{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-6:rome-or-reason",
  "slug": "rome-or-reason",
  "title": "Rome or Reason",
  "subtitle": "A reply to Cardinal Manning.",
  "excerpt": "Henry Edward, Cardinal Manning, defends the Church as its own divine witness; Ingersoll replies that authority, not reason, is what this argument actually demands of the listener.",
  "year": 1888,
  "volume": 6,
  "category": "Discussion",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/rome-or-reason/",
  "wordCount": 39618,
  "body": "The Gladstone-Ingersoll Controversy.\n\nTHE CHURCH ITS OWN WITNESS, By Cardinal Manning.\n\nTHE Vatican Council, in its Decree on Faith has these words: \"The\nChurch itself, by its marvelous propagation, its eminent sanctity, its\ninexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things, its catholic unity and\ninvincible stability, is a vast and perpetual motive of credibility, and\nan irrefragable witness of its own Divine legation.\"* Its Divine Founder\nsaid: \"I am the light of the world;\" and, to His Apostles, He said also,\n\"Ye are the light of the world,\" and of His Church He added, \"A city\nseated on a hill cannot be hid.\" The Vatican Council says, \"The Church\nis its own witness.\" My purpose is to draw out this assertion more\nfully.\n  • \"Const. Dogm. de Fide Catholica, c. iii.\n\nThese words affirm that the Church is self-evident, as light is to the\neye, and through sense, to the intellect. Next to the sun at noonday,\nthere is nothing in the world more manifest than the one visible\nUniversal Church. Both the faith and the infidelity of the world bear\nwitness to it. It is loved and hated, trusted and feared, served and\nassaulted, honored and blasphemed: it is Christ or Antichrist, the\nKingdom of God or the imposture of Satan. It pervades the civilized\nworld. No man and no nation can ignore it, none can be indifferent to\nit. Why is all this? How is its existence to be accounted for?\n\nLet me suppose that I am an unbeliever in Christianity, and that some\nfriend should make me promise to examine the evidence to show that\nChristianity is a Divine revelation; I should then sift and test the\nevidence as strictly as if it were in a court of law, and in a cause of\nlife and death; my will would be in suspense: it would in no way\ncontrol the process of my intellect. If it had any inclination from the\nequilibrium, it would be towards mercy and hope; but this would not\nadd a feather's weight to the evidence, nor sway the intellect a hair's\nbreadth.\n\nAfter the examination has been completed, and my intellect convinced,\nthe evidence being sufficient to prove that Christianity is a divine\nrevelation, nevertheless I am not yet a Christian. All this sifting\nbrings me to the conclusion of a chain of reasoning; but I am not yet\na believer. The last act of reason has brought me to the brink of the\nfirst act of faith. They are generically distinct and separable. The\nacts of reason are intellectual, and jealous of the interference of the\nwill. The act of faith is an imperative act of the will, founded on and\njustified by the process and conviction of the intellect. Hitherto I\nhave been a critic: henceforward, if I will, I become a disciple.\n\nIt may here be objected that no man can so far suspend the inclination\nof the will when the question is, has God indeed spoken to man or no? is\nthe revealed law of purity, generosity, perfection, divine, or only the\npoetry of imagination? Can a man be indifferent between two such sides\nof the problem? Will he not desire the higher and better side to be\ntrue? and if he desire, will he not incline to the side that he desires\nto find true? Can a moral being be absolutely indifferent between two\nsuch issues? and can two such issues be equally attractive to a moral\nagent? Can it be indifferent and all the same to us whether God has\nmade Himself and His will known to us or not? Is there no attraction\nin light, no repulsion in darkness? Does not the intrinsic and eternal\ndistinction of good and evil make itself felt in spite of the will?\nAre we not responsible to \"receive the truth in the love of it?\"\nNevertheless, evidence has its own limits and quantities, and cannot be\nmade more or less by any act of the will. And yet, what is good or bad,\nhigh or mean, lovely or hateful, ennobling or degrading, must attract\nor repel men as they are better or worse in their moral sense; for an\nequilibrium between good and evil, to God or to man, is impossible.\n\nThe last act of my reason, then, is distinct from my first act of\nfaith precisely in this: so long as I was uncertain I suspended the\ninclination of my will, as an act of fidelity to conscience and of\nloyalty to truth; but the process once complete, and the conviction once\nattained, my will imperatively constrains me to believe, and I become a\ndisciple of a Divine revelation.\n\nMy friend next tells me that there are Christian Scriptures, and I go\nthrough precisely the same process of critical examination and final\nconviction, the last act of reasoning preceding, as before, the first\nact of faith.\n\nHe then tells me that there is a Church claiming to be divinely founded,\ndivinely guarded, and divinely guided in its custody of Christianity and\nof the Christian Scriptures.\n\nOnce more I have the same twofold process of reasoning and of believing\nto go through.\n\nThere is, however, this difference in the subject-matter: Christianity\nis an order of supernatural truth appealing intellectually to my reason;\nthe Christian Scriptures are voiceless, and need a witness. They\ncannot prove their own mission, much less their own authenticity or\ninspiration. But the Church is visible to the eye, audible to the ear,\nself-manifesting and self-asserting: I cannot escape from it. If I go to\nthe east, it is there; if I go to the west, it is there also. If I stay\nat home, it is before me, seated on the hill; if I turn away from it, I\nam surrounded by its light. It pursues me and calls to me. I cannot deny\nits existence; I cannot be indifferent to it; I must either listen to\nit or willfully stop my ears; I must heed it or defy it, love it or\nhate it. But my first attitude towards it is to try it with forensic\nstrictness, neither pronouncing it to be Christ nor Antichrist till I\nhave tested its origin, claim, and character. Let us take down the case\nin short-hand.\n\n1. It says that it interpenetrates all the nations of the civilized\nworld. In some it holds the whole nation in its unity, in others it\nholds fewer; but in all it is present, visible, audible, naturalized,\nand known as the one Catholic Church, a name that none can appropriate.\nThough often claimed and controversially assumed, none can retain it; it\nfalls off. The world knows only one Catholic Church, and always restores\nthe name to the right owner.\n\n2. It is not a national body, but extra-national, accused of its foreign\nrelations and foreign dependence. It is international, and independent\nin a supernational unity.\n\n3. In faith, divine worship, sacred ceremonial, discipline, government,\nfrom the highest to the lowest, it is the same in every place.\n\n4. It speaks all languages in the civilized world.\n\n5. It is obedient to one Head, outside of all nations, except one only;\nand in that nation, his headship is not national but world-wide.\n\n6. The world-wide sympathy of the Church in all lands with its Head has\nbeen manifested in our days, and before our eyes, by a series of public\nassemblages in Rome, of which nothing like or second to it can be\nfound. In 1854, 350 Bishops of all nations surrounded their Head when he\ndefined the Immaculate Conception. In 1862, 400 Bishops assembled at the\ncanonization of the Martyrs of Japan. In 1867, 500 Bishops came to keep\nthe eighteenth centenary of St. Peter's martyrdom. In 1870, 700 Bishops\nassembled in the Vatican Council. On the Feast of the Epiphany, 1870,\nthe Bishops of thirty nations during two whole hours made profession of\nfaith in their own languages, kneeling before their head. Add to this,\nthat in 1869, in the sacerdotal jubilee of Pius IX., Rome was filled for\nmonths by pilgrims from all lands in Europe and beyond the sea, from the\nOld World and from the New, bearing all manner of gifts and oblations\nto the Head of the Universal Church. To this, again, must be added the\nworld-wide outcry and protest of all the Catholic unity against the\nseizure and sacrilege of September, 1870, when Rome was taken by the\nItalian Revolution.\n\n7. All this came to pass not only by reason of the great love of\nthe Catholic world for Pius IX., but because they revered him as the\nsuccessor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. For that undying\nreason the same events have been reproduced in the time of Leo XIII. In\nthe early months of this year Rome was once more filled with pilgrims of\nall nations, coming in thousands as representatives of millions in all\nnations, to celebrate the sacerdotal jubilee of the Sovereign Pontiff.\nThe courts of the Vatican could not find room for the multitude of gifts\nand offerings of every kind which were sent from all quarters of the\nworld.\n\n8. These things are here said, not because of any other importance,\nbut because they set forth in the most visible and self-evident way the\nliving unity and the luminous universality of the One Catholic and Roman\nChurch.\n\n9. What has thus far been said is before our eyes at this hour. It is no\nappeal to history, but to a visible and palpable fact. Men may explain\nit as they will; deny it, they cannot. They see the Head of the Church\nyear by year speaking to the nations of the world; treating with\nEmpires, Republics and Governments. There is no other man on earth that\ncan so bear himself. Neither from Canterbury nor from Constantinople can\nsuch a voice go forth to which rulers and people listen.\n\nThis is the century of revolutions. Rome has in our time been besieged\nthree times; three Popes have been driven out of it, two have been shut\nup in the Vatican. The city is now full of the Revolution. The whole\nChurch has been tormented by Falck laws, Mancini laws, and Crispi laws.\nAn unbeliever in Germany said some years ago, \"The net is now drawn so\ntight about the Church, that if it escapes this time I will believe in\nit.\" Whether he believes, or is even alive now to believe, I cannot say.\n\nNothing thus far has been said as proof. The visible, palpable\nfacts, which are at this moment before the eyes of all men, speak for\nthemselves. There is one, and only one, worldwide unity of which\nthese things can be said. It is a fact and a phenomenon for which an\nintelligible account must be rendered. If it be only a human system\nbuilt up by the intellect, will and energy of men, let the adversaries\nprove it. The burden is upon them; and they will have more to do as we\ngo on.\n\nThus far we have rested upon the evidence of sense and fact. We must now\ngo on to history and reason.\n\nEvery religion and every religious body known to history has varied\nfrom itself and broken up. Brahminism has given birth to Buddhism;\nMahometanism is parted into the Arabian and European Khalifates;\nthe Greek schism into the Russian, Constantinopolitan, and Bulgarian\nautocephalous fragment; Protestaritism into its multitudinous\ndiversities. All have departed from their original type, and all\nare continually developing new and irreconcilable, intellectual and\nritualistic, diversities and repulsions. How is it that, with all\ndiversities of language, civilization, race, interest, and conditions,\nsocial and political, including persecution and warfare, the Catholic\nnations are at this day, even when in warfare, in unchanged unity of\nfaith, communion, worship and spiritual sympathy with each other and\nwith their Head? This needs a rational explanation.\n\nIt may be said in answer, endless divisions have come out of the Church,\nfrom Arius to Photius, and from Photius to Luther.\n\nYes, but they all came out. There is the difference. They did not remain\nin the Church, corrupting the faith. They came out, and ceased to belong\nto the Catholic unity, as a branch broken from a tree ceases to belong\nto the tree. But the identity of the tree remains the same. A branch is\nnot a tree, nor a tree a branch. A tree may lose branches, but it rests\nupon its root, and renews its loss. Not so the religions, so to call\nthem, that have broken away from unity. Not one has retained its members\nor its doctrines. Once separated from the sustaining unity of the\nChurch, all separations lose their spiritual cohesion, and then their\nintellectual identity. Ramus procisus arescit.\n\nFor the present it is enough to say that no human legislation, authority\nor constraint can ever create internal unity of intellect and will; and\nthat the diversities and contradictions generated by all human systems\nprove the absence of Divine authority. Variations or contradictions are\nproof of the absence of a Divine mission to mankind. All natural causes\nrun to disintegration. Therefore, they can render no account of the\nworld-wide unity of the One Universal Church.\n\nSuch, then, are the facts before our eyes at this day. We will seek out\nthe origin of the body or system called the Catholic Church, and pass at\nonce to its outset eighteen hundred years ago.\n\nI affirm, then, three things: (1) First, that no adequate account can be\ngiven of this undeniable fact from natural causes; (2) that the history\nof the Catholic Church demands causes above nature; and (3) that it has\nalways claimed for itself a Divine origin and Divine authority.\n\nI. And, first, before we examine what it was and what it has done, we\nwill recall to mind what was the world in the midst of which it arose.\n\nThe most comprehensive and complete description of the old world, before\nChristianity came in upon it, is given in the first chapter of the\nEpistle to the Romans. Mankind had once the knowledge of God: that\nknowledge was obscured by the passions of sense; in the darkness of the\nhuman intellect, with the light of nature still before them, the nations\nworshiped the creature—that is, by pantheism, polytheism, idolatry;\nand, having lost the knowledge of God and of His perfections, they lost\nthe knowledge of their own nature and of its laws, even of the natural\nand rational laws, which thenceforward ceased to guide, restrain, or\ngovern them. They became perverted and inverted with every possible\nabuse, defeating the end and destroying the powers of creation. The\nlights of nature were put out, and the world rushed headlong into\nconfusions, of which the beasts that perish were innocent. This is\nanalytically the history of all nations but one. A line of light still\nshone from Adam to Enoch, from Enoch to Abraham, to whom the command was\ngiven, \"Walk before Me and be perfect.\" And it ran on from Abraham\nto Caiaphas, who crucified the founder of Christianity. Through all\nanthropomorphisms of thought and language this line of light still\npassed inviolate and inviolable. But in the world, on either side of\nthat radiant stream, the whole earth was dark. The intellectual and\nmoral state of the Greek world may be measured in its highest excellence\nin Athens; and of the Roman world in Rome. The 'state of Athens—its\nprivate, domestic, and public morality—may be seen in Aristophanes.\n\nThe state of Rome is visible in Juvenal, and in the fourth book of St.\nAugustine's \"City of God.\" There was only one evil wanting-. The world\nwas not Atheist. Its polytheism was the example and the warrant of all\nforms of moral abominations. Imitary quod colis plunged the nations\nin crime. Their theology was their degradation; their text-book of an\nelaborate corruption of intellect and will.\n\nChristianity came in \"the fullness of time.\" What that fullness may\nmean, is one of the mysteries of times and seasons which it is not for\nus to know. But one motive for the long delay of four thousand years\nis not far to seek. It gave time, full and ample, for the utmost\ndevelopment and consolidation of all the falsehood and evil of which the\nintellect and will of man are capable. The four great empires were each\nof them the concentration of a supreme effort of human power. The second\ninherited from the first, the third from both, the fourth from all\nthree. It was, as it was foretold or described, as a beast, \"exceeding\nterrible; his teeth and claws were of iron; he devoured and broke in\npieces; and the rest he stamped upon with his feet.\" * The empire of\nman over man was never so widespread, so absolute, so hardened into one\norganized mass, as in Imperial Rome. The world had never seen a military\npower so disciplined, irresistible, invincible; a legislation so just,\nso equitable, so strong in its execution; a government so universal,\nso local, so minute. It seemed to be imperishable. Rome was called\nthe eternal. The religions of all nations were enshrined in Dea Roma;\nadopted, practiced openly, and taught. They were all _religiones\nlicitae_, known to the law; not tolerated only, but recognized. The\ntheologies of Egypt, Greece, and of the Latin world, met in an empyreum,\nconsecrated and guarded by the Imperial law, and administered by the\nPontifex Maximus. No fanaticism ever surpassed the religious cruelties\nof Rome.. Add to all this the colluvies of false philosophies of every\nland, and of every date. They both blinded and hardened the intellect\nof public opinion and of private men against the invasion of anything\nexcept contempt, and hatred of both the philosophy of sophists and of\nthe religion of the people. Add to all this the sensuality of the most\nrefined and of the grossest luxury the world had ever seen, and a moral\nconfusion and corruption which violated every law of nature.\n  • Daniel, vii. 19.\n\nThe god of this world had built his city. From foundation to parapet,\neverything that the skill and power of man could do had been done\nwithout stint of means or limit of will. The Divine hand was stayed, or\nrather, as St. Augustine says, an unsurpassed natural greatness was the\nreward of certain natural virtues, degraded as they were in unnatural\nabominations. Rome was the climax of the power of man without God, the\napotheosis of the human will, the direct and supreme antagonist of God\nin His own world. In this the fullness of time was come. Man built all\nthis for himself. Certainly, man could not also build the City of God.