Shaftesbury’s aversion. +He attacks Scripture not directly, but by +allusion or with irony. He hints that if +there is a God, he would be less displeased +with atheists than with those who accepted +him in the guise of Jehovah. As Plutarch +said, “I had rather men should say of me +that there neither is nor ever was such a one +as Plutarch, than they should say ‘There was +a Plutarch, an unsteady, changeable, easily +provokable and revengeful man.’ ” Shaftesbury’s +significance is that he built up a positive +theory of morals, and although it had +no philosophical depth, his influence on +French and German thinkers of the eighteenth +century was immense.</p> + +<p>In some ways perhaps the ablest of the +deists, and certainly the most scholarly, was +Rev. Conyers Middleton, who remained +within the Church. He supported Christianity +on grounds of utility. Even if it is an +imposture, he said, it would be wrong to destroy +it. For it is established by law and it +has a long tradition behind it. Some traditional +religion is necessary and it would + +<span class="page">[151]</span> +be hopeless to supplant Christianity by +reason. But his writings contain effective +arguments which go to undermine Revelation. +The most important was his <span class="title">Free Inquiry</span> +into Christian miracles (1748), which +put in a new and dangerous light an old +question: At what time did the Church +cease to have the power of performing +miracles? We shall see presently how Gibbon +applied Middleton’s method.</p> + +<p>The leading adversaries of the deists appealed, +like them, to reason, and, in appealing +to reason, did much to undermine authority. +The ablest defence of the faith, Bishop +Butler’s <span class="title">Analogy</span> (1736), is suspected of having +raised more doubts than it appeased. +This was the experience of William Pitt the +Younger, and the <span class="title">Analogy</span> made James Mill +(the utilitarian) an unbeliever. The deists, +argued that the unjust and cruel God of +Revelation could not be the God of nature; +Butler pointed to nature and said, There +you behold cruelty and injustice. The argument +was perfectly good against the optimism +of Shaftesbury, but it plainly admitted of the +conclusion—opposite to that which Butler +wished to establish—that a just and beneficent +God does not exist. Butler is driven +to fall back on the sceptical argument that +we are extremely ignorant; that all things + +<span class="page">[152]</span> +are possible, even eternal hell fire; and that +therefore the safe and prudent course is to +accept the Christian doctrine. It may be +remarked that this reasoning, with a few +modifications, could be used in favour of other +religions, at Mecca or at Timbuctoo. He has, +in effect, revived the argument used by Pascal +that if there is one chance in any very +large number that Christianity is true, it is +a man’s interest to be a Christian; for, if it +prove false, it will do him no harm to have +believed it; if it prove true, he will be infinitely +the gainer. Butler seeks indeed to +show that the chances in favour amount to +a probability, but his argument is essentially +of the same intellectual and moral value as +Pascal’s. It has been pointed out that it +leads by an easy logical step from the Anglican +to the Roman Church. Catholics and +Protestants (as King Henry IV of France +argued) agree that a Catholic may be saved; +the Catholics assert that a Protestant will be +damned; therefore the safe course is to embrace +Catholicism. [<a href="#fn-6-3">3</a>]</p> + +<p>I have dwelt at some length upon some +of the English deists, because, while they +occupy an important place in the history of + +<span class="page">[153]</span> +rationalism in England, they also supplied, +along with Bayle, a great deal of the thought +which, manipulated by brilliant writers on +the other side of the Channel, captured the +educated classes in France. We are now in +the age of Voltaire. He was a convinced +deist. He considered that the nature of the +universe proved that it was made by a conscious +architect, he held that God was required +in the interests of conduct, and he +ardently combated atheism. His great +achievements were his efficacious labour in +the cause of toleration, and his systematic +warfare against superstitions. He was profoundly +influenced by English thinkers, especially +Locke and Bolingbroke. This statesman +had concealed his infidelity during his +lifetime except from his intimates; he had +lived long as an exile in France; and his +rationalistic essays were published (1754) +after his death. Voltaire, whose literary +genius converted the work of the English +thinkers into a world-force, did not begin his +campaign against Christianity till after the +middle of the century, when superstitious +practices and religious persecutions were +becoming a scandal in his country. He +assailed the Catholic Church in every field +with ridicule and satire. In a little work +called <span class="title">The Tomb of Fanaticism</span> (written 1736, + +<span class="page">[154]</span> +published 1767), he begins by observing that +a man who accepts his religion (as most +people do) without examining it is like an ox +which allows itself to be harnessed, and proceeds +to review the difficulties in the Bible, +the rise of Christianity, and the course of +Church history; from which he concludes +that every sensible man should hold the +Christian sect in horror. “Men are blind to +prefer an absurd and sanguinary creed, supported +by executioners and surrounded by +fiery faggots, a creed which can only be approved +by those to whom it gives power and +riches, a particular creed only accepted in a +small part of the world—to a simple and +universal religion.” In the <span class="title">Sermon of the +Fifty</span> and the <span class="title">Questions of Zapata</span> we can see +what he owed to Bayle and English critics, +but his touch is lighter and his irony more +telling. His comment on geographical mistakes +in the Old Testament is: “God was +evidently not strong in geography.” Having +called attention to the “horrible crime” +of Lot’s wife in looking backward, and her +conversion into a pillar of salt, he hopes +that the stories of Scripture will make us +better, if they do not make us more enlightened. +One of his favourite methods is +to approach Christian doctrines as a person +who had just heard of the existence of Christians +or Jews for the first time in his life. + +<span class="page">[155]</span> + +His drama, <span class="title">Saul</span> (1763), which the police +tried to suppress, presents the career of +David, the man after God’s own heart, in +all its naked horror. The scene in which +Samuel reproves Saul for not having slain +Agag will give an idea of the spirit of the +piece.</p> +<div class="scene"> + <p class="speaker">SAMUEL: God commands me to tell you +that he repents of having made you king.</p> + <p class="speaker">SAUL: God repents! Only they who commit +errors repent. His eternal wisdom cannot +be unwise. God cannot commit errors.</p> + <p class="speaker">SAMUEL: He can repent of having set on +the throne those who do.</p> + <p class="speaker">SAUL: Well, who does not? Tell me, what +is my fault?</p> + <p class="speaker">SAMUEL: You have pardoned a king.</p> + <p class="speaker">AGAG: What! Is the fairest of virtues +considered a crime in Judea?</p> + <p class="speaker">SAMUEL (to Agag): Silence! do not blaspheme. +(To Saul). Saul, formerly king of +the Jews, did not God command you by my +mouth to destroy all the Amalekites, without +sparing women, or maidens, or children at the +breast?</p> + <p class="speaker">AGAG: Your god—gave such a command! +You are mistaken, you meant to say, your +devil.</p> + <p class="speaker">SAMUEL: Saul, did you obey God?</p> + <p class="speaker">SAUL: I did not suppose such a command + +<span class="page">[156]</span> +was positive. I thought that goodness was +the first attribute of the Supreme Being, and +that a compassionate heart could not displease +him.</p> + <p class="speaker">SAMUEL: You are mistaken, unbeliever. +God reproves you, your sceptre will pass into +other hands.</p> +</div> +<p>Perhaps no writer has ever roused more +hatred in Christendom than Voltaire. He +was looked on as a sort of anti-Christ. That +was natural; his attacks were so tremendously +effective at the time. But he has +been sometimes decried on the ground that he +only demolished and made no effort to build +up where he had pulled down. This is a +narrow complaint. It might be replied that +when a sewer is spreading plague in a town, +we cannot wait to remove it till we have a +new system of drains, and it may fairly be +said that religion as practised in contemporary +France was a poisonous sewer. But the +true answer is that knowledge, and therefore +civilization, are advanced by criticism and +negation, as well as by construction and positive +discovery. When a man has the talent +to attack with effect falsehood, prejudice, and +imposture, it is his duty, if there are any +social duties, to use it.</p> + +<p>For constructive thinking we must go to +the other great leader of French thought, + +<span class="page">[157]</span> +Rousseau, who contributed to the growth of +freedom in a different way. He was a deist, +but his deism, unlike that of Voltaire, was +religious and emotional. He regarded Christianity +with a sort of reverent scepticism. +But his thought was revolutionary and repugnant +to orthodoxy; it made against authority +in every sphere; and it had an enormous +influence. The clergy perhaps dreaded his +theories more than the scoffs and negations +of Voltaire. For some years he was a fugitive +on the face of the earth. <span class="title">Émile</span>, his brilliant +contribution to the theory of education, +appeared in 1762. It contains some remarkable +pages on religion, “the profession of +faith of a Savoyard vicar,” in which the +author’s deistic faith is strongly affirmed and +revelation and theology rejected. The book +was publicly burned in Paris and an order +issued for Rousseau’s arrest. Forced by his +friends to flee, he was debarred from returning +to Geneva, for the government of that +canton followed the example of Paris. He +sought refuge in the canton of Bern and was +ordered to quit. He then fled to the principality +of Neufchâtel which belonged to +Prussia. Frederick the Great, the one really +tolerant ruler of the age, gave him protection, +but he was persecuted and calumniated by +the local clergy, who but for Frederick would + +<span class="page">[158]</span> +have expelled him, and he went to England +for a few months (1766), then returning to +France, where he was left unmolested till +his death. The religious views of Rousseau +are only a minor point in his heretical speculations. +It was by his daring social and +political theories that he set the world on +fire. His <span class="title">Social Contract</span> in which these +theories were set forth was burned at Geneva. +Though his principles will not stand criticism +for a moment, and though his doctrine worked +mischief by its extraordinary power of turning +men into fanatics, yet it contributed to progress, +by helping to discredit privilege and to +establish the view that the object of a State +is to secure the wellbeing of <i>all</i> its members.</p> + +<p>Deism—whether in the semi-Christian +form of Rousseau or the anti-Christian form +of Voltaire—was a house built on the sand, +and thinkers arose in France, England, and +Germany to shatter its foundations. In +France, it proved to be only a half-way inn +to atheism. In 1770, French readers were +startled by the appearance of Baron D’Holbach’s +<span class="title">System of Nature</span>, in which God’s existence +and the immortality of the soul were +denied and the world declared to be matter +spontaneously moving.</p> + +<p>Holbach was a friend of Diderot, who had +also come to reject deism. All the leading + +<span class="page">[159]</span> +ideas in the revolt against the Church had a +place in Diderot’s great work, the <span class="title">Encyclopedia</span>, +in which a number of leading thinkers +collaborated with him. It was not merely a +scientific book of reference. It was representative +of the whole movement of the +enemies of faith. It was intended to lead +men from Christianity with its original sin to +a new conception of the world as a place +which can be made agreeable and in which +the actual evils are due not to radical faults +of human nature but to perverse institutions +and perverse education. To divert interest +from the dogmas of religion to the improvement +of society, to persuade the world that +man’s felicity depends not on Revelation +but on social transformation—this was what +Diderot and Rousseau in their different ways +did so much to effect. And their work influenced +those who did not abandon orthodoxy; +it affected the spirit of the Church itself. +Contrast the Catholic Church in France in +the eighteenth and in the nineteenth century. +Without the work of Voltaire, Rousseau, +Diderot, and their fellow-combatants, +would it have been reformed? “The Christian +Churches” (I quote Lord Morley) “are +assimilating as rapidly as their formulae will +permit, the new light and the more generous +moral ideas and the higher spirituality of + +<span class="page">[160]</span> +teachers who have abandoned all churches +and who are systematically denounced as +enemies of the souls of men.”</p> + +<p>In England the prevalent deistic thought +did not lead to the same intellectual consequences +as in France; yet Hume, the greatest +English philosopher of the century, showed +that the arguments commonly adduced for a +personal God were untenable. I may first +speak of his discussion on miracles in his +<span class="title">Essay on Miracles</span> and in his philosophical +<span class="title">Inquiry concerning Human Understanding</span> +(1748). Hitherto the credibility of miracles +had not been submitted to a general examination +independent of theological assumptions. +Hume, pointing out that there must be a +uniform experience against every miraculous +event (otherwise it would not merit the name +of miracle), and that it will require stronger +testimony to establish a miracle than an event +which is not contrary to experience, lays down +the general maxim that “no testimony is +sufficient to establish a miracle unless the +testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood +would be more miraculous than the fact which +it endeavours to establish.” But, as a matter +of fact, no testimony exists of which the falsehood +would be a prodigy. We cannot find +in history any miracle attested by a sufficient +number of men of such unquestionable good + +<span class="page">[161]</span> +sense, education, and learning, as to secure us +against all delusion in themselves; of such +undoubted integrity as to place them beyond +all suspicion of any design to deceive others; +of such credit in the eyes of mankind as to +have a great deal to lose in case of their being +detected in any falsehood, and at the same +time attesting facts performed in such a public +manner as to render detection unavoidable +—all which circumstances are requisite to +give us a full assurance in the testimony of +men.</p> + +<p>In the <span class="title">Dialogues on Natural Religion</span> which +were not published till after his death (1776), +Hume made an attack on the “argument +from design,” on which deists and Christians +alike relied to prove the existence of a Deity. +The argument is that the world presents clear +marks of design, endless adaptation of means +to ends, which can only be explained as due +to the deliberate plan of a powerful intelligence. +Hume disputes the inference on the +ground that a mere intelligent being is not a +sufficient cause to explain the effect. For the +argument must be that the system of the +material world demands as a cause a corresponding +system of interconnected ideas; but +such a mental system would demand an explanation +of <i>its</i> existence just as much as the +material world; and thus we find ourselves + +<span class="page">[162]</span> +committed to an endless series of causes. +But in any case, even if the argument held, +it would prove only the existence of a Deity +whose powers, though superior to man’s, +might be very limited and whose workmanship +might be very imperfect. For this world +may be very faulty, compared to a superior +standard. It may be the first rude experiment +“of some infant Deity who afterwards +abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance”; +or the work of some inferior Deity at +which his superior would scoff; or the production +of some old superannuated Deity +which since his death has pursued an adventurous +career from the first impulse which he +gave it. An argument which leaves such +deities in the running is worse than useless +for the purposes of Deism or of Christianity.</p> + +<p>The sceptical philosophy of Hume had less +influence on the general public than Gibbon’s +<span class="title">Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire</span>. Of +the numerous freethinking books that appeared +in England in the eighteenth century, +this is the only one which is still a widely +read classic. In what a lady friend of Dr. +Johnson called “the two offensive chapters” +(XV and XVI) the causes of the rise and success +of Christianity are for the first time +critically investigated as a simple historical +phenomenon. Like most freethinkers of the + +<span class="page">[163]</span> +time Gibbon thought it well to protect himself +and his work against the possibility of +prosecution by paying ironical lip-homage +to the orthodox creed. But even if there had +been no such danger, he could not have chosen +a more incisive weapon for his merciless +criticism of orthodox opinion than the irony +which he wielded with superb ease. Having +pointed out that the victory of Christianity +is obviously and satisfactorily explained by +the convincing evidence of the doctrine and +by the ruling providence of its great Author, +he proceeds “with becoming submission” to +inquire into the secondary causes. He traces +the history of the faith up to the time of +Constantine in such a way as clearly to suggest +that the hypothesis of divine interposition +is superfluous and that we have to +do with a purely human development. He +marshals, with ironical protests, the obvious +objections to the alleged evidence for supernatural +control. He does not himself criticize +Moses and the prophets, but he reproduces +the objections which were made against +their authority by “the vain science of the +gnostics.” He notes that the doctrine of +immortality is omitted in the law of Moses, +but this doubtless was a mysterious dispensation +of Providence. We cannot entirely remove +“the imputation of ignorance and + +<span class="page">[164]</span> +obscurity which has been so arrogantly cast +on the first proselytes of Christianity,” but +we must “convert the occasion of scandal into +a subject of edification” and remember that +“the lower we depress the temporal condition +of the first Christians, the more reason we +shall find to admire their merit and success.”</p> + +<p>Gibbon’s treatment of miracles from the +purely historical point of view (he owed a +great deal to Middleton, see above, p. <a href="#p-150">150</a>) +was particularly disconcerting. In the early +age of Christianity “the laws of nature were +frequently suspended for the benefit of the +Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome +turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, +pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and +study, appeared unconscious of any alterations +in the moral or physical government of +the world. Under the reign of Tiberius the +whole earth, or at least a celebrated province +of the Roman Empire, was involved in a +praeternatural darkness of three hours. +Even this miraculous event, which ought to +have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and +the devotion of mankind, passed without +notice in an age of science and history. It +happened during the lifetime of Seneca and +the elder Pliny, who must have experienced +the immediate effects, or received the earliest +intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of these + +<span class="page">[165]</span> +philosophers in a laborious work has recorded +all the great phenomena of nature, earthquakes, +meteors, comets, and eclipses, which +his indefatigable curiosity could collect. +Both the one and the other have omitted to +mention the greatest phenomenon to which +the mortal eye has been witness since the +creation of the globe.” How “shall we excuse +the supine inattention of the pagan and +philosophic world to those evidences which +were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, +not to their reason, but to their senses?”</p> + +<p>Again, if every believer is convinced of the +reality of miracles, every reasonable man is +convinced of their cessation. Yet every age +bears testimony to miracles, and the testimony +seems no less respectable than that of +the preceding generation. When did they +cease? How was it that the generation +which saw the last genuine miracles performed +could not distinguish them from the +impostures which followed? Had men so +soon forgotten “the style of the divine +artist”? The inference is that genuine and +spurious miracles are indistinguishable. But +the credulity or “softness of temper” among +early believers was beneficial to the cause of +truth and religion. “In modern times, a +latent and even involuntary scepticism adheres +to the most pious dispositions. Their + +<span class="page">[166]</span> +admission of supernatural truths is much less +an active consent than a cold and passive +acquiescence. Accustomed long since to observe +and to respect the invariable order of +nature, our reason, or at least our imagination, +is not sufficiently prepared to sustain +the visible action of the Deity.”</p> + +<p>Gibbon had not the advantage of the +minute critical labours which in the following +century were expended on his sources of +information, but his masterly exposure of the +conventional history of the early Church +remains in many of its most important points +perfectly valid to-day. I suspect that his +artillery has produced more effect on intelligent +minds in subsequent generations than +the archery of Voltaire. For his book became +indispensable as the great history of the +Middle Ages; the most orthodox could not +do without it; and the poison must have +often worked.</p> + +<p>We have seen how theological controversy +in the first half of the eighteenth century had +turned on the question whether the revealed +religion was consistent and compatible with +natural religion. The deistic attacks, on this +line, were almost exhausted by the middle of +the century, and the orthodox thought that +they had been satisfactorily answered. But +it was not enough to show that the revelation + +<span class="page">[167]</span> +is reasonable; it was necessary to prove that +it is real and rests on a solid historical basis. +This was the question raised in an acute form +by the criticisms of Hume and Middleton +(1748) on miracles. The ablest answer was +given by Paley in his <span class="title">Evidences of Christianity</span> +(1794), the only one of the apologies +of that age which is still read, though it has +ceased to have any value. Paley’s theology +illustrates how orthodox opinions are coloured, +unconsciously, by the spirit of the time. +He proved (in his <span class="title">Natural Theology</span>) the existence +of God by the argument from design +—without taking any account of the criticisms +of Hume on that argument. Just as +a watchmaker is inferred from a watch, so +a divine workman is inferred from contrivances +in nature. Paley takes his instances +of such contrivance largely from the organs +and constitution of the human body. His +idea of God is that of an ingenious contriver +dealing with rather obstinate material. +Paley’s “God” (Mr. Leslie Stephen remarked) +“has been civilized like man; he has +become scientific and ingenious; he is superior +to Watt or Priestley in devising mechanical +and chemical contrivances, and is +therefore made in the image of that generation +of which Watt and Priestley were conspicuous +lights.” When a God of this kind + +<span class="page">[168]</span> +is established there is no difficulty about +miracles, and it is on miracles that Paley +bases the case for Christianity—all other arguments +are subsidiary. And his proof of +the New Testament miracles is that the apostles +who were eye-witnesses believed in them, +for otherwise they would not have acted and +suffered in the cause of their new religion. +Paley’s defence is the performance of an able +legal adviser to the Almighty.</p> + +<p>The list of the English deistic writers of +the eighteenth century closes with one whose +name is more familiar than any of his predecessors, +Thomas Paine. A Norfolk man, +he migrated to America and played a leading +part in the Revolution. Then he returned to +England and in 1791 published his <span class="title">Rights +of Man</span> in two parts. I have been considering, +almost exclusively, freedom of thought +in religion, because it may be taken as the +thermometer for freedom of thought in general. +At this period it was as dangerous +to publish revolutionary opinions in politics +as in theology. Paine was an enthusiastic +admirer of the American Constitution and a +supporter of the French Revolution (in which +also he was to play a part). His <span class="title">Rights of +Man</span> is an indictment of the monarchical +form of government, and a plea for representative +democracy. It had an enormous + +<span class="page">[169]</span> +sale, a cheap edition was issued, and the +government, finding that it was accessible +to the poorer classes, decided to prosecute. +Paine escaped to France, and received a brilliant +ovation at Calais, which returned him +as deputy to the National Convention. His +trial for high treason came on at the end of +1792. Among the passages in his book, on +which the charge was founded, were these: +“All hereditary government is in its nature +tyranny.” “The time is not very distant +when England will laugh at itself for sending +to Holland, Hanover, Zell, or Brunswick +for men” [meaning King William III and +King George I] “at the expense of a million +a year who understood neither her laws, her +language, nor her interest, and whose capacities +would scarcely have fitted them for the +office of a parish constable. If government +could be trusted to such hands, it must be +some easy and simple thing indeed, and +materials fit for all the purposes may be +found in every town and village in England.” +Erskine was Paine’s counsel, and he made a +fine oration in defence of freedom of speech.</p> + +<p>“Constraint,” he said, “is the natural +parent of resistance, and a pregnant proof +that reason is not on the side of those who +use it. You must all remember, gentlemen, +Lucian’s pleasant story: Jupiter and a countryman + +<span class="page">[170]</span> +were walking together, conversing +with great freedom and familiarity upon +the subject of heaven and earth. The +countryman listened with attention and +acquiescence while Jupiter strove only to +convince him; but happening to hint a +doubt, Jupiter turned hastily around and +threatened him with his thunder. ‘Ah, ha!’ +says the countryman, ‘now, Jupiter, I know +that you are wrong; you are always wrong +when you appeal to your thunder.’ This is +the case with me. I can reason with the +people of England, but I cannot fight against +the thunder of authority.”</p> + +<p>Paine was found guilty and outlawed. He +soon committed a new offence by the publication +of an anti-Christian work, <span class="title">The Age of +Reason</span> (1794 and 1796), which he began to +write in the Paris prison into which he had +been thrown by Robespierre. This book is +remarkable as the first important English +publication in which the Christian scheme of +salvation and the Bible are assailed in plain +language without any disguise or reserve. In +the second place it was written in such a way +as to reach the masses. And, thirdly, while +the criticisms on the Bible are in the same +vein as those of the earlier deists, Paine is the +first to present with force the incongruity of +the Christian scheme with the conception of +the universe attained by astronomical science.</p> + +<span class="page">[171]</span> + +<p>“Though it is not a direct article of the +Christian system that this world that we +inhabit is the whole of the inhabitable globe, +yet it is so worked up therewith—from what +is called the Mosaic account of the creation, +the story of Eve and the apple, and the +counterpart of that story, the death of the +Son of God—that to believe otherwise (that +is, to believe that God created a plurality of +worlds at least as numerous as what we call +stars) renders the Christian system of faith +at once little and ridiculous, and scatters it +in the mind like feathers in the air. The two +beliefs cannot be held together in the same +mind; and he who thinks that he believes +both has thought but little of either.”</p> + +<p>As an ardent deist, who regarded nature +as God’s revelation, Paine was able to press +this argument with particular force. Referring +to some of the tales in the Old Testament, +he says: “When we contemplate the immensity +of that Being who directs and governs +the incomprehensible <i>Whole</i>, of which the +utmost ken of human sight can discover but +a part, we ought to feel shame at calling such +paltry stories the Word of God.”</p> + +<p>The book drew a reply from Bishop Watson, +one of those admirable eighteenth-century +divines, who admitted the right of +private judgment and thought that argument + +<span class="page">[172]</span> +should be met by argument and not by force. +His reply had the rather significant title, +<span class="title">An Apology for the Bible</span>. George III remarked +that he was not aware that any apology +was needed for that book. It is a weak +defence, but is remarkable for the concessions +which it makes to several of Paine’s criticisms +of Scripture—admissions which were +calculated to damage the doctrine of the infallibility +of the Bible.</p> + +<p>It was doubtless in consequence of the +enormous circulation of the <span class="title">Age of Reason</span> +that a Society for the Suppression of Vice +decided to prosecute the publisher. Unbelief +was common among the ruling class, +but the view was firmly held that religion +was necessary for the populace and that any +attempt to disseminate unbelief among the +lower classes must be suppressed. Religion +was regarded as a valuable instrument to keep +the poor in order. It is notable that of the +earlier rationalists (apart from the case of +Woolston) the only one who was punished +was Peter Annet, a schoolmaster, who tried +to popularize freethought and was sentenced +for diffusing “diabolical” opinions to the +pillory and hard labour (1763). Paine held +that the people at large had the right of access +to all new ideas, and he wrote so as to reach +the people. Hence his book must be suppressed. + +<span class="page">[173]</span> +At the trial (1797) the judge placed +every obstacle in the way of the defence. +The publisher was sentenced to a year’s +imprisonment.</p> + +<p>This was not the end of Paine prosecutions. +In 1811 a Third Part of the <span class="title">Age of Reason</span> +appeared, and Eaton the publisher was +condemned to eighteen months’ imprisonment +and to stand in the pillory once a month. +The judge, Lord Ellenborough, said in his +charge, that “to deny the truths of the book +which is the foundation of our faith has never +been permitted.” The poet Shelley addressed +to Lord Ellenborough a scathing +letter. “Do you think to convert Mr. +Eaton to your religion by embittering his +existence? You might force him by torture +to profess your tenets, but he could not +believe them except you should make them +credible, which perhaps exceeds your power. +Do you think to please the God you worship +by this exhibition of your zeal? If so, the +demon to whom some nations offer human +hecatombs is less barbarous than the deity +of civilized society!” In 1819 Richard Carlisle +was prosecuted for publishing the <span class="title">Age of +Reason</span> and sentenced to a large fine and three +years’ imprisonment. Unable to pay the +fine he was kept in prison for three years. +His wife and sister, who carried on the business + +<span class="page">[174]</span> +and continued to sell the book, were +fined and imprisoned soon afterwards and a +whole host of shop assistants.</p> + +<p>If his publishers suffered in England, the +author himself suffered in America where +bigotry did all it could to make the last years +of his life bitter.</p> + +<p>The age of enlightenment began in Germany +in the middle of the eighteenth century. +In most of the German States, thought +was considerably less free than in England. +Under Frederick the Great’s father, the philosopher +Wolff was banished from Prussia for +according to the moral teachings of the +Chinese sage Confucius a praise which, it was +thought, ought to be reserved for Christianity. +He returned after the accession of +Frederick, under whose tolerant rule Prussia +was an asylum for those writers who suffered +for their opinions in neighbouring States. +Frederick, indeed, held the view which was +held by so many English rationalists of the +time, and is still held widely enough, that +freethought is not desirable for the multitude, +because they are incapable of understanding +philosophy. Germany felt the +influence of the English Deists, of the French +freethinkers, and of Spinoza; but in the +German rationalistic propaganda of this +period there is nothing very original or interesting. + +<span class="page">[175]</span> +The names of Edelmann and +Bahrdt may be mentioned. The works of +Edelmann, who attacked the inspiration of +the Bible, were burned in various cities, and +he was forced to seek Frederick’s protection +at Berlin. Bahrdt was more aggressive than +any other writer of the time. Originally +a preacher, it was by slow degrees that he +moved away from the orthodox faith. His +translation of the New Testament cut short +his ecclesiastical career. His last years were +spent as an inn-keeper. His writings, for +instance his popular <span class="title">Letters on the Bible</span>, must +have had a considerable effect, if we may +judge by the hatred which he excited among +theologians.</p> + +<p>It was not, however, in direct rationalistic +propaganda, but in literature and philosophy, +that the German enlightenment of this +century expressed itself. The most illustrious +men of letters, Goethe (who was profoundly +influenced by Spinoza) and Schiller, +stood outside the Churches, and the effect +of their writings and of the whole literary +movement of the time made for the freest +treatment of human experience.</p> + +<p>One German thinker shook the world—the +philosopher Kant. His <span class="title">Critic of Pure Reason</span> +demonstrated that when we attempt to prove +by the fight of the intellect the existence of + +<span class="page">[176]</span> +God and the immortality of the Soul, we fall +helplessly into contradictions. His destructive +criticism of the argument from design +and all natural theology was more complete +than that of Hume; and his philosophy, +different though his system was, issued in the +same practical result as that of Locke, to +confine knowledge to experience. It is true +that afterwards, in the interest of ethics, he +tried to smuggle in by a back-door the Deity +whom he had turned out by the front gate, +but the attempt was not a success. His +philosophy—while it led to new speculative +systems in which the name of God was used +to mean something very different from the +Deistic conception—was a significant step +further in the deliverance of reason from the +yoke of authority.</p> +<div class="footnote"> +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-6-1"></a>[1] For the sake of simplicity I use “deist” in this sense +throughout, though “theist” is now the usual term.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-6-2"></a>[2] Spinoza’s <span class="title">Theological Political Treatise</span>, which deals with +the interpretation of Scripture, was translated into English +in 1689.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-6-3"></a>[3] See Benn, <span class="title">Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century</span>, vol. i, +p. 138 <i>seq</i>., for a good exposure of the fallacies and sophistries +of Butler.