\nThey are not the work of one and the same architect, who capriciously\nchose to build first the city of confusion, suspending for a time his\nskill and power to build some day the City of God. Such a hypothesis is\nfolly. Of two things, one. Disputers must choose one or the other.\nBoth cannot be asserted, and the assertion needs no answer—it refutes\nitself. So much for the first point.\n\nII. In the reign of Augustus, and in a remote and powerless Oriental\nrace, a Child was born in a stable of a poor Mother. For thirty years He\nlived a hidden life; for three years He preached the Kingdom of God, and\ngave laws hitherto unknown to men. He died in ignominy upon the Cross;\non the third day He rose again; and after forty days He was seen no\nmore. This unknown Man created the world-wide unity of intellect and\nwill which is visible to the eye, and audible, in all languages, to the\near. It is in harmony with the reason and moral nature of all nations,\nin all ages, to this day. What proportion is there between the cause\nand the effect? What power was there in this isolated Man? What unseen\nvirtues went out of Him to change the world? For change the world He\ndid; and that not in the line or on the level of nature as men had\ncorrupted it, but in direct contradiction to all that was then supreme\nin the world. He taught the dependence of the intellect against\nits self-trust, the submission of the will against its license,\nthe subjugation of the passions by temperate control or by absolute\nsubjection against their willful indulgence. This was to reverse what\nmen believed to be the laws of nature: to make water climb upward and\nfire to point downward. He taught mortification of the lusts of the\nflesh, contempt of the lusts of the eyes, and hatred of the pride of\nlife. What hope was there that such a teacher should convert imperial\nRome? that such a doctrine should exorcise the fullness of human pride\nand lust? Yet so it has come to pass; and how? Twelve men more obscure\nthan Himself, absolutely without authority or influence of this world,\npreached throughout the empire and beyond it. They asserted two facts:\nthe one, that God had been made man; the other, that He died and\nrose again. What could be more incredible? To the Jews the unity and\nspirituality of God were axioms of reason and faith; to the Gentiles,\nhowever cultured, the resurrection of the flesh was impossible. The\nDivine Person Who had died and risen could not be called in evidence as\nthe chief witness. He could not be produced in court. Could anything be\nmore suspicious if credible, or less credible even if He were there to\nsay so? All that they could do was to say, \"We knew Him for three years,\nboth before His death and after He rose from the dead. If you will\nbelieve us, you will believe what we say. If you will not believe us,\nwe can say no more. He is not here, but in heaven. We cannot call him\ndown.\" It is true, as we read, that Peter cured a lame man at the gate\nof the Temple. The Pharisees could not deny it, but they would not\nbelieve what Peter said; they only told him to hold his tongue. And yet\nthousands in one day in Jerusalem believed in the Incarnation and the\nResurrection; and when the Apostles were scattered by persecution,\nwherever they went men believed their word. The most intense persecution\nwas from the Jews, the people of faith and of Divine traditions. In\nthe name of God and of religion they stoned Stephen, and sent Saul to\npersecute at Damascus. More than this, they stirred up the Romans in\nevery place. As they had forced Pilate to crucify Jesus of Nazareth, so\nthey swore to slay Paul. And yet, in spite of all, the faith spread.\n\nIt is true, indeed, that the Empire of Alexander, the spread of the\nHellenistic Greek, the prevalence of Greek in Rome itself, the Roman\nroads which made the Empire traversable, the Roman peace which sheltered\nthe preachers of the faith in the outset of their work, gave them\nfacilities to travel and to be understood. But these were only external\nfacilities, which in no way rendered more credible or more acceptable\nthe voice of penance and mortification, or the mysteries of the faith,\nwhich was immutably \"to the Jews a stumbling-block and to the Greeks\nfoolishness.\" It was in changeless opposition to nature as man had\nmarred it; but it was in absolute harmony with nature as God had made\nit to His own likeness. Its power was its persuasiveness; and its\npersuasiveness was in its conformity to the highest and noblest\naspirations and aims of the soul in man. The master-key so long lost\nwas found at last; and its conformity to the wards of the lock was its\nirrefragable witness to its own mission and message.\n\nBut if it is beyond belief that Christianity in its outset made good\nits foothold by merely human causes and powers, how much more does this\nbecome incredible in every age as we come down from the first century to\nthe nineteenth, and from the Apostolic mission to the world-wide Church,\nCatholic and Roman, at this day.\n\nNot only did the world in the fullness of its power give to the\nChristian faith no help to root or to spread itself, but it wreaked all\nthe fullness of its power upon it to uproot and to destroy it, Of the\nfirst thirty Pontiffs in Rome, twenty-nine were martyred. Ten successive\npersecutions, or rather one universal and continuous persecution of two\nhundred years, with ten more bitter excesses of enmity in every province\nof the Empire, did all that man can do to extinguish the Christian name.\nThe Christian name may be blotted out here and there in blood, but the\nChristian faith can nowhere be slain. It is inscrutable, and beyond the\nreach of man. In nothing is the blood of the martyrs more surely the\nseed of the faith. Every martyrdom was a witness to the faith, and the\nten persecutions were the sealing of the work of the twelve Apostles.\nThe destroyer defeated himself. Christ crucified was visibly set forth\nbefore all the nations, the world was a Calvary, and the blood of the\nmartyrs preached in every tongue the Passion of Jesus Christ. The world\ndid its worst, and ceased only for weariness and conscious defeat.\n\nThen came the peace, and with peace the peril of the Church. The\nworld outside had failed; the world inside began to work. It no longer\ndestroyed life; it perverted the intellect, and, through intellectual\nperversion, assailed the faith at its centre, The Angel of light\npreached heresy. The Baptismal Creed was assailed all along the line;\nGnosticism assailed the Father-and Creator of all things; Arianism,\nthe God-head of the Son; Nestorianism, the unity of His person;\nMonophysites, the two natures; Monothelites, the divine and human wills;\nMacedonians, the person of the Holy Ghost So throughout the centuries,\nfrom Nicaea to the Vatican, every article has been in succession\nperverted by heresy and defined by the Church. But of this we shall\nspeak hereafter. If the human intellect could fasten its perversions\non the Chris tian faith, it would have done so long ago; and if the\nChristian faith had been guarded by no more than human intellect, it\nwould long ago have been disintegrated, as we see in every religion\noutside the unity of the one Catholic Church. There is no example in\nwhich fragmentary Christianities have not departed from their original\ntype. No human system is immutable; no thing human is changeless.\nThe human intellect, therefore, can give no sufficient account of the\nidentity of the Catholic faith in all places and in all ages by any\nof its own natural processes or powers. The force of this argument is\nimmensely increased when we trace the tradition of the faith through the\nnineteen OEcumenical Councils which, with one continuous intelligence,\nhave guarded and unfolded the deposit of faith, defining every truth\nas it has been successively assailed, in absolute harmony and unity of\nprogression.\n\nWhat the Senate is to your great Republic, or the Parliament to our\nEnglish monarchy, such are the nineteen Councils of the Church, with\nthis only difference: the secular Legislatures must meet year by year\nwith short recesses; Councils have met on the average once in a century.\nThe reason of this is that the mutabilities of national life, which are\nas the water-floods, need constant remedies; the stability of the Church\nseldom needs new legislation. The faith needs no definition except in\nrare intervals of periodical intellectual disorder. The discipline\nof the Church reigns by an universal common law which seldom needs a\nchange, and by local laws which are provided on the spot. Nevertheless,\nthe legislation of the Church, the Corpus Juris, or Canon Law, is\na creation of wisdom and justice, to which no Statutes at large or\nImperial pandects can bear comparison. Human intellect has reached its\nclimax in jurisprudence, but the world-wide and secular legislation\nof the Church has a higher character. How the Christian law corrected,\nelevated, and completed the Imperial law, may be seen in a learned and\nable work by an American author, far from the Catholic faith, but in the\nmain just and accurate in his facts and arguments—the Gesta Christi\nof Charles Loring Brace. Water cannot rise above its source, and if the\nChurch by mere human wisdom corrected and perfected the Imperial law,\nits source must be higher than the sources of the world. This makes a\nheavy demand on our credulity.\n\nStarting from St. Peter to Leo XIII., there have been some 258\nPontiffs claiming to be, and recognized by the whole Catholic unity as,\nsuccessors of St. Peter and Vicars of Jesus Christ. To them has been\nrendered in every age not only the external obedience of outward\nsubmission, but the internal obedience of faith. They have borne the\nonset of the nations who destroyed Imperial Rome, and the tyranny of\nheretical Emperors of Byzantium; and, worse than this, the alternate\ndespotism and patronage of the Emperors of the West, and the\nsubstraction of obedience in the great Western schisms, when the unity\nof the Church and the authority of its Head were, as men thought, gone\nfor ever. It was the last assault—the forlorn hope of the gates of\nhell. Every art of destruction had been tried: martyrdom, heresy,\nsecularity, schism; at last, two, and three, and four claimants, or, as\nthe world says, rival Popes, were set up, that men might believe that\nSt. Peter had no longer a successor, and our Lord no Vicar, upon earth;\nfor, though all might be illegitimate, only one could be the lawful and\ntrue Head of the Church. Was it only by the human power of man that the\nunity, external and internal, which for fourteen hundred years had been\nsupreme, was once more restored in the Council of Constance, never to be\nbroken again? The succession of the English monarchy has been, indeed,\noften broken, and always restored, in these thousand years. But here\nis a monarchy of eighteen hundred years, powerless in worldly force or\nsupport, claiming and receiving not only outward allegiance, but inward\nunity of intellect and will. If any man tell us that these two phenomena\nare on the same level of merely human causes, it is too severe a tax\nupon our natural reason to believe it.\n\nBut the inadequacy of human causes to account for the universality,\nunity, and immutability of the Catholic Church, will stand out more\nvisibly if we look at the intellectual and moral revolution which\nChristianity has wrought in the world and upon mankind.\n\nThe first effect of Christianity was to fill the world with the true\nknowledge of the One True God, and to destroy utterly all idols, not\nby fire but by light. Before the Light of the world no false god and no\npolytheism could stand. The unity and spirituality of God swept away all\ntheogonies and theologies of the first four thousand years. The stream\nof light which descended from the beginning expanded into a radiance,\nand the radiance into a flood, which illuminated all nations, as it had\nbeen foretold, \"The earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord,\nas the covering waters of the sea;\" \"And idols shall be utterly\ndestroyed.\"* In this true knowledge of the Divine Nature was revealed to\nmen their own relation to a Creator as of sons to a father. The Greeks\ncalled the chief of the gods Zeus Pater, and the Latins Jupiter; but\nneither realized the dependence and love of sonship as revealed by the\nFounder of Christianity.\n  • Isaias, xi. 9-11, 18.\n\nThe monotheism of the world comes down from a primeval and Divine\nsource. Polytheism is the corruption of men and of nations. Yet in\nthe multiplicity of all polytheisms, ont supreme Deity was always\nrecognized. The Divine unity was imperishable. Polytheism is of human\nimagination: it is of men's manufacture. The deification of nature and\npassions and heroes had filled the world with an elaborate and tenacious\nsuperstition, surrounded by reverence, fear, religion, and awe.\nEvery perversion of what is good in man surrounded it with authority;\neverything that is evil in man guarded it with jealous care. Against\nthis world-wide and imperious demon-ology the science of one God, all\nholy and supreme, advanced with resistless force. Beelzebub is not\ndivided against himself; and if polytheism is not Divine, monotheism\nmust be. The overthrow of idolatry and demonology was the mastery of\nforces that are above nature. This conclusion is enough for our present\npurpose.\n\nA second visible effect of Christianity of which nature cannot offer\nany adequate cause is to be found in the domestic life of the Christian\nworld. In some nations the existence of marriage was not so much as\nrecognized. In others, if recognized, it was dishonored by profuse\nconcubinage. Even in Israel, the most advanced nation, the law of\ndivorce was permitted for the hardness of their hearts. Christianity\nrepublished the primitive law by which marriage unites only one man and\none woman indissolubly in a perpetual contract. It raised their mutual\nand perpetual contract to a sacrament. This at one blow condemned all\nother relations between man and woman, all the legal gradations of\nthe Imperial law, and all forms and pleas of divorce. Beyond this the\nspiritual legislation of the Church framed most elaborate tables of\nconsanguinity and affinity, prohibiting all marriages between persons in\ncertain degrees of kinship or relation. This law has created the purity\nand peace of domestic life. Neither the Greek nor the Roman world\nhad any true conception of a home. The Eoria or Vesta was a sacred\ntradition guarded by vestals like a temple worship. It was not a law\nand a power in the homes of the people. Christianity, by enlarging the\ncircles of prohibition within which men and women were as brothers and\nsisters, has created the home with all its purities and safeguards.\n\nSuch a law of unity and indissolubility, encompassed by a multitude of\nprohibitions, no mere human legislation could impose on the the passions\nand will of mankind. And yet the Imperial laws gradually yielded to its\nresistless pressure, and incorporated it in its world-wide legislation.\nThe passions and practices of four thousand years were against the\nchange; yet it was accomplished, and it reigns inviolate to this day,\nthough the relaxations of schism in the East and the laxities of the\nWest have revived the abuse of divorces, and have partially abolished\nthe wise and salutary prohibitions which guard the homes of the\nfaithful. These relaxations prove that all natural forces have been, and\nare, hostile to the indissoluble law of Christian marriage. Certainly,\nthen, it was not by natural forces that the Sacrament of Matrimony and\nthe legislation springing from it were enacted. If these are restraints\nof human liberty and license, either they do not spring from nature, or\nthey have had a supernatural cause whereby they exist. It was this that\nredeemed woman from the traditional degradation in which the world had\nheld her. The condition of women in Athens and in Rome—which may be\ntaken as the highest points of civilization—is too well known to need\nrecital. Women had no rights, no property, no independence. Plato looked\nupon them as State property; Aristotle as chattels; the Greeks wrote of\nthem as [—Greek—].\n\nThey were the prey, the sport, the slaves of man. Even in Israel, though\nthey were raised incomparably higher than in the Gentile world, they\nwere far below the dignity and authority of Christian women. Libanius,\nthe friend of Julian, the Apostate, said, \"O ye gods of Greece, how\ngreat are the women of the Christians!\" Whence came the elevation of\nwomanhood? Not from the ancient civilization, for it degraded them; not\nfrom Israel, for among the Jews the highest state of womanhood was the\nmarriage state. The daughter of Jepthe went into the mountains to mourn\nnot her death but her virginity. The marriage state in the Christian\nworld, though holy and good, is not the highest state. The state of\nvirginity unto death is the highest condition of man and woman. But this\nis above the law of nature. It belongs to a higher order. And this life\nof virginity, in repression of natural passion and lawful instinct, is\nboth above and against the tendencies of human nature. It begins in a\nmortification, and ends in a mastery, over the movements and ordinary\nlaws of human nature. Who will ascribe this to natural causes? and, if\nso, why did it not appear in the first four thousand years? And when has\nit ever appeared except in a handful of vestal virgins, or in Oriental\nrecluses, with what reality history shows? An exception proves a rule.