</p> +</div> +</div> +<div class="chapter"> +<a name="ch-7"></a><h2>CHAPTER VII</h2> + +<h3>THE PROGRESS OF RATIONALISM</h3> + +<h3>(NINETEENTH CENTURY)</h3> + +<p>MODERN science, heralded by the researches +of Copernicus, was founded in the +seventeenth century, which saw the demonstration +of the Copernican theory, the discovery +of gravitation, the discovery of the +circulation of the blood, and the foundation + +<span class="page">[177]</span> +of modern chemistry and physics. The true +nature of comets was ascertained, and they +ceased to be regarded as signs of heavenly +wrath. But several generations were to +pass before science became, in Protestant +countries, an involuntary arch-enemy of +theology. Till the nineteenth century, it +was only in minor points, such as the movement +of the earth, that proved scientific +facts seemed to conflict with Scripture, and +it was easy enough to explain away these +inconsistencies by a new interpretation of +the sacred texts. Yet remarkable facts +were accumulating which, though not explained +by science, seemed to menace the +credibility of Biblical history. If the story +of Noah’s Ark and the Flood is true, how was +it that beasts unable to swim or fly inhabit +America and the islands of the Ocean? And +what about the new species which were +constantly being found in the New World +and did not exist in the Old? Where did +the kangaroos of Australia drop from? The +only explanation compatible with received +theology seemed to be the hypothesis of innumerable +new acts of creation, later than +the Flood. It was in the field of natural +history that scientific men of the eighteenth +century suffered most from the coercion of +authority. Linnaeus felt it in Sweden, Buffon + +<span class="page">[178]</span> +in France. Buffon was compelled to retract +hypotheses which he put forward about the +formation of the earth in his <span class="title">Natural History</span> +(1749), and to state that he believed implicitly +in the Bible account of Creation.</p> + +<p>At the beginning of the nineteenth century +Laplace worked out the mechanics of the +universe, on the nebular hypothesis. His +results dispensed, as he said to Napoleon, +with the hypothesis of God, and were duly +denounced. His theory involved a long +physical process before the earth and solar +system came to be formed; but this was not +fatal, for a little ingenuity might preserve +the credit of the first chapter of <span class="title">Genesis</span>. +Geology was to prove a more formidable +enemy to the Biblical story of the Creation +and the Deluge. The theory of a French +naturalist (Cuvier) that the earth had repeatedly +experienced catastrophes, each of +which necessitated a new creative act, helped +for a time to save the belief in divine intervention, +and Lyell, in his <span class="title">Principles of +Geology</span> (1830), while he undermined the assumption +of catastrophes, by showing that +the earth’s history could be explained by the +ordinary processes which we still see in operation, +yet held fast to successive acts of +creation. It was not till 1863 that he presented +fully, in his <span class="title">Antiquity of Man</span>, the + +<span class="page">[179]</span> +evidence which showed that the human race +had inhabited the earth for a far longer period +than could be reconciled with the record of +Scripture. That record might be adapted +to the results of science in regard not only to +the earth itself but also to the plants and +lower animals, by explaining the word “day” +in the Jewish story of creation to signify +some long period of time. But this way out +was impossible in the case of the creation of +man, for the sacred chronology is quite +definite. An English divine of the seventeenth +century ingeniously calculated that +man was created by the Trinity on October +23, B.C. 4004, at 9 o’clock in the morning, and +no reckoning of the Bible dates could put the +event much further back. Other evidence +reinforced the conclusions from geology, but +geology alone was sufficient to damage irretrievably +the historical truth of the Jewish +legend of Creation. The only means of rescuing +it was to suppose that God had created +misleading evidence for the express purpose of +deceiving man.</p> + +<p>Geology shook the infallibility of the Bible, +but left the creation of some prehistoric Adam +and Eve a still admissible hypothesis. Here +however zoology stepped in, and pronounced +upon the origin of man. It was an old conjecture +that the higher forms of life, including + +<span class="page">[180]</span> +man, had developed out of lower forms, and +advanced thinkers had been reaching the +conclusion that the universe, as we find it, +is the result of a continuous process, unbroken +by supernatural interference, and +explicable by uniform natural laws. But +while the reign of law in the world of non-living +matter seemed to be established, the +world of life could be considered a field in +which the theory of divine intervention is +perfectly valid, so long as science failed to +assign satisfactory causes for the origination +of the various kinds of animals and plants. +The publication of Darwin’s <span class="title">Origin of Species</span> +in 1859 is, therefore, a landmark not only in +science but in the war between science and +theology. When this book appeared, Bishop +Wilberforce truly said that “the principle +of natural selection is incompatible with the +word of God,” and theologians in Germany +and France as well as in England cried aloud +against the threatened dethronement of the +Deity. The appearance of the <span class="title">Descent of +Man</span> (1871), in which the evidence for the +pedigree of the human race from lower +animals was marshalled with masterly force, +renewed the outcry. The Bible said that +God created man in his own image, Darwin +said that man descended from an ape. +The feelings of the orthodox world may be + +<span class="page">[181]</span> +expressed in the words of Mr. Gladstone: +“Upon the grounds of what is called evolution +God is relieved of the labour of creation, +and in the name of unchangeable laws +is discharged from governing the world.” +It was a discharge which, as Spencer observed, +had begun with Newton’s discovery of gravitation. +If Darwin did not, as is now recognized, +supply a complete explanation of the origin +of species, his researches shattered the supernatural +theory and confirmed the view to +which many able thinkers had been led that +development is continuous in the living as +in the non-living world. Another nail was +driven into the coffin of Creation and the Fall +of Adam, and the doctrine of redemption +could only be rescued by making it independent +of the Jewish fable on which it was +founded.</p> + +<p>Darwinism, as it is called, has had the larger +effect of discrediting the theory of the adaptation +of means to ends in nature by an external +and infinitely powerful intelligence. The inadequacy +of the argument from design, as a +proof of God’s existence, had been shown by +the logic of Hume and Kant; but the observation +of the life-processes of nature shows that +the very analogy between nature and art, on +which the argument depends, breaks down. +The impropriety of the analogy has been + +<span class="page">[182]</span> +pointed out, in a telling way, by a German +writer (Lange). If a man wants to shoot a +hare which is in a certain field, he does not +procure thousands of guns, surround the +field, and cause them all to be fired off; or +if he wants a house to live in, he does not +build a whole town and abandon to weather +and decay all the houses but one. If he did +either of these things we should say he was +mad or amazingly unintelligent; his actions +certainly would not be held to indicate a +powerful mind, expert in adapting means to +ends. But these are the sort of things that +nature does. Her wastefulness in the propagation +of life is reckless. For the production +of one life she sacrifices innumerable germs. +The “end” is achieved in one case out of +thousands; the rule is destruction and failure. +If intelligence had anything to do with this +bungling process, it would be an intelligence +infinitely low. And the finished product, +if regarded as a work of design, points to +incompetence in the designer. Take the +human eye. An illustrious man of science +(Helmholtz) said, “If an optician sent it to +me as an instrument, I should send it back +with reproaches for the carelessness of his +work and demand the return of my money. +Darwin showed how the phenomena might +be explained as events not brought about + +<span class="page">[183]</span> +intentionally, but due to exceptional concurrences +of circumstances.</p> + +<p>The phenomena of nature are a system of +things which co-exist and follow each other +according to invariable laws. This deadly +proposition was asserted early in the nineteenth +century to be an axiom of science. +It was formulated by Mill (in his <span class="title">System of +Logic</span>, 1843) as the foundation on which +scientific induction rests. It means that at +any moment the state of the whole universe +is the effect of its state at the preceding +moment; the casual sequence between two +successive states is not broken by any arbitrary +interference suppressing or altering the +relation between cause and effect. Some ancient +Greek philosophers were convinced +of this principle; the work done by modern +science in every field seems to be a verification +of it. But it need not be stated in such an +absolute form. Recently, scientific men have +been inclined to express the axiom with more +reserve and less dogmatically. They are +prepared to recognize that it is simply a postulate +without which the scientific comprehension +of the universe would be impossible, +and they are inclined to state it not as a +law of causation—for the idea of causation +leads into metaphysics—but rather as uniformity +of experience. But they are not + +<span class="page">[184]</span> +readier to admit exceptions to this uniformity +than their predecessors were to admit exceptions +to the law of causation.</p> + +<p>The idea of development has been applied +not only to nature, but to the mind of man +and to the history of civilization, including +thought and religion. The first who attempted +to apply this idea methodically to the whole +universe was not a student of natural science, +but a metaphysician, Hegel. His extremely +difficult philosophy had such a wide influence +on thought that a few words must be said +about its tendency. He conceived the whole +of existence as what he called the Absolute +Idea, which is not in space or time and is compelled +by the laws of its being to manifest +itself in the process of the world, first externalizing +itself in nature, and then becoming +conscious of itself as spirit in individual +minds. His system is hence called Absolute +Idealism. The attraction which it exercised +has probably been in great measure due to +the fact that it was in harmony with nineteenth-century +thought, in so far as it conceived +the process of the world, both in nature +and spirit, as a necessary development +from lower to higher stages. In this respect +indeed Hegel’s vision was limited. He treats +the process as if it were practically complete +already, and does not take into account + +<span class="page">[185]</span> +the probability of further development in +the future, to which other thinkers of his +own time were turning their attention. But +what concerns us here is that, while Hegel’s +system is “idealistic,” finding the explanation +of the universe in thought and not in matter, +it tended as powerfully as any materialistic +system to subvert orthodox beliefs. It is +true that some have claimed it as supporting +Christianity. A certain colour is lent to this +by Hegel’s view that the Christian creed, as +the highest religion, contains doctrines which +express imperfectly some of the ideas of the +highest philosophy—his own; along with the +fact that he sometimes speaks of the Absolute +Idea as if it were a person, though personality +would be a limitation inconsistent with his +conception of it. But it is sufficient to observe +that, whatever value be assigned to Christianity, +he regarded it from the <i>superior</i> standpoint +of a purely intellectual philosophy, not +as a special revelation of truth, but as a +certain approximation to the truth which +philosophy alone can reach; and it may be +said with some confidence that any one who +comes under Hegel’s spell feels that he is in +possession of a theory of the universe which +relieves him from the need or desire of any +revealed religion. His influence in Germany, +Russia, and elsewhere has entirely made for +highly unorthodox thought.</p> + +<span class="page">[186]</span> + +<p>Hegel was not aggressive, he was superior. +His French contemporary, Comte, who also +thought out a comprehensive system, aggressively +and explicitly rejected theology as an +obsolete way of explaining the universe. He +rejected metaphysics likewise, and all that +Hegel stood for, as equally useless, on the +ground that metaphysicians explain nothing, +but merely describe phenomena in abstract +terms, and that questions about the origin of +the world and why it exists are quite beyond +the reach of reason. Both theology and +metaphysics are superseded by science—the +investigation of causes and effects and coexistences; +and the future progress of society +will be guided by the scientific view of the +world which confines itself to the positive +data of experience. Comte was convinced +that religion is a social necessity, and, to +supply the place of the theological religions +which he pronounced to be doomed, he invented +a new religion—the religion of Humanity. +It differs from the great religions of the +world in having no supernatural or non-rational +articles of belief, and on that account +he had few adherents. But the “Positive +Philosophy” of Comte has exercised great +influence, not least in England, where its +principles have been promulgated especially +by Mr. Frederic Harrison, who in the latter + +<span class="page">[187]</span> +half of the nineteenth century has been one +of the most indefatigable workers in the +cause of reason against authority.</p> + +<p>Another comprehensive system was worked +out by an Englishman, Herbert Spencer. Like +Comte’s, it was based on science, and attempts +to show how, starting with a nebular universe, +the whole knowable world, psychical and +social as well as physical, can be deduced. +His <span class="title">Synthetic Philosophy</span> perhaps did more +than anything else to make the idea of +evolution familiar in England.</p> + +<p>I must mention one other modern explanation +of the world, that of Haeckel, the zoologist, +professor at Jena, who may be called +the prophet of evolution. His <span class="title">Creation of +Man</span> (1868) covered the same ground as +Darwin’s <span class="title">Descent</span>, had an enormous circulation, +and was translated, I believe, into +fourteen languages. His <span class="title">World-riddles</span> (1899) +enjoys the same popularity. He has taught, +like Spencer, that the principle of evolution +applies not only to the history of nature, but +also to human civilization and human thought. +He differs from Spencer and Comte in not +assuming any unknowable reality behind +natural phenomena. His adversaries commonly +stigmatize his theory as materialism, +but this is a mistake. Like Spinoza he recognizes +matter and mind, body and thought, as + +<span class="page">[188]</span> +two inseparable sides of ultimate reality, +which he calls God; in fact, he identifies his +philosophy with that of Spinoza. And he +logically proceeds to conceive material atoms +as thinking. His idea of the physical world +is based on the old mechanical conception +of matter, which in recent years has been +discredited. But Haeckel’s <i>Monism</i>, [<a href="#fn-7-1">1</a>] as he +called his doctrine, has lately been reshaped +and in its new form promises to exercise wide +influence on thoughtful people in Germany. +I will return later to this Monistic movement.</p> + +<p>It had been a fundamental principle of +Comte that human actions and human history +are as strictly subject as nature is, to the law +of causation. Two psychological works appeared +in England in 1855 (Bain’s <span class="title">Senses and +Intellect</span> and Spencer’s <span class="title">Principles of Psychology</span>), +which taught that our volitions are +completely determined, being the inevitable +consequences of chains of causes and effects. +But a far deeper impression was produced +two years later by the first volume of Buckle’s +<span class="title">History of Civilization in England</span> (a work of +much less permanent value), which attempted +to apply this principle to history. Men act in +consequence of motives; their motives are +the results of preceding facts; so that “if we +were acquainted with the whole of the antecedents + +<span class="page">[189]</span> +and with all the laws of their movements, +we could with unerring certainty +predict the whole of their immediate results.” +Thus history is an unbroken chain of causes +and effects. Chance is excluded; it is a mere +name for the defects of our knowledge. +Mysterious and providential interference is +excluded. Buckle maintained God’s existence, +but eliminated him from history; and +his book dealt a resounding blow at the theory +that human actions are not submitted to the +law of universal causation.</p> + +<p>The science of anthropology has in recent +years aroused wide interest. Inquiries into +the condition of early man have shown +(independently of Darwinism) that there is +nothing to be said for the view that he fell +from a higher to a lower state; the evidence +points to a slow rise from mere animality. +The origin of religious beliefs has been investigated, +with results disquieting for orthodoxy. +The researches of students of anthropology +and comparative religion—such as Tylor, +Robertson Smith, and Frazer—have gone +to show that mysterious ideas and dogma +and rites which were held to be peculiar to +the Christian revelation are derived from +the crude ideas of primitive religions. That +the mystery of the Eucharist comes from the +common savage rite of eating a dead god, + +<span class="page">[190]</span> +that the death and resurrection of a god in +human form, which form the central fact of +Christianity, and the miraculous birth of a +Saviour are features which it has in common +with pagan religions—such conclusions are +supremely unedifying. It may be said that +in themselves they are not fatal to the claims +of the current theology. It may be held, for +instance, that, as part of Christian revelation, +such ideas acquired a new significance and +that God wisely availed himself of familiar +beliefs—which, though false and leading to +cruel practices, he himself had inspired and +permitted—in order to construct a scheme +of redemption which should appeal to the +prejudices of man. Some minds may find +satisfaction in this sort of explanation, but +it may be suspected that most of the few +who study modern researches into the origin +of religious beliefs will feel the lines which +were supposed to mark off the Christian from +all other faiths dissolving before their eyes.