\nNo one will imagine that a life of chastity is impossible to nature; but\nthe restriction is a repression of nature which individuals may acquire,\nbut the multitude have never attained. A religion which imposes chastity\non the unmarried, and upon its priesthood, and upon the multitudes of\nwomen in every age who devote themselves to the service of One Whom they\nhave never seen, is a mortification of nature in so high a degree as\nto stand out as a fact and a phenomenon, of which mere natural causes\nafford no adequate solution. Its existence, not in a handful out of the\nmillions of the world, but its prevalence and continuity in multitudes\nscattered throughout the Christian world, proves the presence of a cause\nhigher than the laws of nature. So true is this, that jurists teach that\nthe three vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience are contrary to \"the\npolicy of the law,\" that is, to the interests of the commonwealth, which\ndesires the multiplication, enrichment, and liberty of its members.\n\nTo what has been said may be added the change wrought by Christianity\nupon the social, political, and international relations of the world.\nThe root of this ethical change, private and public, is the Christian\nhome. The authority of parents, the obedience of children, the love of\nbrotherhood, are the three active powers which have raised the society\nof man above the level of the old world. Israel was head and shoulders\nabove the world around it; but Christendom is high above Israel. The new\nCommandment of brotherly love, and the Sermon on the Mount, have wrought\na revolution, both in private and public life. From this come the laws\nof justice and sympathy which bind together the nations of the Christian\nworld. In the old world, even the most refined races, worshiped by our\nmodern philosophers, held and taught that man could hold property in\nman. In its chief cities there were more slaves than free men. Who has\ntaught the equality of men before the law, and extinguished the impious\nthought that man can hold property in man? It was no philosopher: even\nAristotle taught that a slave was [—Greek—]. It was no lawgiver, for\nall taught the lawfulness of slavery till Christianity denied it. The\nChristian law has taught that man can lawfully sell his labor, but that\nhe cannot lawfully be sold, or sell himself.\n\nThe necessity of being brief, the impossibility of drawing out the\npicture of the old world, its profound immoralities, its unimaginable\ncruelties, compels me to argue with my right hand tied behind me. I can\ndo no more than point again to Mr. Brace's \"Gesta Christi,\" or to Dr.\nDollinger's \"Gentile and Jew,\" as witnesses to the facts which I have\nstated or implied. No one who has not read such books, or mastered their\ncontents by original study, can judge of the force of the assertion that\nChristianity has reformed the world by direct antagonism to the human\nwill, and by a searching and firm repression of human passion. It has\nascended the stream of human license, contra ictum fluminis, by a\npower mightier than nature, and by laws of a higher order than the\nrelaxations of this world.\n\nBefore Christianity came on earth, the civilization of man by merely\nnatural force had culminated. It could not rise above its source; all\nthat it could do was done; and the civilization in every race and\nempire had ended in decline and corruption. The old civilization was not\nregenerated. It passed away to give place to a new. But the new had\na higher source, nobler laws and supernatural powers. The highest\nexcellence of men and of nations is the civilization of Christianity.\nThe human race has ascended into what we call Christendom, that is,\ninto the new creation of charity and justice among men. Christendom was\ncreated by the worldwide Church as we see it before our eyes at this\nday. Philosophers and statesmen believe it to be the work of their own\nhands: they did not make it; but they have for three hundred years\nbeen unmaking it by reformations and revolutions. These are destructive\nforces. They build up nothing. It has been well said by Donoso Cortez\nthat \"the history of civilization is the history of Christianity, the\nhistory of Christianity is the history of the Church, the history of the\nChurch is the history of the Pontiffs, the greatest statesmen and rulers\nthat the world has ever seen.\"\n\nSome years ago, a Professor of great literary reputation in England, who\nwas supposed even then to be, as his subsequent writings have proved, a\nskeptic or non-Christian, published a well-known and very candid book,\nunder the title of \"Ecce Homo.\" The writer placed himself, as it were,\noutside of Christianity. He took, not the Church in the world as in\nthis article, but the Christian Scriptures as a historical record, to be\njudged with forensic severity and absolute impartiality of mind. To the\ncredit of the author, he fulfilled this pledge; and his conclusion shall\nhere be given. After an examination of the life and character of the\nAuthor of Christianity, he proceeded to estimate His teaching and its\neffects under the following heads:\n    1. The Christian Legislation.\n    2. The Christian Republic.\n    3. Its Universality.\n    4. The Enthusiasm of Humanity.\n    5. The Lord's Supper.\n    6. Positive Morality.\n    7. Philanthropy.\n    8. Edification.\n    9. Mercy.\n    10. Resentment.\n    11. Forgiveness.\n\nHe then draws his conclusion as follows:\n\n\"The achievement of Christ in founding by his single will and power a\nstructure so durable and so universal is like no other achievement which\nhistory records. The masterpieces of the men of action are coarse and\ncommonplace in comparison with it, and the masterpieces of speculation\nflimsy and unsubstantial. When we speak of it the commonplaces of\nadmiration fail us altogether. Shall we speak of the originality of\nthe design, of the skill displayed in the execution? All such terms are\ninadequate. Originality and contriving skill operate indeed, but, as it\nwere, implicitly. The creative effort which produced that against which\nit is said the gates of hell shall not prevail cannot be analyzed. No\narchitect's designs were furnished for the New Jerusalem; no committee\ndrew up rules for the universal commonwealth. If in the works of\nnature we can trace the indications of calculation, of a struggle with\ndifficulties, of precaution, of ingenuity, then in Christ's work it may\nbe that the same indications occur. But these inferior and secondary\npowers were not consciously exercised; they were implicitly present in\nthe manifold yet single creative act. The inconceivable work was done\nin calmness; before the eyes of mea it was noiselessly accomplished,\nattracting little attention. Who can describe that which unites men? Who\nhas entered into the formation of speech, which is the symbol of their\nunion? Who can describe exhaustively the origin of civil society? He who\ncan do these things can explain the origin of the Christian Church.\nFor others it must be enough to say, 'The Holy Ghost fell on those that\nbelieved'. No man saw the building of the New Jerusalem, the workmen\ncrowded together, the unfinished walla and unpaved streets; no man\nheard the clink of trowel and pickaxe: 'it descended out of heaven from\nGod.'\"*\n  • \"Ece Homo,\" Conclusion, p. 329, Fifth Edition. Macmillan,\n    1886.\n\nAnd yet the writer is, as he was then, still outside of Christianity.\n\nIII. We come now to our third point, that Christianity has always\nclaimed a Divine origin and a Divine presence as the source of its\nauthority and powers.\n\nTo prove this by texts from the New Testament would be to transcribe the\nvolume; and if the evidence of the whole New Testament were put in, not\nonly might some men deny its weight as evidence, but we should place our\nwhole argument upon a false foundation. Christianity was anterior to\nthe New Testament and is independent of it. The Christian Scriptures\npresuppose both the faith and the Church as already existing, known, and\nbelieved. Prior liber quam stylus: as Tertullian argued. The Gospel\nwas preached before it was written. The four books were written to\nthose who already believed, to confirm their faith. They were written\nat intervals: St. Matthew in Hebrew in the year 39, in Greek in 45. St.\nMark in 43, St. Luke in 57, St. John about 90, in different places and\nfor different motives. Four Gospels did not exist for sixty years, or\ntwo generations of men. St. Peter and St. Paul knew of only three of\nour four. In those sixty years the faith had spread from east to west.\nSaints and Martyrs had gone up to their crown who never saw a sacred\nbook. The Apostolic Epistles prove the antecedent existence of the\nChurches to which they were addressed. Rome and Corinth, and Galatia\nand Ephesus, Philippi and Colossae, were Churches with pastors and people\nbefore St. Paul wrote to them. The Church had already attested and\nexecuted its Divine legation before the New Testament existed; and when\nall its books were written they were not as yet collected into a volume.\nThe earliest collection was about the beginning of the second century,\nand in the custody of the Church in Rome. We must, therefore, seek to\nknow what was and is Christianity before and outside of the written\nbooks; and we have the same evidence for the oral tradition of the faith\nas we have for the New Testament itself. Both alike were in the custody\nof the Church; both are delivered to us by the same witness and on the\nsame evidence. To reject either, is logically to reject both. Happily\nmen are not saved by logic, but by faith. The millions of men in\nall ages have believed by inheritance of truth divinely guarded and\ndelivered to them. They have no need of logical analysis. They\nhave believed from their childhood. Neither children nor those who\ninfantibus oquiparantur are logicians. It is the penance of the\ndoubter and the unbeliever to regain by toil his lost inheritance. It\nis a hard penance, like the suffering of those who eternally debate on\n\"predestination, freewill, fate.\"\n\nBetween the death of St. John and the mature lifetime of St. Irenaeus\nfifty years elapsed. St. Polycarp was disciple of St. John. St. Irenaeus\nwas disciple of St. Polycarp. The mind of St. John and the mind of St.\nIrenaeus had only one intermediate intelligence, in contact with each. It\nwould be an affectation of minute criticism to treat the doctrine of\nSt. Irenaeus as a departure from the doctrine of St. Polycarp, or the\ndoctrine of St. Polycarp as a departure from the doctrine of St. John.\nMoreover, St. John ruled the Church at Ephesus, and St. Irenaeus was\nborn in Asia Minor about the year A. D. 120—that is, twenty years after\nSt. John's death, when the Church in Asia Minor was still full of the\nlight of his teaching and of the accents of his voice. Let us see how\nSt. Irenaeus describes the faith and the Church. In his work against\nHeresies, in Book iii. chap. i., he says, \"We have known the way of our\nsalvation by those through whom the Gospel came to us; which, indeed,\nthey then preached, but afterwards, by the will of God, delivered to us\nin Scriptures, the future foundation and pillar of our faith. It is not\nlawful to say that they preached before they had perfect knowledge,\nas some dare to affirm, boasting themselves to be correctors of the\nApostles. For after our Lord rose from the dead, and when they had been\nclothed with the power of the Holy Ghost, Who came upon them from on\nhigh, they were filled with all truths, and had knowledge which was\nperfect.\" In chapter ii. he adds that, \"When they are refuted out\nof Scripture, they turn and accuse the Scriptures as erroneous,\nunauthoritative, and of various readings, so that the truth cannot be\nfound by those who do not know tradition\"—that is, their own. \"But when\nwe challenge them to come to the tradition of the Apostles, which is in\ncustody of the succession of Presbyters in the Church, they turn against\ntradition, saying that they are not only wiser than the Presbyters, but\neven the Apostles, and have found the truth.\" \"It therefore comes\nto pass that they will not agree either with the Scriptures or with\ntradition.\" (Ibid. c. iii.) \"Therefore, all who desire to know the truth\nought to look to the tradition of the Apostles, which is manifest in all\nthe world and in all the Church. We are able to count up the Bishops who\nwere instituted in the Church by the Apostles, and their successors\nto our day. They never taught nor knew such things as these men\nmadly assert.\" \"But as it would be too long in such a book as this to\nenumerate the successions of all the Churches, we point to the tradition\nof the greatest, most ancient Church, known to all, founded and\nconstituted in Rome by the two glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, and to\nthe faith announced to all men, coming down to us by the succession\nof Bishops, thereby confounding all those who, in any way, by\nself-pleasing, or vainglory, or blindness, or an evil mind, teach\nas they ought not. For with this Church, by reason of its greater\nprincipality, it is necessary that all churches should agree; that is,\nthe faithful, wheresoever they be, for in that Church the tradition of\nthe Apostles has been preserved.\" No comment need be made on the\nwords the \"greater principality,\" which have been perverted by every\nanti-Catholic writer from the time they were written to this day. But if\nany one will compare them with the words of St. Paul to the Colossians\n(chap. i. 18), describing the primacy of the Head of the Church in\nheaven, it will appear almost certain that the original Greek of St.\nIrenaeus, which is unfortunately lost, contained either [—Greek—], or\nsome inflection of [—Greek—] which signifies primacy. However this\nmay be, St. Irenaeus goes on: \"The blessed Apostles, having founded\nand instructed the Church, gave in charge the Episcopate, for the\nadministration of the same, to Linus. Of this Linus, Paul, in his\nEpistle to Timothy, makes mention. To him succeeded Anacletus, and\nafter him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement received the\nEpiscopate, he who saw the Apostles themselves and conferred with them,\nwhile as yet he had the preaching of the Apostles in his ears and the\ntradition before his eyes; and not he only, but many who had been taught\nby the Apostles still survived. In the time of this Clement, when no\nlittle dissension had arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church\nin Rome wrote very powerful letters potentissimas litteras to the\nCorinthians, recalling them to peace, restoring their faith, and\ndeclaring the tradition which it had so short a time ago received from\nthe Apostles.\" These letters of St. Clement are well known, but have\nlately become more valuable and complete by the discovery of fragments\npublished in a new edition by Light-foot. In these fragments there is\na tone of authority fully explaining the words of St. Irenaeus. He then\ntraces the succession of the Bishops of Rome to his own day, and adds:\n\"This demonstration is complete to show that it is one and the same\nlife-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church from the\nApostles until now, and is handed on in truth.\" \"Polycarp was not only\ntaught by the Apostles, and conversed with many of those who had seen\nour Lord, but he also was constituted by the Apostles in Asia to be\nBishop in the Church of Smyrna. We also saw him in our early youth, for\nhe lived long, and when very old departed from this life most gloriously\nand nobly by martyrdom. He ever taught that what he had learned from\nthe Apostles, and what the Church had delivered, those things only are\ntrue.\" In the fourth chapter, St. Irenaeus goes on to say: \"Since, then,\nthere are such proofs (of the faith), the truth is no longer to be\nsought for among others, which it is easy to receive from the Church,\nforasmuch as the Apostles laid up all truth in fullness in a rich\ndepository, that all who will may receive from it the water of life.\"\n\"But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures: ought we not\nto follow the order of tradition, which they gave in charge to them to\nwhom they intrusted the Churches? To which order (of tradition) many\nbarbarous nations yield assent, who believe in Christ without paper\nand ink, having salvation written by the Spirit in their hearts, and\ndiligently holding the ancient tradition.\" In the twenty-sixth chapter\nof the same book he says: \"Therefore, it is our duty to obey the\nPresbyters who are in the Church, who have succession from the Apostles,\nas we have already shown; who also with the succession of the Episcopate\nhave the charisma veritatis certum,\" the spiritual and certain gift of\ntruth.\n\nI have quoted these passages at length, not so much as proofs of the\nCatholic Faith as to show the identity of the Church at its outset with\nthe Church before our eyes at this hour, proving that the acorn has\ngrown up into its oak, or, if you will, the identity of the Church at\nthis hour with the Church of the Apostolic mission. These passages show\nthe Episcopate, its central principality, its succession, its custody of\nthe faith, its subsequent reception and guardianship of the Scriptures,\nIts Divine tradition, and the charisma or Divine assistance by which its\nperpetuity is secured in the succession of the Apostles. This is almost\nverbally, after eighteen hundred years, the decree of the Vatican\nCouncil: Veritatis et fidei nunquam deficientis charisma.*\n  • \"Const. Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi,\" cap. iv.\n\nBut St. Irenaeus draws out in full the Church of this day. He shows the\nparallel of the first creation and of the second; of the first Adam and\nthe Second; and of the analogy between the Incarnation or natural body,\nand the Church or mystical body of Christ. He says:\n\nOur faith \"we received from the Church, and guard.... as an excellent\ngift in a noble vessel, always full of youth, and making youthful the\nvessel itself in which it is. For this gift of God is intrusted to the\nChurch, as the breath of life (was imparted) to the first man, so this\nend, that all the members partaking of it might be quickened with life.