</p> + +<p>The general result of the advance of science, +including anthropology, has been to create +a coherent view of the world, in which the +Christian scheme, based on the notions of +an unscientific age and on the arrogant +assumption that the universe was made for +man, has no suitable or reasonable place. If +Paine felt this a hundred years ago, it is far + +<span class="page">[191]</span> +more apparent now. All minds however are +not equally impressed with this incongruity. +There are many who will admit the proofs +furnished by science that the Biblical record +as to the antiquity of man is false, but are +not affected by the incongruity between the +scientific and theological conceptions of the +world.</p> + +<p>For such minds science has only succeeded +in carrying some entrenchments, which may +be abandoned without much harm. It has +made the old orthodox view of the infallibility +of the Bible untenable, and upset the doctrine +of the Creation and Fall. But it would still +be possible for Christianity to maintain the +supernatural claim, by modifying its theory +of the authority of the Bible and revising its +theory of redemption, if the evidence of +natural science were the only group of facts +with which it collided. It might be argued +that the law of universal causation is a hypothesis +inferred from experience, but that +experience includes the testimonies of history +and must therefore take account of the clear +evidence of miraculous occurrences in the +New Testament (evidence which is valid, +even if that book was not inspired). Thus, +a stand could be taken against the generalization +of science on the firm ground of historical +fact. That solid ground, however, has given + +<span class="page">[192]</span> +way, undermined by historical criticism, +which has been more deadly than the common-sense +criticism of the eighteenth century.</p> + +<p>The methodical examination of the records +contained in the Bible, dealing with them +as if they were purely human documents, is +the work of the nineteenth century. Something, +indeed, had already been done. Spinoza, +for instance (above, p. <a href="#p-138">138</a>), and Simon, +a Frenchman whose books were burnt, were +pioneers; and the modern criticism of the +Old Testament was begun by Astruc (professor +of medicine at Paris), who discovered +an important clue for distinguishing different +documents used by the compiler of the Book +of Genesis (1753). His German contemporary, +Reimarus, a student of the New Testament, +anticipated the modern conclusion +that Jesus had no intention of founding a new +religion, and saw that the Gospel of St. John +presents a different figure from the Jesus of +the other evangelists.</p> + +<p>But in the nineteenth century the methods +of criticism, applied by German scholars to +Homer and to the records of early Roman +history, were extended to the investigation +of the Bible. The work has been done +principally in Germany. The old tradition +that the Pentateuch was written by Moses +has been completely discredited. It is now + +<span class="page">[193]</span> +agreed unanimously by all who have studied +the facts that the Pentateuch was put together +from a number of different documents +of different ages, the earliest dating from the +ninth, the last from the fifth, century B.C.; +and there are later minor additions. An +important, though undesigned, contribution +was made to this exposure by an Englishman, +Colenso, Bishop of Natal. It had been +held that the oldest of the documents which +had been distinguished was a narrative which +begins in Genesis, Chapter I, but there was +the difficulty that this narrative seemed to +be closely associated with the legislation of +Leviticus which could be proved to belong to +the fifth century. In 1862 Colenso published +the first part of his <span class="title">Pentateuch and the Book +of Joshua Critically Examined</span>. His doubts +of the truth of Old Testament history had +been awakened by a converted Zulu who +asked the intelligent question whether he +could really believe in the story of the Flood, +“that all the beasts and birds and creeping +things upon the earth, large and small, from +hot countries and cold, came thus by pairs +and entered into the ark with Noah? And +did Noah gather food for them <i>all</i>, for the +beasts and birds of prey as well as the rest?” +The Bishop then proceeded to test the accuracy +of the inspired books by examining + +<span class="page">[194]</span> +the numerical statements which they contain. +The results were fatal to them as historical +records. Quite apart from miracles (the +possibility of which he did not question), he +showed that the whole story of the sojourn +of the Israelites in Egypt and the wilderness +was full of absurdities and impossibilities. +Colenso’s book raised a storm of indignation +in England—he was known as “the wicked +bishop”; but on the Continent its reception +was very different. The portions of the +Pentateuch and Joshua, which he proved to +be unhistorical, belonged precisely to the +narrative which had caused perplexity; and +critics were led by his results to conclude that, +like the Levitical laws with which it was +connected, it was as late as the fifth century.</p> + +<p>One of the most striking results of the +researches on the Old Testament has been +that the Jews themselves handled their +traditions freely. Each of the successive +documents, which were afterwards woven +together, was written by men who adopted +a perfectly free attitude towards the older +traditions, and having no suspicion that they +were of divine origin did not bow down +before their authority. It was reserved for +the Christians to invest with infallible authority +the whole indiscriminate lump of +these Jewish documents, inconsistent not + +<span class="page">[195]</span> +only in their tendencies (since they reflect +the spirit of different ages), but also in some +respects in substance. The examination of +most of the other Old Testament books has +led to conclusions likewise adverse to the +orthodox view of their origin and character. +New knowledge on many points has been +derived from the Babylonian literature which +has been recovered during the last half +century. One of the earliest (1872) and +most sensational discoveries was that the +Jews got their story of the Flood from +Babylonian mythology.</p> + +<p>Modern criticism of the New Testament +began with the stimulating works of Baur +and of Strauss, whose <span class="title">Life of Jesus</span> (1835), +in which the supernatural was entirely +rejected, had an immense success and caused +furious controversy. Both these rationalists +were influenced by Hegel. At the same time +a classical scholar, Lachmann, laid the foundations +of the criticism of the Greek text +of the New Testament, by issuing the first +scientific edition. Since then seventy years +of work have led to some certain results which +are generally accepted.</p> + +<p>In the first place, no intelligent person who +has studied modern criticism holds the old +view that each of the four biographies of +Jesus is an independent work and an independent + +<span class="page">[196]</span> +testimony to the facts which are +related. It is acknowledged that those portions +which are common to more than one +and are written in identical language have the +same origin and represent only one testimony. +In the second place, it is allowed that the +first Gospel is not the oldest and that the +apostle Matthew was not its author. There +is also a pretty general agreement that Mark’s +book is the oldest. The authorship of the +fourth Gospel, which like the first was supposed +to have been written by an eye-witness, +is still contested, but even those who adhere +to the tradition admit that it represents a +theory about Jesus which is widely different +from the view of the three other biographers.</p> + +<p>The result is that it can no longer be said +that for the life of Jesus there is the evidence +of eye-witnesses. The oldest account (Mark) +was composed at the earliest some thirty years +after the Crucifixion. If such evidence is +considered good enough to establish the +supernatural events described in that document, +there are few alleged supernatural +occurrences which we shall not be equally +entitled to believe. As a matter of fact, an interval +of thirty years makes little difference, +for we know that legends require little time +to grow. In the East, you will hear of +miracles which happened the day before + +<span class="page">[197]</span> +yesterday. The birth of religions is always +enveloped in legend, and the miraculous +thing would be, as M. Salomon Reinach has +observed, if the story of the birth of Christianity +were pure history.</p> + +<p>Another disturbing result of unprejudiced +examination of the first three Gospels is that, +if you take the recorded words of Jesus to be +genuine tradition, he had no idea of founding +a new religion. And he was fully persuaded +that the end of the world was at hand. At +present, the chief problem of advanced criticism +seems to be whether his entire teaching +was not determined by this delusive +conviction.</p> + +<p>It may be said that the advance of knowledge +has thrown no light on one of the most +important beliefs that we are asked to accept +on authority, the doctrine of immortality. +Physiology and psychology have indeed +emphasized the difficulties of conceiving a +thinking mind without a nervous system. +Some are sanguine enough to think that, by +scientific examination of psychical phenomena, +we may possibly come to know whether +the “spirits” of dead people exist. If the +existence of such a world of spirits were ever +established, it would possibly be the greatest +blow ever sustained by Christianity. For the +great appeal of this and of some other religions + +<span class="page">[198]</span> +lies in the promise of a future life of +which otherwise we should have no knowledge. +If existence after death were proved +and became a scientific fact like the law of +gravitation, a revealed religion might lose +its power. For the whole point of a revealed +religion is that it is not based on scientific +facts. So far as I know, those who are +convinced, by spiritualistic experiments, that +they have actual converse with spirits of the +dead, and for whom this converse, however +delusive the evidence may be, is a fact proved +by experience, cease to feel any interest in +religion. They possess knowledge and can +dispense with faith.</p> + +<p>The havoc which science and historical +criticism have wrought among orthodox +beliefs during the last hundred years was +not tamely submitted to, and controversy +was not the only weapon employed. Strauss +was deprived of his professorship at Tübingen, +and his career was ruined. Renan, whose +sensational <span class="title">Life of Jesus</span> also rejected the +supernatural, lost his chair in the Collège de +France. Büchner was driven from Tübingen +(1855) for his book on <span class="title">Force and Matter</span>, +which, appealing to the general public, set +forth the futility of supernatural explanations +of the universe. An attempt was made to +chase Haeckel from Jena. In recent years, + +<span class="page">[199]</span> +a French Catholic, the Abbé Loisy, has made +notable contributions to the study of the +New Testament and he was rewarded by +major excommunication in 1907.</p> + +<p>Loisy is the most prominent figure in a +growing movement within the Catholic +Church known as Modernism—a movement +which some think is the gravest crisis in the +history of the Church since the thirteenth +century. The Modernists do not form an +organized party; they have no programme. +They are devoted to the Church, to its traditions +and associations, but they look on +Christianity as a religion which has developed, +and whose vitality depends upon its +continuing to develop. They are bent on +reinterpreting the dogmas in the light of +modern science and criticism. The idea of +development had already been applied by +Cardinal Newman to Catholic theology. He +taught that it was a natural, and therefore +legitimate, development of the primitive +creed. But he did not draw the conclusion +which the Modernists draw that if Catholicism +is not to lose its power of growth and +die, it must assimilate some of the results +of modern thought. This is what they are +attempting to do for it.</p> + +<p>Pope Pius X has made every effort to +suppress the Modernists. In 1907 (July) he + +<span class="page">[200]</span> +issued a decree denouncing various results of +modern Biblical criticism which are defended +in Loisy’s works. The two fundamental +propositions that “the organic constitution +of the Church is not immutable, but that +Christian society is subject, like every human +society, to a perpetual evolution,” and that +“the dogmas which the Church regards as +revealed are not fallen from heaven but are +an interpretation of religious facts at which +the human mind laboriously arrived”—both +of which might be deduced from Newman’s +writings—are condemned. Three months +later the Pope issued a long Encyclical letter, +containing an elaborate study of Modernist +opinions, and ordaining various measures for +stamping out the evil. No Modernist would +admit that this document represents his +views fairly. Yet some of the remarks seem +very much to the point. Take one of their +books: “one page might be signed by a +Catholic; turn over and you think you are +reading the work of a rationalist. In writing +history, they make no mention of Christ’s +divinity; in the pulpit, they proclaim it +loudly.”</p> + +<p>A plain man may be puzzled by these +attempts to retain the letter of old dogmas +emptied of their old meaning, and may think +it natural enough that the head of the Catholic + +<span class="page">[201]</span> +Church should take a clear and definite +stand against the new learning which, seems +fatal to its fundamental doctrines. For +many years past, liberal divines in the Protestant +Churches have been doing what the +Modernists are doing. The phrase “Divinity +of Christ” is used, but is interpreted +so as not to imply a miraculous birth. The +Resurrection is preached, but is interpreted +so as not to imply a miraculous bodily resurrection. +The Bible is said to be an inspired +book, but inspiration is used in a vague sense, +much as when one says that Plato was inspired; +and the vagueness of this new idea +of inspiration is even put forward as a merit. +Between the extreme views which discard +the miraculous altogether, and the old +orthodoxy, there are many gradations of +belief. In the Church of England to-day it +would be difficult to say what is the minimum +belief required either from its members or +from its clergy. Probably every leading ecclesiastic +would give a different answer.</p> + +<p>The rise of rationalism within the English +Church is interesting and illustrates the +relations between Church and State.</p> + +<p>The pietistic movement known as Evangelicalism, +which Wilberforce’s <span class="title">Practical View +of Christianity</span> (1797) did much to make popular, +introduced the spirit of Methodism + +<span class="page">[202]</span> +within the Anglican Church, and soon put +an end to the delightful type of eighteenth-century +divine, who, as Gibbon says, “subscribed +with a sigh or a smile” the articles of +faith. The rigorous taboo of the Sabbath +was revived, the theatre was denounced, +the corruption of human nature became the +dominant theme, and the Bible more a fetish +than ever. The success of this religious +“reaction,” as it is called, was aided, though +not caused, by the common belief that the +French Revolution had been mainly due to +infidelity; the Revolution was taken for an +object lesson showing the value of religion +for keeping the people in order. There +was also a religious “reaction” in France +itself. But in both cases this means not +that free thought was less prevalent, but +that the beliefs of the majority were more +aggressive and had powerful spokesmen, +while the eighteenth-century form of rationalism +fell out of fashion. A new form of rationalism, +which sought to interpret orthodoxy +in such a liberal way as to reconcile it with +philosophy, was represented by Coleridge, +who was influenced by German philosophers. +Coleridge was a supporter of the Church, +and he contributed to the foundation of a +school of liberal theology which was to make +itself felt after the middle of the century. + +<span class="page">[203]</span> +Newman, the most eminent of the new High +Church party, said that he indulged in a +liberty of speculation which no Christian +could tolerate. The High Church movement +which marked the second quarter of the century +was as hostile as Evangelicalism to the +freedom of religious thought.</p> + +<p>The change came after the middle of the +century, when the effects of the philosophies +of Hegel and Comte, and of foreign Biblical +criticism, began to make themselves felt +within the English Church. Two remarkable +freethinking books appeared at this period +which were widely read, F. W. Newman’s +<span class="title">Phases of Faith</span> and W. R. Greg’s <span class="title">Creed +of Christendom</span> (both in 1850). Newman +(brother of Cardinal Newman) entirely broke +with Christianity, and in his book he describes +the mental process by which he came to +abandon the beliefs he had once held. Perhaps +the most interesting point he makes is +the deficiency of the New Testament teaching +as a system of morals. Greg was a Unitarian. +He rejected dogma and inspiration, but he +regarded himself as a Christian. Sir J. F. +Stephen wittily described his position as that +of a disciple “who had heard the Sermon on +the Mount, whose attention had not been +called to the Miracles, and who died before +the Resurrection.”