\nAnd thus the communication of Christ is imparted; that is, the Holy\nGhost, the earnest of incorruption, the confirmation of the faith, the\nway of ascent to God. For in the Church (St. Paul says) God placed\nApostles, Prophets, Doctors, and all other operations of the Spirit, of\nwhich none are partakers who do not come to the Church, thereby\ndepriving themselves of life by a perverse mind and worse deeds. For\nwhere the Church is, there is also the Spirit of God; and where the\nSpirit of God is, there is the Church, and all grace. But the Spirit is\ntruth. Wherefore, they who do not partake of Him (the Spirit), and are\nnot nurtured unto life at the breast of the mother (the Church), do\nnot receive of that most pure fountain which proceeds from the Body of\nChrist, but dig out for themselves broken pools from the trenches of the\nearth, and drink water soiled with mire, because they turn aside from\nthe faith of the Church lest they should be convicted, and reject the\nSpirit lest they should be taught.\"* Again he says: \"The Church,\nscattered throughout the world, even unto the ends of the earth,\nreceived from the Apostles and their disciples the faith in one God the\nFather Almighty, that made the heaven and the earth, and the seas, and\nall things that are in them.\" &c.**\n    *St. Irenaeus, Cont. Hezret lib. iii. cap. xxiv.\n    ** Lib. i. cap. x.\n\nHe then recites the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the\nPassion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and His\ncoming again to raise all men, to judge men and angels, and to give\nsentence of condemnation or of life everlasting. How much soever\nthe language may vary from other forms, such is the substance of the\nBaptismal Creed. He then adds:\n\n\"The Church having received this preaching and this faith, as we have\nsaid before, although it be scattered abroad through the whole world,\ncarefully preserves it, dwelling as in one habitation, and believes\nalike in these (doctrines) as though she had one soul and the same\nheart: and in strict accord, as though she had one mouth, proclaims,\nand teaches, and delivers onward these things. And although there may be\nmany diverse languages in the world, yet the power of the tradition is\none and the same. And neither do the Churches planted in Germany believe\notherwise, or otherwise deliver (the faith), nor those in Iberia, nor\namong the Celtae, nor in the East, nor in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor\nthey that are planted in the mainland. But as the sun, which is God's\ncreature, in all the world is one and the same, so also the preaching of\nthe truth shineth everywhere, and lightened all men that are willing to\ncome to the knowledge of the truth. And neither will any ruler of the\nChurch, though he be mighty in the utterance of truth, teach otherwise\nthan thus (for no man is above the master), nor will he that is weak in\nthe same diminish from the tradition; for the faith being one and the\nsame, he that is able to say most of it hath nothing over, and he that\nis able to say least hath no lack.\"*\n  • St. Irenaeus, lib. i. c. x.\n\nTo St. Irenaeus, then, the Church was \"the irrefragable witness of its\nown legation.\" When did it cease so to be? It would be easy to multiply\nquotations from Tertullian in A. D. 200, from St. Cyprian a. d. 250,\nfrom St. Augustine and St. Optatus in A. d. 350, from St. Leo in a. d.\n450, all of which are on the same traditional lines of faith in a divine\nmission to the world and of a divine assistance in its discharge. But I\nrefrain from doing so because I should have to write not an article\nbut a folio. Any Catholic theology will give the passages which are now\nbefore me; or one such book as the Loci Theologici of Melchior Canus\nwill suffice to show the continuity and identity of the tradition of\nSt. Irenaeus and the tradition of the Vatican Council, in which the\nuniversal church last declared the immutable faith and its own legation\nto mankind.\n\nThe world-wide testimony of the Catholic Church is a sufficient witness\nto prove the coming of the Incarnate Son to redeem mankind, and to\nreturn to His Father; it is also sufficient to prove the advent of the\nHoly Ghost to abide with us for ever. The work of the Son in this world\nwas accomplished by the Divine acts and facts of His three-and-thirty\nyears of life, death, Resurrection, and Ascension. The office of the\nHoly Ghost is perpetual, not only as the Illuminator and Sanctifier of\nall who believe, but also as the Life and Guide of the Church. I may\nquote now the words of the Founder of the Church: \"It is expedient to\nyou that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but\nif I go, I will send Him to you.\"* \"I will ask the Father, and He shall\ngive you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever.\" \"The\nSpirit of Truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not\nnor knoweth Him; but you shall know Him, because He shall abide with you\nand shall be in you.\"*\n  • St. John, xvi. 7.\n     Ibid, xiv. 16.\n  • St.John, xiv. 16, 17.\n\nSt. Paul in the Epistles to the Ephesians describes the Church as a body\nof which the Head is in heaven, and the Author of its indefectible life\nabiding in it as His temple. Therefore the words, \"He that heareth you\nheareth Me.\" This could not be if the witness of the Apostles had been\nonly human. A Divine guidance was attached to the office they bore. They\nwere, therefore, also judges of right and wrong, and teachers by Divine\nguidance of the truth. But the presence and guidance of the Spirit of\nTruth is as full at this day as when St. Irenaeus wrote. As the Churches\nthen were witnesses, judges, and teachers, so is the Church at this hour\na world-wide witness, an unerring judge and teacher, divinely guided and\nguarded in the truth. It is therefore not only a human and historical,\nbut a Divine witness. This is the chief Divine truth which the last\nthree hundred years have obscured. Modern Christianity believes in the\none advent of the Redeemer, but rejects the full and personal advent of\nthe Holy Ghost. And yet the same evidence proves both. The Christianity\nof reformers, always returns to Judaism, because they reject the full,\nor do not believe the personal, advent of the Holy Ghost. They deny that\nthere is an infallible teacher, among men; and therefore they return to\nthe types and shadows of the Law before the Incarnation, when the Head\nwas not yet incarnate, and the Body of Christ did not as yet exist.\n\nBut perhaps some one will say, \"I admit your description of the Church\nas it is now and as it was in the days of St. Irenaeus; but the eighteen\nhundred years of which you have said nothing were ages of declension,\ndisorder, superstition, demoralization.\" I will answer by a question:\nwas not this foretold? Was not the Church to be a field of wheat and\ntares growing together till the harvest at the end of the world? There\nwere Cathari of old, and Puritans since, impatient at the patience\nof God in bearing with the perversities and corruptions of the human\nintellect and will. The Church, like its Head in heaven, is both human\nand divine. \"He was crucified in weakness,\" but no power of man could\nwound His divine nature. So with the Church, which is His Body. Its\nhuman element may corrupt and die; its divine life, sanctity, authority,\nand structure cannot die; nor can the errors of human intellect fasten\nupon its faith, nor the immoralities of the human will fasten upon\nits sanctity. Its organization of Head and Body is of divine creation,\ndivinely guarded by the Holy Ghost, who quickens it by His indwelling,\nand guides it by His light. It is in itself incorrupt and incorruptible\nin the midst of corruption, as the light of heaven falls upon all the\ndecay and corruption in the world, unsullied and unalterably pure. We\nare never concerned to deny or to cloak the sins of Christians or of\nCatholics. They may destroy themselves, but they cannot infect the\nChurch from which they fall. The fall of Lucifer left no stain behind\nhim.\n\nWhen men accuse the Church of corruption, they reveal the fact that to\nthem the Church is a human institution, of voluntary aggregation or of\nlegislative enactment. They reveal the fact that to them the Church is\nnot an object of Divine faith, as the Real Presence in the Sacrament of\nthe Altar. They do not perceive or will not believe that the articles of\nthe Baptismal Creed are objects of faith, divinely revealed or divinely\ncreated. \"I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the\nCommunion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins,\" are all objects of faith\nin a Divine order. They are present in human history, but the human\nelement which envelops them has no power to infect or to fasten upon\nthem. Until this is perceived there can be no true or full belief in the\nadvent and office of the Holy Ghost, or in the nature and sacramental\naction of the Church. It is the visible means and pledge of light and\nof sanctification to all who do not bar their intellect and their will\nagainst its inward and spiritual grace. The Church is not on probation.\nIt is the instrument of probation to the world. As the light of\nthe world, it is changeless as the firmament As the source of\nsanctification, it is inexhaustible as the Rivex of Life. The human and\nexternal history of men calling themselves Christian and Catholic has\nbeen at times as degrading and abominable as any adversary is pleased\nto say. But the sanctity of the Church is no more affected by human sins\nthan was Baptism by the hypocrisy of Simon Magus. The Divine foundation,\nand office, and mission of the Church is a part of Christianity. They\nwho deny it deny an article of faith; they who believe it imperfectly\nare the followers of a fragmentary Christianity of modern date. Who can\nbe a disciple of Jesus Christ who does not believe the words? \"On this\nrock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail\nagainst it;\" \"As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you;\"* \"I dispose\nto you, as My Father hath disposed to Me, a kingdom;\" \"All power in\nheaven and earth is given unto Me. Go, therefore, and teach all\nnations;\"* \"He that heareth you heareth Me;\"**** \"I will be with you\nalways, even unto the end of the world;\"(v) \"When the days of Pentecost\nwere accomplished they were all together in one place: and suddenly\nthere came a sound from heaven as of a mighty wind coming, and there\nappeared to them parted tongues, as it were, of fire;\" \"And they were\nall filled with the Holy Ghost;\" (vi) \"It seemed good to the Holy Ghost\nand to us to lay upon you no other burdens.\"(vii) But who denies that\nthe Apostles claimed a Divine mission? and who can deny that the\nCatholic and Roman Church from St. Irenaeus to Leo XIII. has ever and\nopenly claimed the same, invoking in all its supreme acts as witness,\nteacher, and legislator the presence, light, and guidance of the Holy\nGhost? As the preservation of all created things is by the same creative\npower produced in perpetual and universal action, so the indefectibility\nof the Church and of the faith is by the perpetuity of the presence and\noffice of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, St. Augustine\ncalls the day of Pentecost, Natalis Spiritus Sancti.\n    *St. John, xx. 21.\n     St. Luke, xxii. 29.\n  • St. Matthew, xxviii. 18, 19.\n    **** St. Luke, x. 10.\n    (v) St. Matthew, xxviii. 20.\n    (vii)Acts, ii. 1-5.\n    (viii) Acts, xv. 28.\n\nIt is more than time that I should make an end; and to do so it will be\nwell to sum up the heads of our argument. The Vatican Council declares\nthat the world-wide Church is the irrefragable witness of its own\nlegation or mission to mankind.\n\nIn proof of this I have affirmed:\n\n1. That the imperishable existence of Christianity, and the vast and\nundeniable revolution that it has wrought in men and in nations, in the\nmoral elevation of manhood and of womanhood, and in the domestic, social\nand political life of the Christian world, cannot be accounted for by\nany natural causes, or by any forces that are, as philosophers say,\nintra possibilitatem natures, within the limits of what is possible to\nman.\n\n2. That this world-wide and permanent elevation of the Christian world,\nin comparison with both the old world and the modern world outside of\nChristianity, demands a cause higher than the possibility of nature.\n\n3. That the Church has always claimed a Divine origin and a Divine\noffice and authority in virtue of a perpetual Divine assistance. To this\neven the Christian world, in all its fragments external to the Catholic\nunity, bears witness. It is turned to our reproach. They rebuke us for\nholding the teaching of the Church to be infallible. We take the rebuke\nas a testimony of our changeless faith. It is not enough for men to say\nthat they refuse to believe this account of the visible and palpable\nfact of the imperishable Christianity of the Catholic and Roman Church.\nThey must find a more reasonable, credible, and adequate account for\nit. This no man has yet done. The denials are many and the solutions\nare many; but they do not agree together. Their multiplicity is proof\nof their human origin. The claim of the Catholic Church to a Divine\nauthority and to a Divine assistance is one and the same in every age,\nand is identical in every place. Error is not the principle of unity,\nnor truth of variations.\n\nThe Church has guarded the doctrine of the Apostles, by Divine\nassistance, with unerring fidelity. The articles of the faith are to-day\nthe same in number as in the beginning. The explicit definition of\ntheir implicit meaning has expanded from age to age, as the everchanging\ndenials and perversions of the world have demanded new definitions\nof the ancient truth. The world is against all dogma, because it\nis impatient of definiteness and certainty in faith. It loves open\nquestions and the liberty of error. The Church is dogmatic for fear of\nerror. Every truth defined adds to its treasure. It narrows the field\nof error and enlarges the inheritance of truth. The world and the Church\nare ever moving in opposite directions. As the world becomes more vague\nand uncertain, the Church becomes more definite. It moves against wind\nand tide, against the stress and storm of the world. There was never\na more luminous evidence of this supernatural fact than in the Vatican\nCouncil. For eight months all that the world could say and do, like\nthe four winds of heaven, was directed upon it. Governments, statesmen,\ndiplomatists, philosophers, intriguers, mockers, and traitors did their\nutmost and their worst against it. They were in dread lest the Church\nshould declare that by Divine assistance its Head in faith and morals\ncannot err; for if this be true, man did not found it, man cannot reform\nit, man cannot teach it to interpret its history or its acts. It knows\nits own history, and is the supreme witness of its own legation.\n\nI am well aware that I have been writing truisms, and repeating trite\nand trivial arguments. They are trite because the feet of the faithful\nfor nearly nineteen hundred years have worn them in their daily life;\nthey are trivial because they point to the one path in which the\nwayfarer, though a fool, shall not err.\n\nHenry Edward, (Cardinal Manning), Card. Archbishop of Westminster.\n\nROME OR REASON: A REPLY TO CARDINAL MANNING.\n    Superstition \"has ears more deaf than adders to the voice of\n    any true decision.\"\n\nI.\n\nCARDINAL MANNING has stated the claims of the Roman Catholic Church with\ngreat clearness, and apparently without reserve. The age, position and\nlearning of this man give a certain weight to his words, apart from\ntheir worth. He represents the oldest of the Christian churches. The\nquestions involved are among the most important that can engage the\nhuman mind. No one having the slightest regard for that superb thing\nknown as intellectual honesty, will avoid the issues tendered, or seek\nin any way to gain a victory over truth.\n\nWithout candor, discussion, in the highest sense, is impossible.\nAll have the same interest, whether they know it or not, in the\nestablishment of facts. All have the same to gain, the same to lose. He\nloads the dice against himself who scores a point against the right.\n\nAbsolute honesty is to the intellectual perception what light is to the\neyes. Prejudice and passion cloud the mind. In each disputant should be\nblended the advocate and judge.\n\nIn this spirit, having in view only the ascertainment of the truth, let\nus examine the arguments, or rather the statements and conclusions, of\nCardinal Manning.\n\nThe proposition is that \"The church itself, by its marvelous\npropagation, its eminent sanctity, its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all\ngood things, its catholic unity and invincible stability, is a vast and\nperpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefragable witness of its own\ndivine legation.\"\n\nThe reasons given as supporting this proposition are:\n\nThat the Catholic Church interpenetrates all the nations of the\ncivilized world; that it is extranational and independent in a\nsupernational unity; that it is the same in every place; that it speaks\nall languages in the civilized world; that it is obedient to one head;\nthat as many as seven hundred bishops have knelt before the pope; that\npilgrims from all nations have brought gifts to Rome, and that all these\nthings set forth in the most self-evident way the unity and universality\nof the Roman Church.\n\nIt is also asserted that \"men see the Head of the Church year by year\nspeaking to the nations of the world, treating with Empires, Republics\nand Governments;\" that \"there is no other man on earth that can so bear\nhimself,\" and that \"neither from Canterbury nor from Constantinople can\nsuch a voice go forth to which rulers and people listen.\"\n\nIt is also claimed that the Catholic Church has enlightened and purified\nthe world; that it has given us the peace and purity of domestic life;\nthat it has destroyed idolatry and demonology; that it gave us a body of\nlaw from a higher source than man; that it has produced the civilization\nof Christendom; that the popes were the greatest of statesmen and\nrulers; that celibacy is better than marriage, and that the revolutions\nand reformations of the last three hundred years have been destructive\nand calamitous.