</p> + +<span class="page">[204]</span> + +<p>There were a few English clergymen +(chiefly Oxford men) who were interested in +German criticism and leaned to broad views, +which to the Evangelicals and High Churchmen +seemed indistinguishable from infidelity. +We may call them the Broad Church—though +the name did not come in till later. In 1855 +Jowett (afterwards Master of Balliol) published +an edition of some of St. Paul’s Epistles, +in which he showed the cloven hoof. It +contained an annihilating criticism of the +doctrine of the Atonement, an explicit rejection +of original sin, and a rationalistic +discussion of the question of God’s existence. +But this and some other unorthodox works +of liberal theologians attracted little public +attention, though their authors had to endure +petty persecution. Five years later, Jowett +and some other members of the small liberal +group decided to defy the “abominable +system of terrorism which prevents the +statement of the plainest fact,” and issued +a volume of <span class="title">Essays and Reviews</span> (1860) by +seven writers of whom six were clergymen. +The views advocated in these essays seem +mild enough to-day, and many of them +would be accepted by most well-educated +clergymen, but at the time they produced +a very painful impression. The authors were +called the “Seven against Christ.” It was + +<span class="page">[205]</span> +laid down that the Bible is to be interpreted +like any other book. “It is not a useful +lesson for the young student to apply to +Scripture principles which he would hesitate +to apply to other books; to make formal +reconcilements of discrepancies which he +would not think of reconciling in ordinary +history; to divide simple words into double +meanings; to adopt the fancies or conjectures +of Fathers and Commentators as real knowledge.” +It is suggested that the Hebrew +prophecies do not contain the element of +prediction. Contradictory accounts, or accounts +which can only be reconciled by conjecture, +cannot possibly have been dictated +by God. The discrepancies between the +genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, +or between the accounts of the Resurrection, +can be attributed “neither to any defect in +our capacities nor to any reasonable presumption +of a hidden wise design, nor to any partial +spiritual endowments in the narrators.” +The orthodox arguments which lay stress +on the assertion of witnesses as the supreme +evidence of fact, in support of miraculous +occurrences, are set aside on the ground that +testimony is a blind guide and can avail +nothing against reason and the strong grounds +we have for believing in permanent order. +It is argued that, under the Thirty-nine + +<span class="page">[206]</span> +Articles, it is permissible to accept as “parable +or poetry or legend” such stories as that of +an ass speaking with a man’s voice, of waters +standing in a solid heap, of witches and a +variety of apparitions, and to judge for +ourselves of such questions as the personality +of Satan or the primeval institution of the +Sabbath. The whole spirit of this volume is +perhaps expressed in the observation that if +any one perceives “to how great an extent +the origin itself of Christianity rests upon +<i>probable</i> evidence, his principle will relieve +him from many difficulties which might +otherwise be very disturbing. For relations +which may repose on doubtful grounds as matters +of history, and, as history, be incapable +of being ascertained or verified, may yet +be equally suggestive of true ideas with facts +absolutely certain”—that is, they may have +a spiritual significance although they are +historically false.</p> + +<p>The most daring Essay was the Rev. Baden +Powell’s <span class="title">Study of the Evidences of Christianity</span>. +He was a believer in evolution, who accepted +Darwinism, and considered miracles impossible. +The volume was denounced by the +Bishops, and in 1862 two of the contributors, +who were beneficed clergymen and thus open +to a legal attack, were prosecuted and tried +in the Ecclesiastical Court. Condemned on + +<span class="page">[207]</span> +certain points, acquitted on others, they were +sentenced to be suspended for a year, and +they appealed to the Privy Council. Lord +Westbury (Lord Chancellor) pronounced +the judgment of the Judicial Committee of +the Council, which reversed the decision of the +Ecclesiastical Court. The Committee held, +among other things, that it is not essential for +a clergyman to believe in eternal punishment. +This prompted the following epitaph on Lord +Westbury: “Towards the close of his earthly +career he dismissed Hell with costs and took +away from Orthodox members of the Church +of England their last hope of everlasting +damnation.”</p> + +<p>This was a great triumph for the Broad +Church party, and it is an interesting event +in the history of the English State-Church. +Laymen decided (overruling the opinion of +the Archbishops of Canterbury and York) +what theological doctrines are and are not +binding on a clergyman, and granted within +the Church a liberty of opinion which the +majority of the Church’s representatives +regarded as pernicious. This liberty was +formally established in 1865 by an Act of +Parliament, which altered the form in which +clergymen were required to subscribe the +Thirty-nine Articles. The episode of <span class="title">Essays +and Reviews</span> is a landmark in the history +of religious thought in England.</p> + +<span class="page">[208]</span> + +<p>The liberal views of the Broad Churchmen +and their attitude to the Bible gradually +produced some effect upon those who differed +most from them; and nowadays there is +probably no one who would not admit, at +least, that such a passage as Genesis, Chapter +XIX, might have been composed without the +direct inspiration of the Deity.</p> + +<p>During the next few years orthodox public +opinion was shocked or disturbed by the appearance +of several remarkable books which +criticized, ignored, or defied authority—Lyell’s +<span class="title">Antiquity of Man</span>, Seeley’s <span class="title">Ecce Homo</span> (which +the pious Lord Shaftesbury said was “vomited +from the jaws of hell”), Lecky’s <span class="title">History of +Rationalism</span>. And a new poet of liberty arose +who did not fear to sound the loudest notes +of defiance against all that authority held +sacred. All the great poets of the nineteenth +century were more or less unorthodox; +Wordsworth in the years of his highest inspiration +was a pantheist; and the greatest of +all, Shelley, was a declared atheist. In fearless +utterance, in unfaltering zeal against the +tyranny of Gods and Governments, Swinburne +was like Shelley. His drama <span class="title">Atalanta +in Calydon</span> (1865), even though a poet is +strictly not answerable for what the persons +in his drama say, yet with its denunciation of +“the supreme evil, God,” heralded the coming + +<span class="page">[209]</span> +of a new champion who would defy the +fortresses of authority. And in the following +year his <span class="title">Poems and Ballads</span> expressed the +spirit of a pagan who flouted all the prejudices +and sanctities of the Christian world.</p> + +<p>But the most intense and exciting period +of literary warfare against orthodoxy in +England began about 1869, and lasted for +about a dozen years, during which enemies +of dogma, of all complexions, were less reticent +and more aggressive than at any other time +in the century. Lord Morley has observed +that “the force of speculative literature +always hangs on practical opportuneness,” +and this remark is illustrated by the rationalistic +literature of the seventies. It was a +time of hope and fear, of progress and danger. +Secularists and rationalists were encouraged +by the Disestablishment of the Church in +Ireland (1869), by the Act which allowed +atheists to give evidence in a court of justice +(1869), by the abolition of religious tests at +all the universities (a measure frequently +attempted in vain) in 1871. On the other +hand, the Education Act of 1870, progressive +though it was, disappointed the advocates +of secular education, and was an unwelcome +sign of the strength of ecclesiastical influence. +Then there was the general alarm felt in +Europe by all outside the Roman Church, + +<span class="page">[210]</span> +and by some within it, at the decree of the +infallibility of the Pope (by the Vatican Council +1869–70), and an Englishman (Cardinal +Manning) was one of the most active spirits +in bringing about this decree. It would +perhaps have caused less alarm if the Pope’s +denunciation of modern errors had not been +fresh in men’s memories. At the end of 1864 +he startled the world by issuing a Syllabus +“embracing the principal errors of our age.” +Among these were the propositions, that every +man is free to adopt and profess the religion +he considers true, according to the light of +reason; that the Church has no right to +employ force; that metaphysics can and ought +to be pursued without reference to divine and +ecclesiastical authority; that Catholic states +are right to allow foreign immigrants to +exercise their own religion in public; that +the Pope ought to make terms with progress, +liberalism, and modern civilization. The +document was taken as a declaration of +war against enlightenment, and the Vatican +Council as the first strategic move of the hosts +of darkness. It seemed that the powers of +obscurantism were lifting up their heads with +a new menace, and there was an instinctive +feeling that all the forces of reason should be +brought into the field. The history of the +last forty years shows that the theory of + +<span class="page">[211]</span> +Infallibility, since it has become a dogma, is +not more harmful than it was before. But +the efforts of the Catholic Church in the years +following the Council to overthrow the French +Republic and to rupture the new German +Empire were sufficiently disquieting. Against +this was to be set the destruction of the +temporal power of the Popes and the complete +freedom of Italy. This event was the +sunrise of Swinburne’s <span class="title">Songs before Sunrise</span> +(which appeared in 1871), a seedplot of +atheism and revolution, sown with implacable +hatred of creeds and tyrants. The most +wonderful poem in the volume, the <span class="title">Hymn of +Man</span>, was written while the Vatican Council +was sitting. It is a song of triumph over the +God of the priests, stricken by the doom of +the Pope’s temporal power. The concluding +verses will show the spirit.</p> +<div class="song"> + <p class="stanza">“By thy name that in hellfire was written, + and burned at the point of thy sword,</p> + <p class="stanza">Thou art smitten, thou God, thou art + smitten; thy death is upon thee, O + Lord.</p> + <p class="stanza">And the lovesong of earth as thou diest + resounds through the wind of her + wings—</p> + <p class="stanza">Glory to Man in the highest! for Man is the + master of things.”</p> +</div> +<span class="page">[212]</span> + +<p>The fact that such a volume could appear +with impunity vividly illustrates the English +policy of enforcing the laws for blasphemy +only in the case of publications addressed to +the masses.</p> + +<p>Political circumstances thus invited and +stimulated rationalists to come forward boldly, +but we must not leave out of account the +influence of the Broad Church movement and +of Darwinism. The <span class="title">Descent of Man</span> appeared +precisely in 1871. A new, undogmatic Christianity +was being preached in pulpits. Mr. +Leslie Stephen remarked (1873) that “it may +be said, with little exaggeration, that there +is not only no article in the creeds which may +not be contradicted with impunity, but that +there is none which may not be contradicted +in a sermon calculated to win the reputation +of orthodoxy and be regarded as a judicious +bid for a bishopric. The popular state of +mind seems to be typified in the well-known +anecdote of the cautious churchwarden, who, +whilst commending the general tendency of +his incumbent’s sermon, felt bound to hazard +a protest upon one point. ‘You see, sir,’ as +he apologetically explained, ‘I think there +be a God.’ He thought it an error of taste +or perhaps of judgment, to hint a doubt as +to the first article of the creed.”</p> + +<p>The influence exerted among the cultivated + +<span class="page">[213]</span> +classes by the aesthetic movement (Ruskin, +Morris, the Pre-Raphaelite painters; then +Pater’s <span class="title">Lectures on the Renaissance</span>, 1873) was +also a sign of the times. For the attitude of +these critics, artists, and poets was essentially +pagan. The saving truths of theology were +for them as if they did not exist. The ideal +of happiness was found in a region in which +heaven was ignored.</p> + +<p>The time then seemed opportune for speaking +out. Of the unorthodox books and +essays, [<a href="#fn-7-2">2</a>] which influenced the young and +alarmed believers, in these exciting years, +most were the works of men who may be +most fairly described by the comprehensive +term <i>agnostics</i>—a name which had been +recently invented by Professor Huxley.</p> + +<p>The agnostic holds that there are limits to +human reason, and that theology lies outside +those limits. Within those limits lies the +world with which science (including psychology) +deals. Science deals entirely with +phenomena, and has nothing to say to the +nature of the ultimate reality which may lie +behind phenomena. There are four possible + +<span class="page">[214]</span> +attitudes to this ultimate reality. There is +the attitude of the metaphysician and theologian, +who are convinced not only that it +exists but that it can be at least partly +known. There is the attitude of the man +who denies that it exists; but he must be +also a metaphysician, for its existence can +only be disproved by metaphysical arguments. +Then there are those who assert +that it exists but deny that we can know +anything about it. And finally there are +those who say that we cannot know whether +it exists or not. These last are “agnostics” +in the strict sense of the term, men who +<i>profess not to know</i>. The third class go +beyond phenomena in so far as they assert +that there is an ultimate though unknowable +reality beneath phenomena. But agnostic +is commonly used in a wide sense +so as to include the third as well as the +fourth class—those who assume an unknowable, +as well as those who do not know +whether there is an unknowable or not. +Comte and Spencer, for instance, who believed +in an unknowable, are counted as +agnostics. The difference between an agnostic +and an atheist is that the atheist positively +denies the existence of a personal +God, the agnostic does not believe in it.</p> + +<p>The writer of this period who held agnosticism + +<span class="page">[215]</span> +in its purest form, and who turned +the dry light of reason on to theological +opinions with the most merciless logic, was +Mr. Leslie Stephen. His best-known essay, +“An Agnostic’s Apology” (<span class="title">Fortnightly Review</span>, +1876), raises the question, have the +dogmas of orthodox theologians any meaning? +Do they offer, for this is what we +want, an intelligible reconciliation of the +discords in the universe? It is shown in +detail that the various theological explanations +of the dealings of God with man, when +logically pressed, issue in a confession of +ignorance. And what is this but agnosticism? +You may call your doubt a mystery, +but mystery is only the theological phrase +for agnosticism. “Why, when no honest +man will deny in private that every ultimate +problem is wrapped in the profoundest +mystery, do honest men proclaim in pulpits +that unhesitating certainty is the duty of +the most foolish and ignorant? We are +a company of ignorant beings, dimly discerning +light enough for our daily needs, +but hopelessly differing whenever we attempt +to describe the ultimate origin or end of +our paths; and yet, when one of us ventures +to declare that we don’t know the +map of the Universe as well as the map of +our infinitesimal parish, he is hooted, reviled, + +<span class="page">[216]</span> +and perhaps told that he will be damned to +all eternity for his faithlessness.” The characteristic +of Leslie Stephen’s essays is that +they are less directed to showing that orthodox +theology is untrue as that there is no +reality about it, and that its solutions of +difficulties are sham solutions. If it solved +any part of the mystery, it would be welcome, +but it does not, it only adds new difficulties. +It is “a mere edifice of moonshine.” +The writer makes no attempt to +prove by logic that ultimate reality lies +outside the limits of human reason. He +bases this conclusion on the fact that all +philosophers hopelessly contradict one another; +if the subject-matter of philosophy +were, like physical science, within the reach +of the intelligence, some agreement must +have been reached.</p> + +<p>The Broad Church movement, the attempts +to liberalize Christianity, to pour +its old wine into new bottles, to make it +unsectarian and undogmatic, to find compromises +between theology and science, +found no favour in Leslie Stephen’s eyes, +and he criticized all this with a certain contempt. +There was a controversy about +the efficacy of prayer. Is it reasonable, +for instance, to pray for rain? Here science +and theology were at issue on a practical + +<span class="page">[217]</span> +point which comes within the domain of +science. Some theologians adopted the +compromise that to pray against an eclipse +would be foolish, but to pray for rain might +be sensible. “One phenomenon,” Stephen +wrote, “is just as much the result of fixed +causes as the other; but it is easier for the +imagination to suppose the interference of +a divine agent to be hidden away somewhere +amidst the infinitely complex play of forces, +which elude our calculations in meteorological +phenomena, than to believe in it +where the forces are simple enough to admit +of prediction. The distinction is of course +invalid in a scientific sense. Almighty power +can interfere as easily with the events which +are, as with those which are not, in the +Nautical Almanac. One cannot suppose +that God retreats as science advances, and +that he spoke in thunder and lightning +till Franklin unravelled the laws of their +phenomena.”</p> + +<p>Again, when a controversy about hell +engaged public attention, and some otherwise +orthodox theologians bethought themselves +that eternal punishment was a horrible +doctrine and then found that the evidence +for it was not quite conclusive and were +bold enough to say so, Leslie Stephen +stepped in to point out that, if so, historical + +<span class="page">[218]</span> +Christianity deserves all that its most virulent +enemies have said about it in this respect. +When the Christian creed really +ruled men’s consciences, nobody could utter +a word against the truth of the dogma of +hell. If that dogma had not an intimate +organic connection with the creed, if it had +been a mere unimportant accident, it could +not have been so vigorous and persistent +wherever Christianity was strongest. The +attempt to eliminate it or soften it down +is a sign of decline. “Now, at last, your +creed is decaying. People have discovered +that you know nothing about it; that +heaven and hell belong to dreamland; that +the impertinent young curate who tells me +that I shall be burnt everlastingly for not +sharing his superstition is just as ignorant +as I am myself, and that I know as much as +my dog. And then you calmly say again, +‘It is all a mistake. Only believe in a something +—and we will make it as easy for you +as possible. Hell shall have no more than +a fine equable temperature, really good for +the constitution; there shall be nobody in it +except Judas Iscariot and one or two others; +and even the poor Devil shall have a chance +if he will resolve to mend his ways.’ ”</p> + +<p>Mr. Matthew Arnold may, I suppose, be +numbered among the agnostics, but he was + +<span class="page">[219]</span> +of a very different type. He introduced a +new kind of criticism of the Bible—literary +criticism. Deeply concerned for morality +and religion, a supporter of the Established +Church, he took the Bible under his special +protection, and in three works, <span class="title">St. Paul and +Protestantism</span>, 1870, <span class="title">Literature and Dogma</span>, +1873, and <span class="title">God and the Bible</span>, 1875, he endeavoured +to rescue that book from its orthodox +exponents, whom he regarded as the corrupters +of Christianity. It would be just, +he says, “but hardly perhaps Christian,” to +fling back the word infidel at the orthodox +theologians for their bad literary and scientific +criticisms of the Bible and to speak of +“the torrent of infidelity which pours every +Sunday from our pulpits!” The corruption +of Christianity has been due to theology +“with its insane licence of affirmation about +God, its insane licence of affirmation about +immortality”; to the hypothesis of “a magnified +and non-natural man at the head of +mankind’s and the world’s affairs”; and the +fancy account of God “made up by putting +scattered expressions of the Bible together +and taking them literally.” He chastises +with urbane persiflage the knowledge which +the orthodox think they possess about the +proceedings and plans of God. “To think +they know what passed in the Council of the + +<span class="page">[220]</span> +Trinity is not hard to them; they could +easily think they even knew what were the +hangings of the Trinity’s council-chamber.” +Yet “the very expression, <i>the Trinity</i>, jars +with the whole idea and character of Bible-religion; +but, lest the Socinian should be +unduly elated at hearing this, let us hasten +to add that so too, and just as much, does +the expression, a great Personal First Cause.” +He uses <i>God</i> as the least inadequate name +for that universal order which the intellect +feels after as a law, and the heart feels after +as a benefit; and defines it as “the stream of +tendency by which all things strive to fulfil +the law of their being.” He defined it further +as a Power that makes for righteousness, +and thus went considerably beyond the agnostic +position. He was impatient of the +minute criticism which analyzes the Biblical +documents and discovers inconsistencies and +absurdities, and he did not appreciate the +importance of the comparative study of +religions. But when we read of a dignitary +in a recent Church congress laying down that +the narratives in the books of Jonah and +Daniel must be accepted because Jesus +quoted them, we may wish that Arnold +were here to reproach the orthodox for +“want of intellectual seriousness.”</p> + +<p>These years also saw the appearance of + +<span class="page">[221]</span> +Mr. John Morley’s sympathetic studies of +the French freethinkers of the eighteenth +century, <span class="title">Voltaire</span> (1872), <span class="title">Rousseau</span> (1873), +and <span class="title">Diderot</span> (1878). He edited the <span class="title">Fortnightly +Review</span>, and for some years this +journal was distinguished by brilliant criticisms +on the popular religion, contributed +by able men writing from many points of +view. A part of the book which he afterwards +published under the title <span class="title">Compromise</span> +appeared in the <span class="title">Fortnightly</span> in 1874. In +<span class="title">Compromise</span>, “the whole system of objective +propositions which make up the popular +belief of the day” is condemned as mischievous, +and it is urged that those who +disbelieve should speak out plainly. Speaking +out is an intellectual duty. Englishmen +have a strong sense of political responsibility, +and a correspondingly weak sense of +intellectual responsibility. Even minds that +are not commonplace are affected for the +worse by the political spirit which “is the +great force in throwing love of truth and +accurate reasoning into a secondary place.” +And the principles which have prevailed in +politics have been adopted by theology for +her own use. In the one case, convenience +first, truth second; in the other, emotional +comfort first, truth second. If the immorality +is less gross in the case of religion, + +<span class="page">[222]</span> +there is “the stain of intellectual improbity.” +And this is a crime against society, for “they +who tamper with veracity from whatever +motive are tampering with the vital force +of human progress.” The intellectual insincerity +which is here blamed is just as +prevalent to-day. The English have not +changed their nature, the “political” spirit +is still rampant, and we are ruled by the +view that because compromise is necessary +in politics it is also a good thing in the intellectual +domain.</p> + +<p>The <span class="title">Fortnightly</span> under Mr. Morley’s guidance +was an effective organ of enlightenment. +I have no space to touch on the +works of other men of letters and of men of +science in these combative years, but it +is to be noted that, while denunciations of +modern thought poured from the pulpits, +a popular diffusion of freethought was carried +on, especially by Mr. Bradlaugh in public +lectures and in his paper, the <span class="title">National Reformer</span>, +not without collisions with the civil +authorities.</p> + +<p>If we take the cases in which the civil +authorities in England have intervened to +repress the publication of unorthodox opinions +during the last two centuries, we find +that the object has always been to prevent +the spread of freethought among the masses. + +<span class="page">[223]</span> +The victims have been either poor, uneducated +people, or men who propagated freethought +in a popular form. I touched upon +this before in speaking of Paine, and it is +borne out by the prosecutions of the nineteenth +and twentieth centuries. The unconfessed +motive has been fear of the people. +Theology has been regarded as a good instrument +for keeping the poor in order, and +unbelief as a cause or accompaniment of +dangerous political opinions. The idea has +not altogether disappeared that free thought +is peculiarly indecent in the poor, that it is +highly desirable to keep them superstitious +in order to keep them contented, that they +should be duly thankful for all the theological +as well as social arrangements which +have been made for them by their betters. +I may quote from an essay of Mr. Frederic +Harrison an anecdote which admirably +expresses the becoming attitude of the poor +towards ecclesiastical institutions. “The +master of a workhouse in Essex was once +called in to act as chaplain to a dying pauper. +The poor soul faintly murmured some hopes +of heaven. But this the master abruptly +cut short and warned him to turn his last +thoughts towards hell. ‘And thankful you +ought to be,’ said he, ‘that you have a hell +to go to.’ ”</p> + +<span class="page">[224]</span> + +<p>The most important English freethinkers +who appealed to the masses were Holyoake, [<a href="#fn-7-3">3</a>] +the apostle of “secularism,” and Bradlaugh. +The great achievement for which Bradlaugh +will be best remembered was the securing +of the right of unbelievers to sit in Parliament +without taking an oath (1888). +The chief work to which Holyoake (who +in his early years was imprisoned for blasphemy) +contributed was the abolition of +taxes on the Press, which seriously hampered +the popular diffusion of knowledge. [<a href="#fn-7-4">4</a>] In +England, censorship of the Press had long +ago disappeared (above, p. <a href="#p-139">139</a>); in most +other European countries it was abolished +in the course of the nineteenth century. [<a href="#fn-7-5">5</a>]</p> + +<p>In the progressive countries of Europe +there has been a marked growth of tolerance +(I do not mean legal toleration, but the tolerance + +<span class="page">[225]</span> +of public opinion) during the last +thirty years. A generation ago Lord Morley +wrote: “The preliminary stage has scarcely +been reached—the stage in which public +opinion grants to every one the unrestricted +right of shaping his own beliefs, independently +of those of the people who surround +him.” I think this preliminary stage has +now been passed. Take England. We are +now far from the days when Dr. Arnold +would have sent the elder Mill to Botany +Bay for irreligious opinions. But we are +also far from the days when Darwin’s <span class="title">Descent</span> +created an uproar. Darwin has been buried +in Westminster Abbey. To-day books can +appear denying the historical existence of +Jesus without causing any commotion. It +may be doubted whether what Lord Acton +wrote in 1877 would be true now: “There +are in our day many educated men who +think it right to persecute.” In 1895, Lecky +was a candidate for the representation of +Dublin University. His rationalistic opinions +were indeed brought up against him, +but he was successful, though the majority +of the constituents were orthodox. In the +seventies his candidature would have been +hopeless. The old commonplace that a +freethinker is sure to be immoral is no longer +heard. We may say that we have now + +<span class="page">[226]</span> +reached a stage at which it is admitted by +every one who counts (except at the Vatican), +that there is nothing in earth or heaven which +may not legitimately be treated without any +of the assumptions which in old days authority +used to impose.</p> + +<p>In this brief review of the triumphs of +reason in the nineteenth century, we have +been considering the discoveries of science +and criticism which made the old orthodoxy +logically untenable. But the advance in +freedom of thought, the marked difference +in the general attitude of men in all lands +towards theological authority to-day from +the attitude of a hundred years ago, cannot +altogether be explained by the power of logic. +It is not so much criticism of old ideas as the +appearance of new ideas and interests that +changes the views of men at large. It is +not logical demonstrations but new social +conceptions that bring about a general transformation +of attitude towards ultimate problems. +Now the idea of the progress of the +human race must, I think, be held largely +answerable for this change of attitude. It +must, I think, be held to have operated +powerfully as a solvent of theological beliefs. +I have spoken of the teaching of Diderot and +his friends that man’s energies should be +devoted to making the earth pleasant. A + +<span class="page">[227]</span> +new ideal was substituted for the old ideal +based on theological propositions. It inspired +the English Utilitarian philosophers +(Bentham, James Mill, J. S. Mill, Grote) who +preached the greatest happiness of the greatest +number as the supreme object of action +and the basis of morality. This ideal was +powerfully reinforced by the doctrine of historical +progress, which was started in France +(1750) by Turgot, who made progress the +organic principle of history. It was developed +by Condorcet (1793), and put forward +by Priestley in England. The idea was +seized upon by the French socialistic philosophers, +Saint-Simon and Fourier. The +optimism of Fourier went so far as to anticipate +the time when the sea would be turned +by man’s ingenuity into lemonade, when +there would be 37 million poets as great as +Homer, 37 million writers as great as Molière, +37 million men of science equal to Newton. +But it was Comte who gave the doctrine +weight and power. His social philosophy +and his religion of Humanity are based upon +it. The triumphs of science endorsed it; it +has been associated with, though it is not +necessarily implied in, the scientific theory +of evolution; and it is perhaps fair to say +that it has been the guiding spiritual force +of the nineteenth century. It has introduced + +<span class="page">[228]</span> +the new ethical principle of duty to +posterity. We shall hardly be far wrong if +we say that the new interest in the future +and the progress of the race has done a great +deal to undermine unconsciously the old +interest in a life beyond the grave; and it +has dissolved the blighting doctrine of the +radical corruption of man.</p> + +<p>Nowhere has the theory of progress been +more emphatically recognized than in the +Monistic movement which has been exciting +great interest in Germany (1910–12). This +movement is based on the ideas of Haeckel, +who is looked up to as the master; but those +ideas have been considerably changed under +the influence of Ostwald, the new leader. +While Haeckel is a biologist, Ostwald’s +brilliant work was done in chemistry and +physics. The new Monism differs from the +old, in the first place, in being much less +dogmatic. It declares that all that is in our +experience can be the object of a corresponding +science. It is much more a method than +a system, for its sole ultimate object is to +comprehend all human experience in unified +knowledge. Secondly, while it maintains, +with Haeckel, evolution as the guiding principle +in the history of living things, it rejects +his pantheism and his theory of thinking +atoms. The old mechanical theory of the + +<span class="page">[229]</span> +physical world has been gradually supplanted +by the theory of energy, and Ostwald, who +was one of the foremost exponents of energy, +has made it a leading idea of Monism. What +has been called matter is, so far as we know +now, simply a complex of energies, and he +has sought to extend the “energetic” principle +from physical or chemical to biological, +psychical, and social phenomena. But it is +to be observed that no finality is claimed for +the conception of energy; it is simply an +hypothesis which corresponds to our present +stage of knowledge, and may, as knowledge +advances, be superseded.</p> + +<p>Monism resembles the positive philosophy +and religion of Comte in so far as it means an +outlook on life based entirely on science and +excluding theology, mysticism, and metaphysics. +It may be called a religion, if we +adopt Mr. MacTaggart’s definition of religion +as “an emotion resting on a conviction of +the harmony between ourselves and the +universe at large.” But it is much better not +to use the word religion in connexion with it, +and the Monists have no thought of finding +a Monistic, as Comte founded a Positivist, +church. They insist upon the sharp opposition +between the outlook of science and the +outlook of religion, and find the mark of +spiritual progress in the fact that religion is + +<span class="page">[230]</span> +gradually becoming less indispensable. The +further we go back in the past, the more +valuable is religion as an element in civilization; +as we advance, it retreats more and +more into the background, to be replaced by +science. Religions have been, in principle, +pessimistic, so far as the present world is +concerned; Monism is, in principle, optimistic, +for it recognizes that the process of +his evolution has overcome, in increasing +measure, the bad element in man, and will go +on overcoming it still more. Monism proclaims +that development and progress are +the practical principles of human conduct, +while the Churches, especially the Catholic +Church, have been steadily conservative, +and though they have been unable to put a +stop to progress have endeavoured to suppress +its symptoms—to bottle up the steam. [<a href="#fn-7-6">6</a>] +The Monistic congress at Hamburg in 1911 +had a success which surprised its promoters. +The movement bids fair to be a powerful +influence in diffusing rationalistic thought. [<a href="#fn-7-7">7</a>]</p> + +<p>If we take the three large States of + +<span class="page">[231]</span> +Western Europe, in which the majority of +Christians are Catholics, we see how the ideal +of progress, freedom of thought, and the +decline of ecclesiastical power go together. +In Spain, where the Church has enormous +power and wealth and can still dictate to the +Court and the politicians, the idea of progress, +which is vital in France and Italy, has +not yet made its influence seriously felt. +Liberal thought indeed is widely spread in +the small educated class, but the great majority +of the whole population are illiterate, +and it is the interest of the Church to keep +them so. The education of the people, as all +enlightened Spaniards confess, is the pressing +need of the country. How formidable +are the obstacles which will have to be overcome +before modern education is allowed to +spread was shown four years ago by the +tragedy of Francisco Ferrer, which reminded +everybody that in one corner of Western +Europe the mediaeval spirit is still vigorous. +Ferrer had devoted himself to the founding +of modern schools in the province of Catalonia +(since 1901). He was a rationalist, +and his schools, which had a marked success, +were entirely secular. The ecclesiastical authorities +execrated him, and in the summer +of 1909 chance gave them the means of +destroying him. A strike of workmen at + +<span class="page">[232]</span> +Barcelona developed into a violent revolution, +Ferrer happened to be in Barcelona +for some days at the beginning of the movement, +with which he had no connection +whatever, and his enemies seized the opportunity +to make him responsible for it. False +evidence (including forged documents) was +manufactured. Evidence which would have +helped his case was suppressed. The Catholic +papers agitated against him, and the leading +ecclesiastics of Barcelona urged the Government +not to spare the man who founded the +modern schools, the root of all the trouble. +Ferrer was condemned by a military tribunal +and shot (Oct. 13). He suffered in the cause +of reason and freedom of thought, though, as +there is no longer an Inquisition, his enemies +had to kill him under the false charge of +anarchy and treason. It is possible that the +indignation which was felt in Europe and was +most loudly expressed in France may prevent +the repetition of such extreme measures, but +almost anything may happen in a country +where the Church is so powerful and so +bigoted, and the politicians so corrupt.