\n\nWe will examine these assertions as well as some others.\n\nNo one will dispute that the Catholic Church is the best witness of its\nown existence. The same is true of every thing that exists—of every\nchurch, great and small, of every man, and of every insect.\n\nBut it is contended that the marvelous growth or propagation of the\nchurch is evidence of its divine origin. Can it be said that success is\nsupernatural? All success in this world is relative. Majorities are not\nnecessarily right. If anything is known—if anything can be known—we\nare sure that very large bodies of men have frequently been wrong. We\nbelieve in what is called the progress of mankind. Progress, for\nthe most part, consists in finding new truths and getting rid of old\nerrors—that is to say, getting nearer and nearer in harmony with\nthe facts of nature, seeing with greater clearness the conditions of\nwell-being.\n\nThere is no nation in which a majority leads the way. In the progress of\nmankind, the few have been the nearest right. There have been centuries\nin which the light seemed to emanate only from a handful of men, while\nthe rest of the world was enveloped in darkness. Some great man leads\nthe way—he becomes the morning star, the prophet of a coming day.\nAfterward, many millions accept his views. But there are still heights\nabove and beyond; there are other pioneers, and the old day, in\ncomparison with the new, becomes a night. So, we cannot say that success\ndemonstrates either divine origin or supernatural aid.\n\nWe know, if we know anything, that wisdom has often been trampled\nbeneath the feet of the multitude. We know that the torch of science has\nbeen blown out by the breath of the hydra-headed. We know that the whole\nintellectual heaven has been darkened again and again. The truth or\nfalsity of a proposition cannot be determined by ascertaining the number\nof those who assert, or of those who deny.\n\nIf the marvelous propagation of the Catholic Church proves its divine\norigin, what shall we say of the marvelous propagation of Mohammedanism?\n\nNothing can be clearer than that Christianity arose out of the ruins\nof the Roman Empire—that is to say, the ruins of Paganism. And it is\nequally clear that Mohammedanism arose out of the wreck and ruin of\nCatholicism.\n\nAfter Mohammed came upon the stage, \"Christianity was forever expelled\nfrom its most glorious seats—from Palestine, the scene of its most\nsacred recollections; from Asia Minor, that of its first churches; from\nEgypt, whence issued the great doctrine of Trinitarian Orthodoxy, and\nfrom Carthage, who imposed her belief on Europe.\" Before that time \"the\necclesiastical chiefs of Rome, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria\nwere engaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying out their\npurposes by weapons and in ways revolting to the conscience of man.\nBishops were concerned in assassinations, poisonings, adulteries,\nblindings, riots, treasons, civil war. Patriarchs and primates were\nexcommunicating and anathematizing one another in their rivalries\nfor earthly power—bribing eunuchs with gold and courtesans and royal\nfemales with concessions of episcopal love. Among legions of monks who\ncarried terror into the imperial armies and riot into the great cities\narose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but never a voice for\nintellectual liberty or the outraged rights of man.\n\n\"Under these circumstances, amid these atrocities and crimes, Mohammed\narose, and raised his own nation from Fetichism, the adoration of\nthe meteoric stone, and from the basest idol worship, and irrevocably\nwrenched from Christianity more than half—and that by far the\nbest half—of her possessions, since it included the Holy Land, the\nbirth-place of the Christian faith, and Africa, which had imparted to\nit its Latin form; and now, after a lapse of more than a thousand\nyears that continent, and a very large part of Asia, remain permanently\nattached to the Arabian doctrine.\"\n\nIt may be interesting in this connection to say that the Mohammedan now\nproves the divine mission of his apostle by appealing to the marvelous\npropagation of the faith. If the argument is good in the mouth of a\nCatholic, is it not good in the mouth of a Moslem? Let us see if it is\nnot better.\n\nAccording to Cardinal Manning, the Catholic Church triumphed only over\nthe institutions of men—triumphed only over religions that had been\nestablished by men,—by wicked and ignorant men. But Mohammed triumphed\nnot only over the religions of men, but over the religion of God.\nThis ignorant driver of camels, this poor, unknown, unlettered boy,\nunassisted by God, unenlightened by supernatural means, drove the armies\nof the true cross before him as the winter's storm drives withered\nleaves. At his name, priests, bishops, and cardinals fled with white\nfaces—popes trembled, and the armies of God, fighting for the true\nfaith, were conquered on a thousand fields.\n\nIf the success of a church proves its divinity, and after that another\nchurch arises and defeats the first, what does that prove?\n\nLet us put this question in a milder form: Suppose the second church\nlives and flourishes in spite of the first, what does that prove?\n\nAs a matter of fact, however, no church rises with everything against\nit. Something is favorable to it, or it could not exist. If it succeeds\nand grows, it is absolutely certain that the conditions are favorable.\nIf it spreads rapidly, it simply shows that the conditions are\nexceedingly favorable, and that the forces in opposition are weak and\neasily overcome.\n\nHere, in my own country, within a few years, has arisen a new religion.\nIts foundations were laid in an intelligent community, having had\nthe advantages of what is known as modern civilization. Yet this new\nfaith—founded on the grossest absurdities, as gross as we find in the\nScriptures—in spite of all opposition began to grow, and kept growing.\nIt was subjected to persecution, and the persecution increased its\nstrength. It was driven from State to State by the believers in\nuniversal love, until it left what was called civilization, crossed the\nwide plains, and took up its abode on the shores of the Great Salt\nLake. It continued to grow. Its founder, as he declared, had frequent\nconversations with God, and received directions from that source.\nHundreds of miracles were performed—multitudes upon the desert were\nmiraculously fed—the sick were cured—the dead were raised, and the\nMormon Church continued to grow, until now, less than half a century\nafter the death of its founder, there are several hundred thousand\nbelievers in the new faith.\n\nDo you think that men enough could join this church to prove the truth\nof its creed?\n\nJoseph Smith said that he found certain golden plates that had been\nburied for many generations, and upon these plates, in some unknown\nlanguage, had been engraved this new revelation, and I think he insisted\nthat by the use of miraculous mirrors this language was translated.\nIf there should be Mormon bishops in all the countries of the world,\neighteen hundred years from now, do you think a cardinal of that faith\ncould prove the truth of the golden plates simply by the fact that the\nfaith had spread and that seven hundred bishops had knelt before the\nhead of that church?\n\nIt seems to me that a \"supernatural\" religion—that is to say, a\nreligion that is claimed to have been divinely founded and to be\nauthenticated by miracles, is much easier to establish among an ignorant\npeople than any other—and the more ignorant the people, the easier\nsuch a religion could be established. The reason for this is plain.\nAll ignorant tribes, all savage men, believe in the miraculous, in the\nsupernatural. The conception of uniformity, of what may be called the\neternal consistency of nature, is an idea far above their comprehension.\nThey are forced to think in accordance with their minds, and as a\nconsequence they account for all phenomena by the acts of superior\nbeings—that is to say, by the supernatural. In other words, that\nreligion having most in common with the savage, having most that was\nsatisfactory to his mind, or to his lack of mind, would stand the best\nchance of success.\n\nIt is probably safe to say that at one time, or during one phase of the\ndevelopment of man, everything was miraculous. After a time, the mind\nslowly developing, certain phenomena, always happening under like\nconditions, were called \"natural,\" and none suspected any special\ninterference. The domain of the miraculous grew less and less—the\ndomain of the natural larger; that is to say, the common became the\nnatural, but the uncommon was still regarded as the miraculous.\nThe rising and setting of the sun ceased to excite the wonder of\nmankind—there was no miracle about that; but an eclipse of the sun was\nmiraculous. Men did not then know that eclipses are periodical, that\nthey happen with the same certainty that the sun rises. It took many\nobservations through many generations to arrive at this conclusion.\nOrdinary rains became \"natural,\" floods remained \"miraculous.\"\n\nBut it can all be summed up in this: The average man regards the common\nas natural, the uncommon as supernatural. The educated man—and by that\nI mean the developed man—is satisfied that all phenomena are natural,\nand that the supernatural does not and can not exist.\n\nAs a rule, an individual is egotistic in the proportion that he lacks\nintelligence. The same is true of nations and races. The barbarian is\negotistic enough to suppose that an Infinite Being is constantly doing\nsomething, or failing to do something, on his account. But as man rises\nin the scale of civilization, as he becomes really great, he comes to\nthe conclusion that nothing in Nature happens on his account—that he is\nhardly great enough to disturb the motions of the planets.\n\nLet us make an application of this: To me, the success of Mormonism\nis no evidence of its truth, because it has succeeded only with the\nsuperstitious. It has been recruited from communities brutalized by\nother forms of superstition. To me, the success of Mohammed does not\ntend to show that he was right—for the reason that he triumphed only\nover the ignorant, over the superstitious. The same is true of the\nCatholic Church. Its seeds were planted in darkness. It was accepted by\nthe credulous, by men incapable of reasoning upon such questions. It\ndid not, it has not, it can not triumph over the intellectual world. To\ncount its many millions does not tend to prove the truth of its creed.\nOn the contrary, a creed that delights the credulous gives evidence\nagainst itself.\n\nQuestions of fact or philosophy cannot be settled simply by numbers.\nThere was a time when the Copernican system of astronomy had but few\nsupporters—the multitude being on the other side. There was a time when\nthe rotation of the earth was not believed by the majority.\n\nLet us press this idea further. There was a time when Christianity was\nnot in the majority, anywhere. Let us suppose that the first Christian\nmissionary had met a prelate of the Pagan faith, and suppose this\nprelate had used against the Christian missionary the Cardinal's\nargument—how could the missionary have answered if the Cardinal's\nargument is good?\n\nBut, after all, is the success of the Catholic Church a marvel? If this\nchurch is of divine origin, if it has been under the especial care,\nprotection and guidance of an Infinite Being, is not its failure\nfar more wonderful than its success? For eighteen centuries it has\npersecuted and preached, and the salvation of the world is still remote.\nThis is the result, and it may be asked whether it is worth while to try\nto convert the world to Catholicism.\n\nAre Catholics better than Protestants? Are they nearer honest, nearer\njust, more charitable? Are Catholic nations better than Protestant?\nDo the Catholic nations move in the van of progress? Within their\njurisdiction are life, liberty and property safer than anywhere else? Is\nSpain the first nation of the world?\n\nLet me ask another question: Are Catholics or Protestants better than\nFreethinkers? Has the Catholic Church produced a greater man than\nHumboldt? Has the Protestant produced a greater than Darwin? Was not\nEmerson, so far as purity of life is concerned, the equal of any true\nbeliever? Was Pius IX., or any other vicar of Christ, superior to\nAbraham Lincoln?\n\nBut it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal, and that its\nuniversality demonstrates its divine origin.\n\nAccording to the Bible, the apostles were ordered to go into all the\nworld and preach the gospel—yet not one of them, nor one of their\nconverts at any time, nor one of the vicars of God, for fifteen hundred\nyears afterward, knew of the existence of the Western Hemisphere. During\nall that time, can it be said that the Catholic Church was universal? At\nthe close of the fifteenth century, there was one-half of the world in\nwhich the Catholic faith had never been preached, and in the other half\nnot one person in ten had ever heard of it, and of those who had heard\nof it, not one in ten believed it. Certainly the Catholic Church was not\nthen universal.\n\nIs it universal now? What impression has Catholicism made upon the many\nmillions of China, of Japan, of India, of Africa? Can it truthfully be\nsaid that the Catholic Church is now universal? When any church becomes\nuniversal, it will be the only church. There cannot be two universal\nchurches, neither can there be one universal church and any other.\n\nThe Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic Church is divine,\n\"by its eminent sanctity and its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good\nthings.\"\n\nAnd here let me admit that there are many millions of good\nCatholics—that is, of good men and women who are Catholics. It is\nunnecessary to charge universal dishonesty or hypocrisy, for the reason\nthat this would be only a kind of personality. Many thousands of heroes\nhave died in defence of the faith, and millions of Catholics have killed\nand been killed for the sake of their religion.\n\nAnd here it may be well enough to say that martyrdom does not even tend\nto prove the truth of a religion. The man who dies in flames, standing\nby what he believes to be true, establishes, not the truth of what he\nbelieves, but his sincerity.\n\nWithout calling in question the intentions of the Catholic Church, we\ncan ascertain whether it has been \"inexhaustibly fruitful in all good\nthings,\" and whether it has been \"eminent for its sanctity.\"\n\nIn the first place, nothing can be better than goodness. Nothing is more\nsacred, or can be more sacred, than the wellbeing of man. All things\nthat tend to increase or preserve the happiness of the human race are\ngood—that is to say, they are sacred. All things that tend to the\ndestruction of man's well-being, that tend to his unhappiness, are bad,\nno matter by whom they are taught or done.\n\nIt is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has taught, and still\nteaches, that intellectual liberty is dangerous—that it should not\nbe allowed. It was driven to take this position because it had taken\nanother. It taught, and still teaches, that a certain belief is\nnecessary to salvation. It has always known that investigation and\ninquiry led, or might lead, to doubt; that doubt leads, or may lead,\nto heresy, and that heresy leads to hell. In other words, the Catholic\nChurch has something more important than this world, more important than\nthe well-being of man here. It regards this life as an opportunity for\njoining that church, for accepting that creed, and for the saving of\nyour soul.\n\nIf the Catholic Church is right in its premises, it is right in its\nconclusion. If it is necessary to believe the Catholic creed in order\nto obtain eternal joy, then, of course, nothing else in this world is,\ncomparatively speaking, of the slightest importance. Consequently,\nthe Catholic Church has been, and still is, the enemy of intellectual\nfreedom, of investigation, of inquiry—in other words, the enemy of\nprogress in secular things.\n\nThe result of this was an effort to compel all men to accept the belief\nnecessary to salvation. This effort naturally divided itself into\npersuasion and persecution.\n\nIt will be admitted that the good man is kind, merciful, charitable,\nforgiving and just. A church must be judged by the same standard. Has\nthe church been merciful? Has it been \"fruitful in the good things\"\nof justice, charity and forgiveness? Can a good man, believing a good\ndoctrine, persecute for opinion's sake? If the church imprisons a man\nfor the expression of an honest opinion, is it not certain, either that\nthe doctrine of the church is wrong, or that the church is bad? Both\ncannot be good. \"Sanctity\" without goodness is impossible. Thousands of\n\"saints\" have been the most malicious of the human race. If the history\nof the world proves anything, it proves that the Catholic Church was for\nmany centuries the most merciless institution that ever existed among\nmen. I cannot believe that the instruments of persecution were made and\nused by the eminently good; neither can I believe that honest people\nwere imprisoned, tortured, and burned at the stake by a church that was\n\"inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things.\"\n\nAnd let me say here that I have no Protestant prejudices against\nCatholicism, and have no Catholic prejudices against Protestantism.\nI regard all religions either without prejudice or with the same\nprejudice. They were all, according to my belief, devised by men, and\nall have for a foundation ignorance of this world and fear of the next.