</p> +<div class="footnote"> +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-7-1"></a>[1] From Greek <i>monos</i>, alone.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-7-2"></a>[2] Besides the works referred to in the text, may be mentioned: +Winwood Reade, <span class="title">Martyrdom of Man</span>, 1871; Mill, +<span class="title">Three Essays on Religion</span>; W. R. Cassels, <span class="title">Supernatural +Religion</span>; Tyndall, <span class="title">Address to British Association at Belfast</span>; +Huxley, <span class="title">Animal Automatism</span>; W. K. Clifford, <span class="title">Body and +Mind</span>; all in 1874.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-7-3"></a>[3] It may be noted that Holyoake towards the end of +his life helped to found the Rationalist Press Association, +of which Mr. Edward Clodd has been for many years +Chairman. This is the chief society in England for propagating +rationalism, and its main object is to diffuse in a +cheap form the works of freethinkers of mark (cp. Bibliography). +I understand that more than two million copies +of its cheap reprints have been sold.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-7-4"></a>[4] The advertisement tax was abolished in 1853, the stamp +tax in 1855, the paper duty in 1861, and the optional duty +in 1870.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-7-5"></a>[5] In Austria-Hungary the police have the power to suppress +printed matter provisionally. In Russia the Press was declared +free in 1905 by an Imperial decree, which, however, +has become a dead letter. The newspapers are completely +under the control of the police.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-7-6"></a>[6] I have taken these points, illustrating the Monistic +attitude to the Churches, from Ostwald’s <span class="title">Monistic Sunday +Sermons</span> (German), 1911, 1912.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-7-7"></a>[7] I may note here that, as this is not a history of thought, +I make no reference to recent philosophical speculations +(in America, England, and France) which are sometimes +claimed as tending to bolster up theology. But they are +all profoundly unorthodox.</p> +</div> +</div> +<div class="chapter"> + +<span class="page">[233]</span> + +<a name="ch-8"></a><h2>CHAPTER VIII</h2> + +<h3>THE JUSTIFICATION OF LIBERTY OF THOUGHT</h3> + +<p>MOST men who have been brought up in +the free atmosphere of a modern State sympathize +with liberty in its long struggle with +authority and may find it difficult to see that +anything can be said for the tyrannical, and +as they think extraordinarily perverse, policy +by which communities and governments persistently +sought to stifle new ideas and suppress +free speculation. The conflict sketched +in these pages appears as a war between light +and darkness. We exclaim that altar and +throne formed a sinister conspiracy against +the progress of humanity. We look back +with horror at the things which so many +champions of reason endured at the hands of +blind, if not malignant, bearers of authority.</p> + +<p>But a more or less plausible case can be +made out for coercion. Let us take the most +limited view of the lawful powers of society +over its individual members. Let us lay +down, with Mill, that “the sole end for which +mankind are warranted, individually and +collectively, in interfering with the liberty of +action of any of their members is self-protection,” +and that coercion is only justified + +<span class="page">[234]</span> +for the prevention of harm to others. This is +the minimum claim the State can make, and +it will be admitted that it is not only the +right but the duty of the State to prevent +harm to its members. That is what it is for. +Now no abstract or independent principle is +discoverable, why liberty of speech should +be a privileged form of liberty of action, or +why society should lay down its arms of defence +and fold its hands, when it is persuaded +that harm is threatened to it through the +speech of any of its members. The Government +has to judge of the danger, and its +judgment may be wrong; but if it is convinced +that harm is being done, is it not its +plain duty to interfere?</p> + +<p>This argument supplies an apology for the +suppression of free opinion by Governments +in ancient and modern times. It can be +urged for the Inquisition, for Censorship of +the Press, for Blasphemy laws, for all coercive +measures of the kind, that, if excessive or ill-judged, +they were intended to protect society +against what their authors sincerely believed +to be grave injury, and were simple acts of +duty. (This apology, of course, does not +extend to acts done for the sake of the alleged +good of the victims themselves, namely, to +secure their future salvation.)</p> + +<p>Nowadays we condemn all such measures + +<span class="page">[235]</span> +and disallow the right of the State to interfere +with the free expression of opinion. So +deeply is the doctrine of liberty seated in our +minds that we find it difficult to make allowances +for the coercive practices of our +misguided ancestors. How is this doctrine +justified? It rests on no abstract basis, on +no principle independent of society itself, +but entirely on considerations of utility.</p> + +<p>We saw how Socrates indicated the social +value of freedom of discussion. We saw how +Milton observed that such freedom was necessary +for the advance of knowledge. But in +the period during which the cause of toleration +was fought for and practically won, the +argument more generally used was the injustice +of punishing a man for opinions which +he honestly held and could not help holding, +since conviction is not a matter of will; in +other words, the argument that error is not +a crime and that it is therefore unjust to +punish it. This argument, however, does +not prove the case for freedom of discussion. +The advocate of coercion may reply: We +admit that it is unjust to punish a man for +private erroneous beliefs; but it is not unjust +to forbid the propagation of such beliefs if +we are convinced that they are harmful; it +is not unjust to punish him, not for holding +them, but for publishing them. The truth + +<span class="page">[236]</span> +is that, in examining principles, the word <i>just</i> +is misleading. All the virtues are based on +experience, physiological or social, and justice +is no exception. <i>Just</i> designates a class +of rules or principles of which the social +utility has been found by experience to be +paramount and which are recognized to be so +important as to override all considerations of +immediate expediency. And social utility is +the only test. It is futile, therefore, to say +to a Government that it acts unjustly in +coercing opinion, unless it is shown that freedom +of opinion is a principle of such overmastering +social utility as to render other +considerations negligible. Socrates had a +true instinct in taking the line that freedom +is valuable to society.</p> + +<p>The reasoned justification of liberty of +thought is due to J. S. Mill, who set it forth +in his work <span class="title">On Liberty</span>, published in 1859. +This book treats of liberty in general, and +attempts to fix the frontier of the region in +which individual freedom should be considered +absolute and unassailable. The second +chapter considers liberty of thought +and discussion, and if many may think that +Mill unduly minimized the functions of society, +underrating its claims as against the +individual, few will deny the justice of the +chief arguments or question the general +soundness of his conclusions.</p> + +<span class="page">[237]</span> + +<p>Pointing out that no fixed standard was +recognized for testing the propriety of the +interference on the part of the community +with its individual members, he finds the +test in self-protection, that is, the prevention +of harm to others. He bases the proposition +not on abstract rights, but on “utility, in the +largest sense, grounded on the permanent +interests of man as a progressive being.” +He then uses the following argument to show +that to silence opinion and discussion is always +contrary to those permanent interests. +Those who would suppress an opinion (it is +assumed that they are honest) deny its truth, +but they are not infallible. They may be +wrong, or right, or partly wrong and partly +right. (1) If they are wrong and the opinion +they would crush is true, they have robbed, +or done their utmost to rob, mankind of a +truth. They will say: But we were justified, +for we exercised our judgment to the best of +our ability, and are we to be told that because +our judgment is fallible we are not to +use it? We forbade the propagation of an +opinion which we were sure was false and +pernicious; this implies no greater claim to infallibility +than any act done by public authority. +If we are to act at all, we must assume +our own opinion to be true. To this Mill +acutely replies: “There is the greatest difference + +<span class="page">[238]</span> +between assuming an opinion to be true, +because with every opportunity for contesting +it it has not been refuted, and assuming its +truth for the purpose of not permitting its +refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting +and disproving our opinion is the very +condition which justifies us in assuming its +truth for purposes of action, and on no other +terms can a being with human faculties have +any rational assurance of being right.”</p> + +<p>(2) If the received opinion which it is +sought to protect against the intrusion of +error is true, the suppression of discussion is +still contrary to general utility. A received +opinion may happen to be true (it is very +seldom entirely true); but a rational certainty +that it is so can only be secured by the fact +that it has been fully canvassed but has not +been shaken.</p> + +<p>Commoner and more important is (3) the +case where the conflicting doctrines share the +truth between them. Here Mill has little +difficulty in proving the utility of supplementing +one-sided popular truths by other +truths which popular opinion omits to consider. +And he observes that if either of the +opinions which share the truth has a claim +not merely to be tolerated but to be encouraged, +it is the one which happens to be held +by the minority, since this is the one “which + +<span class="page">[239]</span> +for the time being represents the neglected +interests.” He takes the doctrines of Rousseau, +which might conceivably have been suppressed +as pernicious. To the self-complacent +eighteenth century those doctrines came +as “a salutary shock, dislocating the compact +mass of one-sided opinion.” The current +opinions were indeed nearer to the truth than +Rousseau’s, they contained much less of error; +“nevertheless there lay in Rousseau’s doctrine, +and has floated down the stream of +opinion along with it, a considerable amount +of exactly those truths which the popular +opinion wanted; and these are the deposit +which we left behind when the flood +subsided.”</p> + +<p>Such is the drift of Mill’s main argument. +The present writer would prefer to state the +justification of freedom of opinion in a somewhat +different form, though in accordance +with Mill’s reasoning. The progress of civilization, +if it is partly conditioned by circumstances +beyond man’s control, depends more, +and in an increasing measure, on things +which are within his own power. Prominent +among these are the advancement of knowledge +and the deliberate adaptation of his +habits and institutions to new conditions. +To advance knowledge and to correct errors, +unrestricted freedom of discussion is required. + +<span class="page">[240]</span> +History shows that knowledge grew when +speculation was perfectly free in Greece, +and that in modern times, since restrictions +on inquiry have been entirely removed, +it has advanced with a velocity which would +seem diabolical to the slaves of the mediaeval +Church. Then, it is obvious that in order +to readjust social customs, institutions, and +methods to new needs and circumstances, +there must be unlimited freedom of canvassing +and criticizing them, of expressing the +most unpopular opinions, no matter how offensive +to prevailing sentiment they may be. +If the history of civilization has any lesson to +teach it is this: there is one supreme condition +of mental and moral progress which it +is completely within the power of man himself +to secure, and that is perfect liberty of +thought and discussion. The establishment +of this liberty may be considered the most +valuable achievement of modern civilization, +and as a condition of social progress it should +be deemed fundamental. The considerations +of permanent utility on which it rests must +outweigh any calculations of present advantage +which from time to time might be +thought to demand its violation.</p> + +<p>It is evident that this whole argument +depends on the assumption that the progress +of the race, its intellectual and moral development, + +<span class="page">[241]</span> +is a reality and is valuable. The argument +will not appeal to any one who holds +with Cardinal Newman that “our race’s +progress and perfectibility is a dream, because +revelation contradicts it”; and he may +consistently subscribe to the same writer’s +conviction that “it would be a gain to this +country were it vastly more superstitious, +more bigoted, more gloomy, more fierce in +its religion, than at present it shows itself +to be.”</p> + +<p>While Mill was writing his brilliant Essay, +which every one should read, the English +Government of the day (1858) instituted +prosecutions for the circulation of the doctrine +that it is lawful to put tyrants to death, +on the ground that the doctrine is immoral. +Fortunately the prosecutions were not persisted +in. Mill refers to the matter, and maintains +that such a doctrine as tyrannicide +(and, let us add, anarchy) does not form any +exception to the rule that “there ought to +exist the fullest liberty of professing and +discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, +any doctrine, however immoral it may be +considered.”</p> + +<p>Exceptions, cases where the interference +of the authorities is proper, are only apparent, +for they really come under another rule. +For instance, if there is a direct instigation + +<span class="page">[242]</span> +to particular acts of violence, there may be +a legitimate case for interference. But the +incitement must be deliberate and direct. If +I write a book condemning existing societies +and defending a theory of anarchy, and a man +who reads it presently commits an outrage, +it may clearly be established that my book +made the man an anarchist and induced him +to commit the crime, but it would be illegitimate +to punish me or suppress the book unless +it contained a direct incitement to the specific +crime which he committed.</p> + +<p>It is conceivable that difficult cases might +arise where a government might be strongly +tempted, and might be urged by public +clamour, to violate the principle of liberty. +Let us suppose a case, very improbable, but +which will make the issue clear and definite. +Imagine that a man of highly magnetic personality, +endowed with a wonderful power of +infecting others with his own ideas however +irrational, in short a typical religious leader, +is convinced that the world will come to an +end in the course of a few months. He goes +about the country preaching and distributing +pamphlets; his words have an electrical +effect; and the masses of the uneducated +and half-educated are persuaded that they +have indeed only a few weeks to prepare for +the day of Judgment. Multitudes leave their + +<span class="page">[243]</span> +occupations, abandon their work, in order to +spend the short time that remains in prayer +and listening to the exhortations of the +prophet. The country is paralyzed by the +gigantic strike; traffic and industries come to +a standstill. The people have a perfect legal +right to give up their work, and the prophet +has a perfect legal right to propagate his +opinion that the end of the world is at hand +—an opinion which Jesus Christ and his followers +in their day held quite as erroneously. +It would be said that desperate ills have desperate +remedies, and there would be a strong +temptation to suppress the fanatic. But to +arrest a man who is not breaking the law or +exhorting any one to break it, or causing a +breach of the peace, would be an act of glaring +tyranny. Many will hold that the evil of +setting back the clock of liberty would out-balance +all the temporary evils, great as they +might be, caused by the propagation of a +delusion. It would be absurd to deny that +liberty of speech may sometimes cause particular +harm. Every good thing sometimes +does harm. Government, for instance, which +makes fatal mistakes; law, which so often +bears hardly and inequitably in individual +cases. And can the Christians urge any +other plea for their religion when they are +unpleasantly reminded that it has caused untold + +<span class="page">[244]</span> +suffering by its principle of exclusive +salvation?</p> + +<p>Once the principle of liberty of thought is +accepted as a supreme condition of social +progress, it passes from the sphere of ordinary +expediency into the sphere of higher expediency +which we call justice. In other words +it becomes a right on which every man should +be able to count. The fact that this right is +ultimately based on utility does not justify a +government in curtailing it, on the ground of +utility, in particular cases.</p> + +<p>The recent rather alarming inflictions of +penalties for blasphemy in England illustrate +this point. It was commonly supposed that +the Blasphemy laws (see above, p. <a href="#p-139">139</a>), +though unrepealed, were a dead letter. But +since December, 1911, half a dozen persons +have been imprisoned for this offence. In +these cases Christian doctrines were attacked +by poor and more or less uneducated persons +in language which may be described as coarse +and offensive. Some of the judges seem to +have taken the line that it is not blasphemy +to attack the fundamental doctrines provided +“the decencies of controversy” are +preserved, but that “indecent” attacks constitute +blasphemy. This implies a new definition +of legal blasphemy, and is entirely +contrary to the intention of the laws. Sir + +<span class="page">[245]</span> +J. F. Stephen pointed out that the decisions +of judges from the time of Lord Hale (XVIIth +century) to the trial of Foote (1883) laid +down the same doctrine and based it on the +same principle: the doctrine being that it is +a crime either to deny the truth of the fundamental +doctrines of the Christian religion +or to hold them up to contempt or ridicule; +and the principle being that Christianity +is a part of the law of the land.</p> + +<p>The apology offered for such prosecutions +is that their object is to protect religious +sentiment from insult and ridicule. Sir J. F. +Stephen observed: “If the law were really +impartial and punished blasphemy only, +because it offends the feelings of believers, +it ought also to punish such preaching as +offends the feelings of unbelievers. All the +more earnest and enthusiastic forms of religion +are extremely offensive to those who do +not believe them.” If the law does not in +any sense recognize the truth of Christian +doctrine, it would have to apply the same rule +to the Salvation Army. In fact the law “can +be explained and justified only on what I +regard as its true principle—the principle of +persecution.” The opponents of Christianity +may justly say: If Christianity is false, why +is it to be attacked only in polite language? +Its goodness depends on its truth. If you + +<span class="page">[246]</span> +grant its falsehood, you cannot maintain +that it deserves special protection. But the +law imposes no restraint on the Christian, +however offensive his teaching may be to +those who do not agree with him; therefore +it is not based on an impartial desire to +prevent the use of language which causes +offence; therefore it is based on the hypothesis +that Christianity is true; and therefore +its principle is persecution.</p> + +<p>Of course, the present administration of +the common law in regard to blasphemy does +not endanger the liberty of those unbelievers +who have the capacity for contributing to +progress. But it violates the supreme principle +of liberty of opinion and discussion. +It hinders uneducated people from saying +in the only ways in which they know how +to say it, what those who have been brought +up differently say, with impunity, far more +effectively and far more insidiously. Some +of the men who have been imprisoned during +the last two years, only uttered in language +of deplorable taste views that are expressed +more or less politely in books which are in the +library of a bishop unless he is a very ignorant +person, and against which the law, if it has +any validity, ought to have been enforced. +Thus the law, as now administered, simply +penalizes bad taste and places disabilities + +<span class="page">[247]</span> +upon uneducated freethinkers. If their +words offend their audience so far as to cause +a disturbance, they should be prosecuted for +a breach of public order, [<a href="#fn-8-1">1</a>] not because their +words are blasphemous. A man who robs +or injures a church, or even an episcopal +palace, is not prosecuted for sacrilege, but +for larceny or malicious damage or something +of the kind.</p> + +<p>The abolition of penalties for blasphemy +was proposed in the House of Commons (by +Bradlaugh) in 1889 and rejected. The reform +is urgently needed. It would “prevent the +recurrence at irregular intervals of scandalous +prosecutions which have never in any one +instance benefited any one, least of all the +cause which they were intended to serve, +and which sometimes afford a channel for +the gratification of private malice under the +cloak of religion.” [<a href="#fn-8-2">2</a>]</p> + +<p>The struggle of reason against authority +has ended in what appears now to be a decisive +and permanent victory for liberty. In +the most civilized and progressive countries, +freedom of discussion is recognized as a + +<span class="page">[248]</span> +fundamental principle. In fact, we may say +it is accepted as a test of enlightenment, and +the man in the street is forward in acknowledging +that countries like Russia and Spain, +where opinion is more or less fettered, must +on that account be considered less civilized +than their neighbours. All intellectual people +who count take it for granted that there is +no subject in heaven or earth which ought +not to be investigated without any deference +or reference to theological assumptions. No +man of science has any fear of publishing +his researches, whatever consequences they +may involve for current beliefs. Criticism +of religious doctrines and of political and social +institutions is free. Hopeful people may feel +confident that the victory is permanent; +that intellectual freedom is now assured to +mankind as a possession for ever; that the +future will see the collapse of those forces +which still work against it and its gradual +diffusion in the more backward parts of the +earth. Yet history may suggest that this +prospect is not assured. Can we be certain +that there may not come a great set-back? +For freedom of discussion and speculation +was, as we saw, fully realized in the Greek +and Roman world, and then an unforeseen +force, in the shape of Christianity, came in +and laid chains upon the human mind and + +<span class="page">[249]</span> +suppressed freedom and imposed upon man a +weary struggle to recover the freedom which +he had lost. Is it not conceivable that something +of the same kind may occur again? +that some new force, emerging from the unknown, +may surprise the world and cause a +similar set-back?</p> + +<p>The possibility cannot be denied, but there +are some considerations which render it improbable +(apart from a catastrophe sweeping +away European culture). There are +certain radical differences between the intellectual +situation now and in antiquity. The +facts known to the Greeks about the nature +of the physical universe were few. Much +that was taught was not proved. Compare +what they knew and what we know about +astronomy and geography—to take the two +branches in which (besides mathematics) +they made most progress. When there were +so few demonstrated facts to work upon, there +was the widest room for speculation. Now +to suppress a number of rival theories in +favour of one is a very different thing from +suppressing whole systems of established +facts. If one school of astronomers holds that +the earth goes round the sun, another that +the sun goes round the earth, but neither is +able to demonstrate its proposition, it is easy +for an authority, which has coercive power, + +<span class="page">[250]</span> +to suppress one of them successfully. But +once it is agreed by all astronomers that the +earth goes round the sun, it is a hopeless +task for any authority to compel men to +accept a false view. In short, because she +is in possession of a vast mass of ascertained +facts about the nature of the universe, reason +holds a much stronger position now than at +the time when Christian theology led her captive. +All these facts are her fortifications. +Again, it is difficult to see what can arrest +the continuous progress of knowledge in +the future. In ancient times this progress +depended on a few; nowadays, many nations +take part in the work. A general conviction +of the importance of science prevails +to-day, which did not prevail in Greece. +And the circumstance that the advance of +material civilization depends on science is +perhaps a practical guarantee that scientific +research will not come to an abrupt halt. +In fact science is now a social institution, +as much as religion.</p> + +<p>But if science seems pretty safe, it is always +possible that in countries where the scientific +spirit is held in honour, nevertheless, serious +restrictions may be laid on speculations touching +social, political, and religious questions. +Russia has men of science inferior to none, +and Russia has its notorious censorship. It + +<span class="page">[251]</span> +is by no means inconceivable that in lands +where opinion is now free coercion might be +introduced. If a revolutionary social movement +prevailed, led by men inspired by faith +in formulas (like the men of the French +Revolution) and resolved to impose their +creed, experience shows that coercion would +almost inevitably be resorted to. Nevertheless, +while it would be silly to suppose that +attempts may not be made in the future +to put back the clock, liberty is in a far more +favourable position now than under the +Roman Empire. For at that time the social +importance of freedom of opinion was not +appreciated, whereas now, in consequence of +the long conflict which was necessary in order +to re-establish it, men consciously realize its +value. Perhaps this conviction will be strong +enough to resist all conspiracies against +liberty. Meanwhile, nothing should be left +undone to impress upon the young that freedom +of thought is an axiom of human progress. +It may be feared, however, that this is not +likely to be done for a long time to come. +For our methods of early education are +founded on authority. It is true that children +are sometimes exhorted to think for +themselves. But the parent or instructor +who gives this excellent advice is confident +that the results of the child’s thinking for + +<span class="page">[252]</span> +himself will agree with the opinions which +his elders consider desirable. It is assumed +that he will reason from principles which have +already been instilled into him by authority. +But if his thinking for himself takes the +form of questioning these principles, whether +moral or religious, his parents and teachers, +unless they are very exceptional persons, will +be extremely displeased, and will certainly +discourage him. It is, of course, only singularly +promising children whose freedom of +thought will go so far. In this sense it might +be said that “distrust thy father and mother” +is the first commandment with promise. It +should be a part of education to explain to +children, as soon as they are old enough to +understand, when it is reasonable, and when +it is not, to accept what they are told, on +authority.</p> +<div class="footnote"> +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-8-1"></a>[1] Blasphemy is an offence in Germany; but it must be +proved that offence has actually been given, and the penalty +does not exceed imprisonment for three days.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a name="fn-8-2"></a>[2] The quotations are from Sir J. F. Stephen’s article, +“Blasphemy and Blasphemous Libel,” in the <span class="title">Fortnightly +Review</span>, March, 1884, pp. 289–318.</p> +</div> +</div> +<div class="chapter"> +<span class="page">[253]</span> + +<a name="ch-bib"></a><h2>BIBLIOGRAPHY</h2> + + <h4>General</h4> +Lecky, W. E. H., <span class="title">History of the Rise and Influence of the + Spirit of Rationalism in Europe</span>, 2 vols. (originally published + in 1865). White, A. D., <span class="title">A History of the Warfare + of Science with Theology in Christendom</span>, 2 vols., 1896. + Robertson, J. M., <span class="title">A Short History of Free-thought, Ancient + and Modern</span>, 2 vols., 1906. [Comprehensive, but the + notices of the leading freethinkers are necessarily brief, as + the field covered is so large. The judgments are always + independent.] Benn, A. W., <span class="title">The History of English + Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century</span>, 2 vols., 1906. + [Very full and valuable] + + <h4>Greek Thought</h4> +Gomperz, Th., <span class="title">Greek Thinkers</span> (English translation), 4 vols. + (1901-12). + + <h4>English Deists</h4> +Stephen, Leslie, <span class="title">History of English Thought in the Eighteenth + Century</span>, vol. i, 1881. + + <h4>French Freethinkers of Eighteenth Century</h4> +Morley, J., <span class="title">Voltaire; Diderot and the Encyclopaedists; + Rousseau</span> (see above, Chapter VI). + + <h4>Rationalistic Criticism of the Bible<br/> + (Nineteenth Century)</h4> +Articles in <span class="title">Encyclopoedia Biblica</span>, 4 vols. Duff, A., <span class="title">History of + Old Testament Criticism</span>, 1910. Conybeare, F. C., <span class="title">History + of New Testament Criticism</span>, 1910. + + <h4>Persecution and Inquisition</h4> +Lea, H., <span class="title">A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages</span>, 3 + vols., 1888; <span class="title">A History of the Inquisition of Spain</span>, 4 vols., + 1906. Haynes, E. S. P., <span class="title">Religious Persecution</span>, 1904. + For the case of Ferrer see Archer, W., <span class="title">The Life, Trial + and Death of Francisco Ferrer</span>, 1911, and McCabe, J., + <span class="title">The Martyrdom of Ferrer</span>, 1909. + + <h4>Toleration</h4> +Ruffini, F., <span class="title">Religious Liberty</span> (English translation), 1912. + The essays of L. Luzzatti. <span class="title">Liberty of Conscience and + Science</span> (Italian), are suggestive. +</div> +<div class="chapter"> +<span class="page">[254]</span> + +<a name="ch-index"></a><h2>INDEX</h2> +<p class="index"> +Aesthetic movement, 213 +Agnosticism, meaning of, 213 sq. +Albigeois, persecution of, 58 +Anabaptists, 78, 95, 125 +Anatomy, 65 +Anaxagoras, 27 +Annet, Peter, 172 +Anthropology, 189 +Anthropomorphism. 23 +Aristotle, 35, 68, 69 +Arnold, Matthew, 218 sqq. +Asoka, 92 +Astronomy, 87—90 +Atheism, 103, 113, 123, 132, 158 +Athens, 27 sqq. +Augustine, St., 55 +Austria-Hungary, 122, 224 +Authority, meaning of, 14 sqq. +Averroism, 88 +</p><p class="index"> +Bacon, Roger, 85 +Bahrdt, 175 +Rain, A., 188 +Bayle, 107 sq., 135 sqq. +Benn, A. W, 152 +Bible, O. T., 192 sqq.; N. T., 195 sqq +Bible-worship, 82, 201 +Blasphemy laws, 23, 88, 139 sq., 244 sqq. +Bolingbroke, 153 +Bradlaugh, 228, 247 +Bruno, Giordano, 84 +Büchner, 188 +Buckle, 188 +Butler, Bishop, Analogy, 151 sq. +</p><p class="index"> +Calvin, 78 +Cassels, W +Castellion, 94 +Causation, Law of, 183 sq. +Charron. 75 +Cicero, 39 +Clifford, W. K., 213 +Clodd, Edward, 224 +Colenso, Bishop, 193 +Collins, Anthony, 141 +Comte, Auguste. 188 sq., 229 +Concordat of 1801, French, 115 + +Condorcet, 227 +Congregationalists (Independents), 95, 99, 100 +Constantine I, Emperor, 47, 51 +Copernicus, 87 +</p><p class="index"> +Darwin; Darwinism, 180, 182, 225 +Defoe, Daniel, 104 sq. +Deism, 137 sqq. +Democritus, 25 +Descartes, 129, 131 +Design, argument from, 181, 178 +D’Holbach, 158 +Diderot, 158 sq. +Diocletian, Emperor, 45 +Disestablishment, 104, 108 +Dodwell, Henry, 147 +Domitian, Emperor, 42 +Double Truth, 68 sq., 134 +</p><p class="index"> +Edelmann, 175 +Epicureanism, 36 sqq., 84 +Essays and Review, 204 sqq. +Euripides, 29 +Exclusive salvation, 52 sq., 63, 78 +</p><p class="index"> +Ferrer, Francisco, 231 sq. +Fortnightly Review, 221 +Fourier, 227 +France, 74, 100 sqq., 152 sqq. +Frederick the Great, 120 sq. +Frederick II, Emperor, 58, 70 +Free thought, meaning of, 18 +</p><p class="index"> +Galileo de’ Galilei, 87 sqq. +Gassendi, 130 +Geology, 178 sq. +Germany, 78 sqq., 117 sqq., 174 sqq. +Gibbon, 82, 162 sqq. +Goethe, 175 +Greg, W. R., 203 +Gregory IX, Pope, 57 +Gregory XVI, Encyclical of, 123 sq. +</p><p class="index"> +Haeckel, 187, 228 +Hale, Lord Chief Justice, 139 +Harrison, Frederic, 188, 223 +Hegel, 184 sqq. +Hell, controversy on, 217 + +<span class="page">[255]</span> +Helmholtz, 182 +Heraclitus, 25 +Herbert of Cherbury, Lord, 149 +Hippocrates, 64 +Hobbes, 130 sq. +Holland, 95, 107, 130, 131 +Holyoake, 224 +Homer, 24 +Hume, 160 sqq. +Huxley, 213 +</p><p class="index"> +Independents, 95, 98 sq. +Infallibility, Papal, 210 sq. +Innocent III, Pope, 56 +Innocent IV, Pope, 57 +Innocent VIII, Pope, 67 +Inquisition, 57 sqq.; Spanish, 59 sqq.; Roman, 83, 84, 87 sqq. +Italy, 122 sqq., 210 +</p><p class="index"> +James I (England). 85 sq. +Jews, 41 sqq., 68, 99, 105, 111, 194 +Joseph II, Emperor, 122 +Jowett, Benjamin, 204 sq. +Julian, Emperor, 54 +Justice, arguments from, 235 +</p><p class="index"> +Kant, 175 sq. +Kett, Francis, 85 +Kyd, 85 +</p><p class="index"> +Laplace, 178 +Lecky. W. H., 208, 225 +Legate, Bartholomew, 86 +Lessing, 71, 120 +Linnaeus, 177 +Locke, 101 sqq., 120, 132 sq. +Loisy, Abbé, 200 sq. +Lucian, 40 +Lucretius, 37 sq. +Luther, 77 sq., 81 +Lyell, 178, 208 +</p><p class="index"> +Manning, Cardinal, 210 +Marlowe, Christopher, 85 +Marsilius, 119 +Maryland, 97 sq. +Mazarin, Cardinal, 85, 107 +Middleton, Conyers, 150, 164 +Mill, James, 151, 227 +Mill, J. S., 182, 213, 227, 233, 235 sqq. +Milton, 99 sq. +Mirabeau, 112 +Miracles, 141 sqq., 151, 180, 164 sq., 206 +Modernism, 199 sqq. +Mohammedan free thought, 68 +Monism, 188, 228 sqq. + +Montaigne, 74 +Morley, Lord (Mr. John), 159, 209, 221 sq., 225 +</p><p class="index"> +Nantes, Edict of, 107 +Napoleon I, 115 +Newman, Cardinal, 199, 241 +Newman, F. W., 203 +</p><p class="index"> +Ostwald, Professor, 228 sqq. +</p><p class="index"> +Paine, Thomas, 112, 168 sqq. +Paley, 167 sqq. +Pascal, 123, 152 sq. +Pater, 213 +Pentateuch, 192 sq. +Pericles, 27 +Persecution, theory of, 47 sqq., 232 sqq. +Pitt, William, 151 +Pius IX, Syllabus, 210 sq. +Pius X, Pope, 199 sq. +Plato, 36 sq. +Plutarch, 150 +Prayer, controversy on, 216 +Press, censorship, 91 sq., 224 sq. +Priestley, 227 +Priscillian, 55 +Progress, idea of, 226 sqq. +Protagoras, 25 +</p><p class="index"> +Raleigh, Sir W., 85 +Rationalism, meaning of, 18 +Reade, Winwood, 213 +Reinach, S., 197 +Renan, 198 +Revolution, French, 111 sqq. +Rhode Island, 98 +Richelieu, Cardinal, 85, 107 +Rousseau. 111, 156 sqq., 239 +Ruffini, Professor, 125 +Russia, 224 +</p><p class="index"> +Sacred books, 24, 53 sq., 191 +Science, physical, 64 sq., 176 sqq. +Secularism, 224 +Seeley, J. R., 208 +Servetus, 79 +Shaftesbury. 148 sqq., 151 +Shelley, 173, 208 +Socinianism, 83, 93 sqq. +Socrates, 30 sqq., 39, 235, 236 +Sophists, Greek, 26 +Spain, 59 sqq., 231 sq. +Spencer, Herbert. 187 +Spinoza, 131 sq., 138, 191 +Stephen. Leslie, 167, 215 sqq. +Stephen, J. F.. 203, 245 sq., 247 +Stoicism, 36, 38 sq. + +<span class="page">[256]</span> +Strauss, David, 195, 198 +Swinburne. 208, 211 sq. +</p><p class="index"> +Tamburini. 122 +Tatian, 44 +Themistius, 55 +Theodosius I, Emperor, 54 +Theophilanthropy, 114 sq. +Thomas Aquinas, 69 +Thomasius, Chr., 119 +Three Rings, story of, 70 +Tiherius, Emperor, 40 +Tindal, Matthew, 144 sqq. +Toland, 133 sq. +Toleration, 46 sqq., 92 sqq. +Trajan, Emperor, 42 +Turgot, 227 +Tyndall, 213 +</p><p class="index"> +Unitarians, 93, 105 +United States, 96 sqq., 128 +Universities, tests at, 108 +Utilitarianism, 227 +</p><p class="index"> +Vanini, Lucilio, 85 +Vatican Council (1869—70), 210 +Voltaire, 108 sqq., 114, 121, 153 sqq. +</p><p class="index"> +Wesley, 130 +Westbury, Lord, 207 +Wilberforce, 201 +Williams, Roger, 96 sq. +Witchcraft, 66 sq., 80, 129 sq. +Woolston, 141 sqq. +</p><p class="index"> +Xenophanes, 23 sq. +</p> +</div> + +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 10684 ***</div> +</body> +</html> |