\nAll the Gods have been made by men. They are all equally powerful and\nequally useless. I like some of them better than I do others, for the\nsame reason that I admire some characters in fiction more than I do\nothers. I prefer Miranda to Caliban, but have not the slightest idea\nthat either of them existed. So I prefer Jupiter to Jehovah, although\nperfectly satisfied that both are myths. I believe myself to be in a\nframe of mind to justly and fairly consider the claims of different\nreligions, believing as I do that all are wrong, and admitting as I do\nthat there is some good in all.\n\nWhen one speaks of the \"inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things\"\nof the Catholic Church, we remember the horrors and atrocities of the\nInquisition—the rewards offered by the Roman Church for the capture and\nmurder of honest men. We remember the Dominican Order, the members of\nwhich, upheld by the vicar of Christ, pursued the heretics like sleuth\nhounds, through many centuries.\n\nThe church, \"inexhaustible in fruitfulness in all good things,\" not only\nimprisoned and branded and burned the living, but violated the dead. It\nrobbed graves, to the end that it might convict corpses of heresy—to\nthe end that it might take from widows their portions and from orphans\ntheir patrimony.\n\nWe remember the millions in the darkness of dungeons—the millions who\nperished by the sword—the vast multitudes destroyed in flames—those\nwho were flayed alive—those who were blinded—those whose tongues were\ncut out—those into whose ears were poured molten lead—those whose eyes\nwere deprived of their lids—those who were tortured and tormented in\nevery way by which pain could be inflicted and human nature overcome.\n\nAnd we remember, too, the exultant cry of the church over the bodies\nof her victims: \"Their bodies were burned here, but their souls are now\ntortured in hell.\"\n\nWe remember that the church, by treachery, bribery, perjury, and the\ncommission of every possible crime, got possession and control of\nChristendom, and we know the use that was made of this power—that it\nwas used to brutalize, degrade, stupefy, and \"sanctify\" the children\nof men. We know also that the vicars of Christ were persecutors for\nopinion's sake—that they sought to destroy the liberty of thought\nthrough fear—that they endeavored to make every brain a bastile in\nwhich the mind should be a convict—that they endeavored to make every\ntongue a prisoner, watched by a familiar of the Inquisition—and that\nthey threatened punishment here, imprisonment here, burnings here, and,\nin the name of their God, eternal imprisonment and eternal burnings\nhereafter.\n\nWe know, too, that the Catholic Church was, during all the years of\nits power, the enemy of every science. It preferred magic to medicine,\nrelics to remedies, priests to physicians. It thought more of\nastrologers than of astronomers. It hated geologists—it persecuted\nthe chemist, and imprisoned the naturalist, and opposed every discovery\ncalculated to improve the condition of mankind.\n\nIt is impossible to forget the persecutions of the Cathari, the\nAlbigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Huguenots, and of every\nsect that had the courage to think just a little for itself. Think of\na woman—the mother of a family—taken from her children and burned, on\naccount of her view as to the three natures of Jesus Christ. Think of\nthe Catholic Church,—an institution with a Divine Founder, presided\nover by the agent of God—punishing a woman for giving a cup of cold\nwater to a fellow-being who had been anathematized. Think of this\nchurch, \"fruitful in all good things,\" launching its curse at an honest\nman—not only cursing him from the crown of his head to the soles of\nhis feet with a fiendish particularity, but having at the same time the\nimpudence to call on God, and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ, and the\nVirgin Mary, to join in the curse; and to curse him not only here, but\nforever hereafter—calling upon all the saints and upon all the redeemed\nto join in a hallelujah of curses, so that earth and heaven should\nreverberate with countless curses launched at a human being simply for\nhaving expressed an honest thought.\n\nThis church, so \"fruitful in all good things,\" invented crimes that\nit might punish. This church tried men for a \"suspicion of\nheresy\"—imprisoned them for the vice of being suspected—stripped them\nof all they had on earth and allowed them to rot in dungeons, because\nthey were guilty of the crime of having been suspected. This was a part\nof the Canon Law.\n\nIt is too late to talk about the \"invincible stability\" of the Catholic\nChurch.\n\nIt was not invincible in the seventh, in the eighth, or in the ninth\ncenturies. It was not invincible in Germany in Luther's day. It was not\ninvincible in the Low Countries. It was not invincible in Scotland, or\nin England. It was not invincible in France. It is not invincible in\nItaly, It is not supreme in any intellectual centre of the world. It\ndoes not triumph in Paris, or Berlin; it is not dominant in London,\nin England; neither is it triumphant in the United States. It has not\nwithin its fold the philosophers, the statesmen, and the thinkers, who\nare the leaders of the human race.\n\nIt is claimed that Catholicism \"interpenetrates all the nations of the\ncivilized world,\" and that \"in some it holds the whole nation in its\nunity.\"\n\nI suppose the Catholic Church is more powerful in Spain than in any\nother nation. The history of this nation demonstrates the result of\nCatholic supremacy, the result of an acknowledgment by a people that a\ncertain religion is too sacred to be examined.\n\nWithout attempting in an article of this character to point out the many\ncauses that contributed to the adoption of Catholicism by the Spanish\npeople, it is enough to say that Spain, of all nations, has been and is\nthe most thoroughly Catholic, and the most thoroughly interpenetrated\nand dominated by the spirit of the Church of Rome.\n\nSpain used the sword of the church. In the name of religion it\nendeavored to conquer the Infidel world. It drove from its territory\nthe Moors, not because they were bad, not because they were idle and\ndishonest, but because they were Infidels. It expelled the Jews,\nnot because they were ignorant or vicious, but because they were\nunbelievers. It drove out the Moriscoes, and deliberately made outcasts\nof the intelligent, the industrious, the honest and the useful, because\nthey were not Catholics. It leaped like a wild beast upon the Low\nCountries, for the destruction of Protestantism. It covered the seas\nwith its fleets, to destroy the intellectual liberty of man. And\nnot only so—it established the Inquisition within its borders. It\nimprisoned the honest, it burned the noble, and succeeded after many\nyears of devotion to the true faith, in destroying the industry, the\nintelligence, the usefulness, the genius, the nobility and the wealth\nof a nation. It became a wreck, a jest of the conquered, and excited the\npity of its former victims.\n\nIn this period of degradation, the Catholic Church held \"the whole\nnation in its unity.\"\n\nAt last Spain began to deviate from the path of the church It made a\ntreaty with an Infidel power. In 1782 it became humble enough, and wise\nenough, to be friends with Turkey. It made treaties with Tripoli and\nAlgiers and the Barbary States. It had become too poor to ransom the\nprisoners taken by these powers. It began to appreciate the fact that it\ncould neither conquer nor convert the world by the sword.\n\nSpain has progressed in the arts and sciences, in all that tends to\nenrich and ennoble a nation, in the precise proportion that she has lost\nfaith in the Catholic Church. This may be said of every other nation in\nChristendom. Torquemada is dead; Castelar is alive. The dungeons of the\nInquisition are empty, and a little light has penetrated the clouds and\nmists—not much, but a little. Spain is not yet clothed and in her\nright mind. A few years ago the cholera visited Madrid and other cities.\nPhysicians were mobbed. Processions of saints carried the host through\nthe streets for the purpose of staying the plague. The streets were not\ncleaned; the sewers were filled. Filth and faith, old partners, reigned\nsupreme. The church, \"eminent for its sanctity,\" stood in the light and\ncast its shadow on the ignorant and the prostrate. The church, in its\n\"inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things,\" allowed its children\nto perish through ignorance, and used the diseases it had produced as an\ninstrumentality to further enslave its votaries and its victims.\n\nNo one will deny that many of its priests exhibited heroism of the\nhighest order in visiting the sick and administering what are called the\nconsolations of religion to the dying, and in burying the dead. It is\nnecessary neither to deny or disparage the self-denial and goodness of\nthese men. But their religion did more than all other causes to produce\nthe very evils that called for the exhibition of self-denial and\nheroism. One scientist in control of Madrid could have prevented the\nplague. In such cases, cleanliness is far better than \"godliness;\"\nscience is superior to superstition; drainage much better than\ndivinity; therapeutics more excellent than theology. Goodness is not\nenough—intelligence is necessary. Faith is not sufficient, creeds are\nhelpless, and prayers fruitless.\n\nIt is admitted that the Catholic Church exists in many nations; that it\nis dominated, at least in a great degree, by the Bishop of Rome—that it\nis international in that sense, and that in that sense it has what may\nbe called a \"supernational unity.\" The same, however, is true of the\nMasonic fraternity. It exists in many nations, but it is not a\nnational body. It is in the same sense extranational, in the same sense\ninternational, and has in the same sense a supernational unity. So the\nsame may be said of other societies. This, however, does not tend to\nprove that anything supernational is supernatural.\n\nIt is also admitted that in faith, worship, ceremonial, discipline and\ngovernment, the Catholic Church is substantially the same wherever\nit exists. This establishes the unity, but not the divinity, of the\ninstitution.\n\nThe church that does not allow investigation, that teaches that all\ndoubts are wicked, attains unity through tyranny, that is, monotony by\nrepression. Wherever man has had something like freedom, differences\nhave appeared, heresies have taken root, and the divisions have become\npermanent—new sects have been born and the Catholic Church has been\nweakened. The boast of unity is the confession of tyranny.\n\nIt is insisted that the unity of the church substantiates its claim to\ndivine origin. This is asserted over and over again, in many ways; and\nyet in the Cardinal's article is found this strange mingling of boast\nand confession: \"Was it only by the human power of man that the unity,\nexternal and internal, which for fourteen hundred years had been\nsupreme, was once more restored in the Council of Constance, never to be\nbroken again?\"\n\nBy this it is admitted that the internal and external unity of the\nCatholic Church had been broken, and that it required more than human\npower to restore it. Then the boast is made that it will never be broken\nagain. Yet it is asserted that the internal and external unity of the\nCatholic Church is the great fact that demonstrates its divine origin.\n\nNow, if this internal and external unity was broken, and remained broken\nfor years, there was an interval during which the church had no internal\nor external unity, and during which the evidence of divine origin\nfailed. The unity was broken in spite of the Divine Founder. This is\nadmitted by the use of the word \"again.\" The unbroken unity of the\nchurch is asserted, and upon this assertion is based the claim of divine\norigin; it is then admitted that the unity was broken. The argument is\nthen shifted, and the claim is made that it required more than human\npower to restore the internal and external unity of the church, and that\nthe restoration, not the unity, is proof of the divine origin. Is there\nany contradiction beyond this?\n\nLet us state the case in another way. Let us suppose that a man has a\nsword which he claims was made by God, stating that the reason he knows\nthat God made the sword is that it never had been and never could be\nbroken. Now, if it was afterwards ascertained that it had been broken,\nand the owner admitted that it had been, what would be thought of him\nif he then took the ground that it had been welded, and that the welding\nwas the evidence that it was of divine origin?\n\nA prophecy is then indulged in, to the effect that the internal and\nexternal unity of the church can never be broken again. It is admitted\nthat it was broken—it is asserted that it was divinely restored—and\nthen it is declared that it is never to be broken again. No reason is\ngiven for this prophecy; it must be born of the facts already stated.\nPut in a form to be easily understood, it is this:\n\nWe know that the unity of the church can never be broken, because the\nchurch is of divine origin.\n\nWe know that it was broken; but this does not weaken the argument,\nbecause it was restored by God, and it has not been broken since.\n\nTherefore, it never can be broken again.\n\nIt is stated that the Catholic Church is immutable, and that its\nimmutability establishes its claim to divine origin. Was it immutable\nwhen its unity, internal and external, was broken? Was it precisely the\nsame after its unity was broken that it was before? Was it precisely the\nsame after its unity was divinely restored that it was while broken?\nWas it universal while it was without unity? Which of the fragments was\nuniversal—which was immutable?\n\nThe fact that the Catholic Church is obedient to the pope, establishes,\nnot the supernatural origin of the church, but the mental slavery of its\nmembers. It establishes the fact that it is a successful organization;\nthat it is cunningly devised; that it destroys the mental independence,\nand that whoever absolutely submits to its authority loses the jewel of\nhis soul.\n\nThe fact that Catholics are to a great extent obedient to the pope,\nestablishes nothing except the thoroughness of the organization.\n\nHow was the Roman empire formed? By what means did that Great Power\nhold in bondage the then known world? How is it that a despotism is\nestablished? How is it that the few enslave the many? How is it that\nthe nobility live on the labor of peasants? The answer is in one word,\nOrganization. The organized few triumph over the unorganized many.\nThe few hold the sword and the purse. The unorganized are overcome in\ndetail—terrorized, brutalized, robbed, conquered.\n\nWe must remember that when Christianity was established the world\nwas ignorant, credulous and cruel. The gospel with its idea of\nforgiveness—with its heaven and hell—was suited to the barbarians\namong whom it was preached. Let it be understood, once for all, that\nChrist had but little to do with Christianity. The people became\nconvinced—being ignorant, stupid and credulous—that the church held\nthe keys of heaven and hell. The foundation for the most terrible mental\ntyranny that has existed among men was in this way laid. The Catholic\nChurch enslaved to the extent of its power. It resorted to every\npossible form of fraud; it perverted every good instinct of the human\nheart; it rewarded every vice; it resorted to every artifice that\ningenuity could devise, to reach the highest round of power. It tortured\nthe accused to make them confess; it tortured witnesses to compel the\ncommission of perjury; it tortured children for the purpose of making\nthem convict their parents; it compelled men to establish their own\ninnocence; it imprisoned without limit; it had the malicious patience to\nwait; it left the accused without trial, and left them in dungeons until\nreleased by death. There is no crime that the Catholic Church did not\ncommit,—no cruelty that it did not practice,—no form of treachery that\nit did not reward, and no virtue that it did not persecute. It was\nthe greatest and most powerful enemy of human rights. It did all that\norganization, cunning, piety, self-denial, heroism, treachery, zeal and\nbrute force could do to enslave the children of men. It was the enemy of\nintelligence, the assassin of liberty, and the destroyer of progress. It\nloaded the noble with chains and the infamous with honors. In one hand\nit carried the alms dish, in the other a dagger. It argued with the\nsword, persuaded with poison, and convinced with the fagot.\n\nIt is impossible to see how the divine origin of a church can be\nestablished by showing that hundreds of bishops have visited the pope.\n\nDoes the fact that millions of the faithful visit Mecca establish the\ntruth of the Koran? Is it a scene for congratulation when the bishops\nof thirty nations kneel before a man? Is it not humiliating to know that\nman is willing to kneel at the feet of man? Could a noble man demand, or\njoyfully receive, the humiliation of his fellows?\n\nAs a rule, arrogance and humility go together. He who in power compels\nhis fellow-man to kneel, will himself kneel when weak. The tyrant is a\ncringer in power; a cringer is a tyrant out of power. Great men stand\nface to face. They meet on equal terms. The cardinal who kneels in the\npresence of the pope, wants the bishop to kneel in his presence; and the\nbishop who kneels demands that the priest shall kneel to him; and the\npriest who kneels demands that they in lower orders shall kneel; and\nall, from pope to the lowest—that is to say, from pope to exorcist,\nfrom pope to the one in charge of the bones of saints—all demand that\nthe people, the laymen, those upon whom they live, shall kneel to them.\n\nThe man of free and noble spirit will not kneel. Courage has no knees.\n\nFear kneels, or falls upon its ashen face.\n\nThe Cardinal insists that the pope is the vicar of Christ, and that\nall popes have been. What is a vicar of Christ? He is a substitute in\noffice. He stands in the place, or occupies the position in relation\nto the church, in relation to the world, that Jesus Christ would occupy\nwere he the pope at Rome. In other words, he takes Christ's place; so\nthat, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ\nhimself is present in the person of the pope.\n\nWe all know that a good man may employ a bad agent. A good king might\nleave his realm and put in his place a tyrant and a wretch. The good\nman and the good king cannot certainly know what manner of man the\nagent is—what kind of person the vicar is—consequently the bad may be\nchosen. But if the king appointed a bad vicar, knowing him to be bad,\nknowing that he would oppress the people, knowing that he would imprison\nand burn the noble and generous, what excuse can be imagined for such a\nking?\n\nNow, if the church is of divine origin, and if each pope is the vicar of\nJesus Christ, he must have been chosen by Jesus Christ; and when he was\nchosen, Christ must have known exactly what his vicar would do. Can we\nbelieve that an infinitely wise and good Being would choose immoral,\ndishonest, ignorant, malicious, heartless, fiendish, and inhuman vicars?\n\nThe Cardinal admits that \"the history of Christianity is the history\nof the church, and that the history of the church is the history of the\nPontiffs,\" and he then declares that \"the greatest statesmen and rulers\nthat the world has ever seen are the Popes of Rome.\"\n\nLet me call attention to a few passages in Draper's \"History of the\nIntellectual Development of Europe.\"\n\n\"Constantine was one of the vicars of Christ. Afterwards, Stephen IV.\nwas chosen. The eyes of Constantine were then put out by Stephen, acting\nin Christ's place. The tongue of the Bishop Theodorus was amputated\nby the man who had been substituted for God. This bishop was left in a\ndungeon to perish of thirst. Pope Leo III. was seized in the street and\nforced into a church, where the nephews of Pope Adrian attempted to\nput out his eyes and cut off his tongue. His successor, Stephen V., was\ndriven ignominiously from Rome. His successor, Paschal I., was accused\nof blinding and murdering two ecclesiastics in the Lateran Palace.\nJohn VIII., unable to resist the Mohammedans, was compelled to pay them\ntribute.\n\n\"At this time, the Bishop of Naples was in secret alliance with the\nMohammedans, and they divided with this Catholic bishop the plunder they\ncollected from other Catholics. This bishop was excommunicated by the\npope; afterwards he gave him absolution because he betrayed the chief\nMohammedans, and assassinated others. There was an ecclesiastical\nconspiracy to murder the pope, and some of the treasures of the church\nwere seized, and the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened with false keys\nto admit the Saracens. Formosus, who had been engaged in these\ntransactions, who had been excommunicated as a conspirator for the\nmurder of Pope John, was himself elected pope in 891. Boniface VI.\nwas his successor. He had been deposed from the diaconate and from the\npriesthood for his immoral and lewd life. Stephen VII. was the next\npope, and he had the dead body of Formosus taken from the grave, clothed\nin papal habiliments, propped up in a chair and tried before a Council.\nThe corpse was found guilty, three fingers were cut off and the body\ncast into the Tiber. Afterwards Stephen VII., this Vicar of Christ, was\nthrown into prison and strangled.\n\n\"From 896 to 900, five popes were consecrated. Leo V., in less than two\nmonths after he became pope, was cast into prison by Christopher, one of\nhis chaplains. This Christopher usurped his place, and in a little while\nwas expelled from Rome by Sergius III., who became pope in 905. This\npope lived in criminal intercourse with the celebrated Theodora, who\nwith her daughters Marozia and Theodora, both prostitutes, exercised an\nextraordinary control over him. The love of Theodora was also shared by\nJohn X. She gave him the Archbishopric of Revenna, and made him pope in\n915. The daughter of Theodora overthrew this pope. She surprised him in\nthe Lateran Palace. His brother, Peter, was killed; the pope was thrown\ninto prison, where he was afterward murdered. Afterward, this Marozia,\ndaughter of Theodora, made her own son pope, John XI. Many affirmed that\nPope Sergius was his father, but his mother inclined to attribute him to\nher husband Alberic, whose brother Guido she afterward married. Another\nof her sons, Alberic, jealous of his brother John, the pope, cast him\nand their mother into prison. Alberic's son was then elected pope as\nJohn XII.\n\n\"John was nineteen years old when he became the vicar of Christ. His\nreign was characterized by the most shocking immoralities, so that the\nEmperor Otho I. was compelled by the German clergy to interfere. He was\ntried. It appeared that John had received bribes for the consecration\nof bishops; that he had ordained one who was only ten years old; that\nhe was charged with incest, and with so many adulteries that the Lateran\nPalace had become a brothel. He put out the eyes of one ecclesiastic;\nhe maimed another—both dying in consequence of their injuries. He was\ngiven to drunkenness and to gambling. He was deposed at last, and Leo\nVII. elected in his stead. Subsequently he got the upper hand. He seized\nhis antagonists; he cut off the hand of one, the nose, the finger, and\nthe tongue of others. His life was eventually brought to an end by the\nvengeance of a man whose wife he had seduced.\"\n\nAnd yet, I admit that the most infamous popes, the most heartless and\nfiendish bishops, friars, and priests were models of mercy, charity,\nand justice when compared with the orthodox God—with the God they\nworshiped. These popes, these bishops, these priests could persecute\nonly for a few years—they could burn only for a few moments—but their\nGod threatened to imprison and burn forever; and their God is as much\nworse than they were, as hell is worse than the Inquisition.\n\n\"John XIII. was strangled in prison. Boniface VII. imprisoned Benedict\nVII., and starved him to death. John XIV. was secretly put to death in\nthe dungeons of the castle of St. Angelo. The corpse of Boniface was\ndragged by the populace through the streets.\"\n\nIt must be remembered that the popes were assassinated by\nCatholics—murdered by the faithful—that one vicar of Christ strangled\nanother vicar of Christ, and that these men were \"the greatest rulers\nand the greatest statesmen of the earth.\"\n\n\"Pope John XVI. was seized, his eyes put out, his nose cut off, his\ntongue torn from his mouth, and he was sent through the streets mounted\non an ass, with his face to the tail. Benedict IX., a boy of less than\ntwelve years of age, was raised to the apostolic throne. One of his\nsuccessors, Victor III., declared that the life of Benedict was so\nshameful, so foul, so execrable, that he shuddered to describe it. He\nruled like a captain of banditti. The people, unable to bear longer his\nadulteries, his homicides and his abominations, rose against him, and\nin despair of maintaining his position, he put up the papacy to auction,\nand it was bought by a presbyter named John, who became Gregory VI., in\nthe year of grace 1045. Well may we ask, Were these the vicegerents of\nGod upon earth—these, who had truly reached that goal beyond which the\nlast effort of human wickedness cannot pass?\"\n\nIt may be sufficient to say that there is no crime that man can commit\nthat has not been committed by the vicars of Christ. They have inflicted\nevery possible torture, violated every natural right. Greater monsters\nthe human race has not produced.\n\nAmong the \"some two hundred and fifty-eight\" Vicars of Christ there were\nprobably some good men. This would have happened even if the intention\nhad been to get all bad men, for the reason that man reaches perfection\nneither in good nor in evil; but if they were selected by Christ\nhimself, if they were selected by a church with a divine origin and\nunder divine guidance, then there is no way to account for the selection\nof a bad one. If one hypocrite was duly elected pope—one murderer,\none strangler, one starver—this demonstrates that all the popes were\nselected by men, and by men only, and that the claim of divine guidance\nis born of zeal and uttered without knowledge.\n\nBut who were the vicars of Christ? How many have there been? Cardinal\nManning himself does not know. He is not sure. He says: \"Starting from\nSt. Peter to Leo XIII., there have been some two hundred and fifty-eight\nPontiffs claiming to be recognized by the whole Catholic unity as\nsuccessors of St. Peter and Vicars of Jesus Christ.\" Why did he use the\nword \"some\"? Why \"claiming\"? Does he not positively know? Is it possible\nthat the present Vicar of Christ is not certain as to the number of his\npredecessors? Is he infallible in faith and fallible in fact?\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nII.\n    \"If we live thus tamely,—\n    To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet,—\n    Farewell nobility.\"\n\nNO ONE will deny that \"the pope speaks to many people in many nations;\nthat he treats with empires and governments,\" and that \"neither from\nCanterbury nor from Constantinople such a voice goes forth.\"\n\nHow does the pope speak? What does he say?\n\nHe speaks against the liberty of man—against the progress of the human\nrace. He speaks to calumniate thinkers, and to warn the faithful\nagainst the discoveries of science. He speaks for the destruction of\ncivilization.\n\nWho listens? Do astronomers, geologists and scientists put the hand to\nthe ear fearing that an accent may be lost? Does France listen? Does\nItaly hear? Is not the church weakest at its centre? Do those who\nhave raised Italy from the dead, and placed her again among the great\nnations, pay attention? Does Great Britain care for this voice—this\nmoan, this groan—of the Middle Ages? Do the words of Leo XIII. impress\nthe intelligence of the Great Republic? Can anything be more absurd\nthan for the vicar of Christ to attack a demonstration of science with a\npassage of Scripture, or a quotation from one of the \"Fathers\"?\n\nCompare the popes with the kings and queens of England. Infinite wisdom\nhad but little to do with the selection of these monarchs, and yet they\nwere far better than any equal number of consecutive popes. This is\nfaint praise, even for kings and queens, but it shows that chance\nsucceeded in getting better rulers for England than \"Infinite Wisdom\"\ndid for the Church of Rome. Compare the popes with the presidents of the\nRepublic elected by the people. If Adams had murdered Washington, and\nJefferson had imprisoned Adams, and if Madison had cut out Jefferson's\ntongue, and Monroe had assassinated Madison, and John Quincy Adams had\npoisoned Monroe, and General Jackson had hung Adams and his Cabinet, we\nmight say that presidents had been as virtuous as popes. But if this\nhad happened, the verdict of the world would be that the people are not\ncapable of selecting their presidents.\n\nBut this voice from Rome is growing feebler day by day; so feeble that\nthe Cardinal admits that the vicar of God, and the supernatural church,\n\"are being tormented by Falck laws, by Mancini laws and by Crispi laws.\"\nIn other words, this representative of God, this substitute of Christ,\nthis church of divine origin, this supernatural institution—pervaded\nby the Holy Ghost—are being \"tormented\" by three politicians. Is it\npossible that this patriotic trinity is more powerful than the other?\n\nIt is claimed that if the Catholic Church \"be only a human system, built\nup by the intellect, will and energy of men, the adversaries must prove\nit—that the burden is upon them.\"\n\nAs a general thing, institutions are natural. If this church is\nsupernatural, it is the one exception. The affirmative is with those who\nclaim that it is of divine origin. So far as we know, all governments\nand all creeds are the work of man. No one believes that Rome was a\nsupernatural production, and yet its beginnings were as small as those\nof the Catholic Church. Commencing in weakness, Rome grew, and\nfought, and conquered, until it was believed that the sky bent above a\nsubjugated world. And yet all was natural. For every effect there was an\nefficient cause.\n\nThe Catholic asserts that all other religions have been produced by\nman—that Brahminism and Buddhism, the religion of Isis and Osiris, the\nmarvelous mythologies of Greece and Rome, were the work of the human\nmind. From these religions Catholicism has borrowed. Long before\nCatholicism was born, it was believed that women had borne children\nwhose fathers were gods. The Trinity was promulgated in Egypt centuries\nbefore the birth of Moses. Celibacy was taught by the ancient Nazarenes\nand Essenes, by the priests of Egypt and India, by mendicant monks, and\nby the piously insane of many countries long before the apostles lived.\nThe Chinese tell us that \"when there were but one man and one woman upon\nthe earth, the woman refused to sacrifice her virginity even to people\nthe globe; and the gods, honoring her purity, granted that she should\nconceive beneath the gaze of her lover's eyes, and a virgin mother\nbecame the parent of humanity.\"\n\nThe founders of many religions have insisted that it was the duty of man\nto renounce the pleasures of sense, and millions before our era took the\nvows of chastity, poverty and obedience, and most cheerfully lived upon\nthe labor of others.\n\nThe sacraments of baptism and confirmation are far older than the Church\nof Rome. The Eucharist is pagan. Long before popes began to murder each\nother, pagans ate cakes—the flesh of Ceres, and drank wine—the blood\nof Bacchus. Holy water flowed in the Ganges and Nile, priests interceded\nfor the people, and anointed the dying.\n\nIt will not do to say that every successful religion that has taught\nunnatural doctrines, unnatural practices, must of necessity have been\nof divine origin. In most religions there has been a strange mingling\nof the good and bad, of the merciful and cruel, of the loving and\nmalicious. Buddhism taught the universal brotherhood of man, insisted on\nthe development of the mind, and this religion was propagated not by\nthe sword, but by preaching, by persuasion, and by kindness—yet in\nmany things it was contrary to the human will, contrary to the human\npassions, and contrary to good sense. Buddhism succeeded. Can we, for\nthis reason, say that it is a supernatural religion? Is the unnatural\nthe supernatural?\n\nIt is insisted that, while other churches have changed, the Catholic\nChurch alone has remained the same, and that this fact demonstrates its\ndivine origin.\n\nHas the creed of Buddhism changed in three thousand years? Is\nintellectual stagnation a demonstration of divine origin? When anything\nrefuses to grow, are we certain that the seed was planted by God? If the\nCatholic Church is the same to-day that it has been for many centuries,\nthis proves that there has been no intellectual development. If men do\nnot differ upon religious subjects, it is because they do not think.\n\nDifferentiation is the law of growth, of progress. Every church must\ngain or lose: it cannot remain the same; it must decay or grow. The fact\nthat the Catholic Church has not grown—that it has been petrified from\nthe first—does not establish divine origin; it simply establishes\nthe fact that it retards the progress of man. Everything in nature\nchanges—every atom is in motion—every star moves. Nations,\ninstitutions and individuals have youth, manhood, old age, death. This\nis and will be true of the Catholic Church. It was once weak—it grew\nstronger—it reached its climax of power—it began to decay—it never\ncan rise again. It is confronted by the dawn of Science. In the presence\nof the nineteenth century it cowers.\n\nIt is not true that \"All natural causes run to disintegration.\"\n\nNatural causes run to integration as well as to disintegration.\nAll growth is integration, and all growth is natural. All decay is\ndisintegration, and all decay is natural. Nature builds and nature\ndestroys. When the acorn grows—when the sunlight and rain fall upon it\nand the oak rises—so far as the oak is concerned \"all natural causes\"\ndo not \"run to disintegration.\" But there comes a time when the oak\nhas reached its limit, and then the forces of nature run towards\ndisintegration, and finally the old oak falls. But if the Cardinal is\nright—if \"all natural causes run to disintegration,\" then every success\nmust have been of divine origin, and nothing is natural but destruction.\nThis is Catholic science: \"All natural causes run to disintegration.\"\nWhat do these causes find to disintegrate? Nothing that is natural. The\nfact that the thing is not disintegrated shows that it was and is of\nsupernatural origin. According to the Cardinal, the only business\nof nature is to disintegrate the supernatural. To prevent this, the\nsupernatural needs the protection of the Infinite. According to this\ndoctrine, if anything lives and grows, it does so in spite of nature.\nGrowth, then, is not in accordance with, but in opposition to nature.\nEvery plant is supernatural—it defeats the disintegrating influences of\nrain and light. The generalization of the Cardinal is half the truth. It\nwould be equally true to say: All natural causes run to integration. But\nthe whole truth is that growth and decay are equal.\n\nThe Cardinal asserts that \"Christendom was created by the world-wide\nchurch as we see it before our eyes at this day.\"\n\nPhilosophers and statesmen believe it to be the work of their own\nhands; they did not make it, but they have for three hundred years been\nunmaking it by reformations and revolutions.\n\nThe meaning of this is that Christendom was far better three hundred\nyears ago than now; that during these three centuries Christendom has\nbeen going toward barbarism. It means that the supernatural church of\nGod has been a failure for three hundred years; that it has been unable\nto withstand the attacks of philosophers and statesmen, and that it has\nbeen helpless in the midst of \"reformations and revolutions.\"\n\nWhat was the condition of the world three hundred years ago, the period,\naccording to the Cardinal, in which the church reached the height of its\ninfluence, and since which it has been unable to withstand the rising\ntide of reformation and the whirlwind of revolution?\n\nIn that blessed time, Philip II. was king of Spain—he with the cramped\nhead and the monstrous jaw. Heretics were hunted like wild and poisonous\nbeasts; the Inquisition was firmly established, and priests were busy\nwith rack and fire. With a zeal born of the hatred of man and the love\nof God, the church, with every instrument of torture, touched every\nnerve in the human body.\n\nIn those happy days, the Duke of Alva was devastating the homes of\nHolland; heretics were buried alive—their tongues were torn from their\nmouths, their lids from their eyes; the Armada was on the sea for the\ndestruction of the heretics of England, and the Moriscoes—a million and\na half of industrious people—were being driven by sword and flame\nfrom their homes. The Jews had been expelled from Spain. This Catholic\ncountry had succeeded in driving intelligence and industry from its\nterritory; and this had been done with a cruelty, with a ferocity,\nunequaled, in the annals of crime.\n\nNothing was left but ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, credulity, the\nInquisition, the seven sacraments and the seven deadly sins. And yet a\nCardinal of the nineteenth century, living in the land of Shakespeare,\nregrets the change that has been wrought by the intellectual efforts, by\nthe discoveries, by the inventions and heroism of three hundred years.\n\nThree hundred years ago, Charles IX., in France, son of Catherine de\nMedici, in the year of grace 1572—after nearly sixteen centuries of\nCatholic Christianity—after hundreds of vicars of Christ had sat in St.\nPeter's chair—after the natural passions of man had been \"softened\" by\nthe creed of Rome—came the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the result of a\nconspiracy between the Vicar of Christ, Philip II., Charles IX., and his\nfiendish mother. Let the Cardinal read the account of this massacre\nonce more, and, after reading it, imagine that he sees the gashed and\nmutilated bodies of thousands of men and women, and then let him say\nthat he regrets the revolutions and reformations of three hundred years.\n\nAbout three hundred years ago Clement VIII., Vicar of Christ, acting in\nGod's place, substitute of the Infinite, persecuted Giordano Bruno even\nunto death. This great, this sublime man, was tried for heresy. He had\nventured to assert the rotary motion of the earth; he had hazarded the\nconjecture that there were in the fields of infinite space worlds larger\nand more glorious than ours. For these low and groveling thoughts, for\nthis contradiction of the word and vicar of God, this man was imprisoned\nfor many years. But his noble spirit was not broken, and finally, in the\nyear 1600, by the orders of the infamous vicar, he was chained to\nthe stake. Priests believing in the doctrine of universal\nforgiveness—priests who when smitten upon one cheek turned the\nother—carried with a kind of ferocious joy fagots to the feet of this\nincomparable man. These disciples of \"Our Lord\" were made joyous as\nthe flames, like serpents, climbed around the body of Bruno. In a few\nmoments the brave thinker was dead, and the priests who had burned him\nfell upon their knees and asked the infinite God to continue the blessed\nwork forever in hell.\n\nThere are two things that cannot exist in the same universe—an infinite\nGod and a martyr.\n\nDoes the Cardinal regret that kings and emperors are not now engaged in\nthe extermination of Protestants? Does he regret that dungeons of the\nInquisition are no longer crowded with the best and bravest? Does he\nlong for the fires of the auto da fe.?\n\nIn coming to a conclusion as to the origin of the Catholic Church—in\ndetermining the truth of the claim of infallibility—we are not\nrestricted to the physical achievements of that church, or to the\nhistory of its propagation, or to the rapidity of its growth.\n\nThis church has a creed; and if this church is of divine origin—if\nits head is the vicar of Christ, and, as such, infallible in matters\nof faith and morals, this creed must be true. Let us start with the\nsupposition that God exists, and that he is infinitely wise, powerful\nand good—and this is only a supposition. Now, if the creed is foolish,\nabsurd and cruel, it cannot be of divine origin. We find in this creed\nthe following:\n\n\"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold\nthe Catholic faith.\"\n\nIt is not necessary, before all things, that he be good, honest,\nmerciful, charitable and just. Creed is more important than conduct. The\nmost important of all things is, that he hold the Catholic faith. There\nwere thousands of years during which it was not necessary to hold that\nfaith, because that faith did not exist; and yet during that time the\nvirtues were just as important as now, just as important as they ever\ncan be.\n\nMillions of the noblest of the human race never heard of this creed.\nMillions of the bravest and best have heard of it, examined, and\nrejected it. Millions of the most infamous have believed it, and because\nof their belief, or notwithstanding their belief, have murdered millions\nof their fellows. We know that men can be, have been, and are just\nas wicked with it as without it. We know that it is not necessary to\nbelieve it to be good, loving, tender, noble and self-denying. We admit\nthat millions who have believed it have also been self-denying and\nheroic, and that millions, by such belief, were not prevented from\ntorturing and destroying the helpless.\n\nNow, if all who believed it were good, and all who rejected it were\nbad, then there might be some propriety in saying that \"whoever will\nbe saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic\nfaith.\" But as the experience of mankind is otherwise, the declaration\nbecomes absurd, ignorant and cruel.\n\nThere is still another clause:\n\n\"Which faith, except every one do keep entire and inviolate, without\ndoubt, he shall everlastingly perish.\"\n\nWe now have both sides of this wonderful truth: The believer will be\nsaved, the unbeliever will be lost. We know that faith is not the child\nor servant of the will. We know that belief is a conclusion based upon\nwhat the mind supposes to be true. We know that it is not an act of the\nwill. Nothing can be more absurd than to save a man because he is not\nintelligent enough to accept the truth, and nothing can be more infamous\nthan to damn a man because he is intelligent enough to reject the false.\nIt resolves itself into a question of intelligence. If the creed is\ntrue, then a man rejects it because he lacks intelligence. Is this\na crime for which a man should everlastingly perish? If the creed is\nfalse, then a man accepts it because he lacks intelligence. In both\ncases the crime is exactly the same.\n\nIf a man is to be damned for rejecting the truth, certainly he should\nnot be saved for accepting the false. This one clause demonstrates\nthat a being of infinite wisdom and goodness did not write it. It also\ndemonstrates that it was the work of men who had neither wisdom nor a\nsense of justice.\n\nWhat is this Catholic faith that must be held? It is this:\n\n\"That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither\nconfounding the persons nor dividing the substance.\" Why should an\nInfinite Being demand worship? Why should one God wish to be worshiped\nas three? Why should three Gods wished to be worshiped as one? Why\nshould we pray to one God and think of three, or pray to three Gods\nand think of one? Can this increase the happiness of the one or of the\nthree? Is it possible to think of one as three, or of three as one? If\nyou think of three as one, can you think of one as none, or of none as\none? When you think of three as one, what do you do with the other two?\nYou must not \"confound the persons\"—they must be kept separate. When\nyou think of one as three, how do you get the other two? You must not\n\"divide the substance.\" Is it possible to write greater contradictions\nthan these?\n\nThis creed demonstrates the human origin of the Catholic Church. Nothing\ncould be more unjust than to punish man for unbelief—for the expression\nof honest thought—for having been guided by his reason—for having\nacted in accordance with his best judgment.\n\nAnother claim is made, to the effect \"that the Catholic Church has\nfilled the world with the true knowledge of the one true God, and that\nit has destroyed all idols by light instead of by fire.\"\n\nThe Catholic Church described the true God as a being who would inflict\neternal pain on his weak and erring children; described him as a fickle,\nquick-tempered, unreasonable deity, whom honesty enraged, and whom\nflattery governed; one who loved to see fear upon its knees, ignorance\nwith closed eyes and open mouth; one who delighted in useless\nself-denial, who loved to hear the sighs and sobs of suffering nuns,\nas they lay prostrate on dungeon floors; one who was delighted when\nthe husband deserted his family and lived alone in some cave in the far\nwilderness, tormented by dreams and driven to insanity by prayer and\npenance, by fasting and faith.\n\nAccording to the Catholic Church, the true God enjoyed the agonies of\nheretics. He loved the smell of their burning flesh; he applauded with\nwide palms when philosophers were flayed alive, and to him the _auto da\nfe_ was a divine comedy. The shrieks of wives, the cries of babes when\nfathers were being burned, gave contrast, heightened the effect and\nfilled his cup with joy. This true God did not know the shape of the\nearth he had made, and had forgotten the orbits of the stars. \"The\nstream of light which descended from the beginning\" was propagated by\nfagot to fagot, until Christendom was filled with the devouring fires of\nfaith.\n\nIt may also be said that the Catholic Church filled the world with the\ntrue knowledge of the one true Devil. It filled the air with malicious\nphantoms, crowded innocent sleep with leering fiends, and gave the world\nto the domination of witches and wizards, spirits and spooks, goblins\nand ghosts, and butchered and burned thousands for the commission of\nimpossible crimes.\n\nIt is contended that: \"In this true knowledge of the Divine Nature was\nrevealed to man their own relation to a Creator as sons to a Father.\"\n\nThis tender relation was revealed by the Catholics to the Pagans, the\nArians, the Cathari, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the heretics, the\nJews, the Moriscoes, the Protestants—to the natives of the West Indies,\nof Mexico, of Peru—to philosophers, patriots and thinkers. All these\nvictims were taught to regard the true God as a loving father, and this\nlesson was taught with every instrument of torture—with brandings and\nburnings, with flayings and flames. The world was filled with cruelty\nand credulity, ignorance and intolerance, and the soil in which all\nthese horrors grew was the true knowledge of the one true God, and the\ntrue knowledge of the one true Devil. And yet, we are compelled to say,\nthat the one true Devil described by the Catholic Church was not as\nmalevolent as the one true God.\n\nIs it true that the Catholic Church overthrew idolatry? What is\nidolatry? What shall we say of the worship of popes—of the doctrine of\nthe Real Presence, of divine honors paid to saints, of sacred vestments,\nof holy water, of consecrated cups and plates, of images and relics, of\namulets and charms?\n\nThe Catholic Church filled the world with the spirit of idolatry. It\nabandoned the idea of continuity in nature, it denied the integrity of\ncause and effect. The government of the world was the composite\nresult of the caprice of God, the malice of Satan, the prayers of\nthe faithful—softened, it may be, by the charity of Chance. Yet the\nCardinal asserts, without the preface of a smile, that \"Demonology was\noverthrown by the church, with the assistance of forces that were\nabove nature;\" and in the same breath gives birth to this enlightened\nstatement: \"Beelzebub is not divided against himself.\" Is a belief in\nBeelzebub a belief in demonology? Has the Cardinal forgotten the Council\nof Nice, held in the year of grace 787, that declared the worship of\nimages to be lawful? Did that infallible Council, under the guidance of\nthe Holy Ghost, destroy idolatry?\n\nThe Cardinal takes the ground that marriage is a sacrament, and\ntherefore indissoluble, and he also insists that celibacy is far better\nthan marriage,—holier than a sacrament,—that marriage is not the\nhighest state, but that \"the state of virginity unto death is the\nhighest condition of man and woman.\"\n\nThe highest ideal of a family is where all are equal—where love has\nsuperseded authority—where each seeks the good of all, and where none\nobey—where no religion can sunder hearts, and with which no church can\ninterfere.\n\nThe real marriage is based on mutual affection—the ceremony is but the\noutward evidence of the inward flame. To this contract there are but two\nparties. The church is an impudent intruder. Marriage is made public to\nthe end that the real contract may be known, so that the world can see\nthat the parties have been actuated by the highest and holiest motives\nthat find expression in the acts of human beings. The man and woman\nare not joined together by God, or by the church, or by the state.\nThe church and state may prescribe certain ceremonies, certain\nformalities—but all these are only evidence of the existence of a\nsacred fact in the hearts of the wedded. The indissolubility of marriage\nis a dogma that has filled the lives of millions with agony and tears.\nIt has given a perpetual excuse for vice and immorality. Fear has\nborne children begotten by brutality. Countless women have endured the\ninsults, indignities and cruelties of fiendish husbands, because they\nthought that it was the will of God. The contract of marriage is the\nmost important that human beings can make; but no contract can be\nso important as to release one of the parties from the obligation of\nperformance; and no contract, whether made between man and woman, or\nbetween them and God, after a failure of consideration caused by the\nwillful act of the man or woman, can hold and bind the innocent and\nhonest.\n\nDo the believers in indissoluble marriage treat their wives better than\nothers? A little while ago, a woman said to a man who had raised his\nhand to strike her: \"Do not touch me; you have no right to beat me; I am\nnot your wife.\"\n\nAbout a year ago a husband, whom God in his infinite wisdom had joined\nto a loving and patient woman in the indissoluble sacrament of marriage,\nbecoming enraged, seized the helpless wife and tore out one of her eyes.\nShe forgave him. A few weeks ago he deliberately repeated this frightful\ncrime, leaving his victim totally blind. Would it not have been better\nif man, before the poor woman was blinded, had put asunder whom God\nhad joined together? Thousands of husbands, who insist that marriage is\nindissoluble, are the beaters of wives.\n\nThe law of the church has created neither the purity nor the peace of\ndomestic life. Back of all churches is human affection. Back of all\ntheologies is the love of the human heart. Back of all your priests and\ncreeds is the adoration of the one woman by the one man, and of the one\nman by the one woman. Back of your faith is the fireside; back of your\nfolly is the family; and back of all your holy mistakes and your sacred\nabsurdities is the love of husband and wife, of parent and child.\n\nIt is not true that neither the Greek nor the Roman world had any true\nconception of a home. The splendid story of Ulysses and Penelope, the\nparting of Hector and Andromache, demonstrate that a true conception of\nhome existed among the Greeks. Before the establishment of Christianity,\nthe Roman matron commanded the admiration of the then known world. She\nwas free and noble. The church degraded woman—made her the property\nof the husband, and trampled her beneath its brutal feet. The \"fathers\"\ndenounced woman as a perpetual temptation, as the cause of all evil. The\nchurch worshiped a God who had upheld polygamy, and had pronounced his\ncurse on woman, and had declared that she should be the serf of the\nhusband. This church followed the teachings of St. Paul. It taught the\nuncleanness of marriage, and insisted that all children were conceived\nin sin. This church pretended to have been founded by one who offered a\nreward in this world, and eternal joy in the next, to husbands who would\nforsake their wives and children and follow him. Did this tend to the\nelevation of woman? Did this detestable doctrine \"create the purity and\npeace of domestic life\"? Is it true that a monk is purer than a good and\nnoble father?—that a nun is holier than a loving mother?\n\nIs there anything deeper and stronger than a mother's love? Is there\nanything purer, holier than a mother holding her dimpled babe against\nher billowed breast?\n\nThe good man is useful, the best man is the most useful. Those who fill\nthe nights with barren prayers and holy hunger, torture themselves\nfor their own good and not for the benefit of others. They are\nearning eternal glory for themselves—they do not fast for their\nfellow-men—their selfishness is only equalled by their foolishness.\nCompare the monk in his selfish cell, counting beads and saying prayers\nfor the purpose of saving his barren soul, with a husband and father\nsitting by his fireside with wife and children. Compare the nun with the\nmother and her babe.\n\nCelibacy is the essence of vulgarity. It tries to put a stain upon\nmotherhood, upon marriage, upon love—that is to say, upon all that\nis holiest in the human heart. Take love from the world, and there is\nnothing left worth living for. The church has treated this great, this\nsublime, this unspeakably holy passion, as though it polluted the heart.\nThey have placed the love of God above the love of woman, above the love\nof man. Human love is generous and noble. The love of God is selfish,\nbecause man does not love God for God's sake, but for his own.\n\nYet the Cardinal asserts \"that the change wrought by Christianity in the\nsocial, political and international relations of the world\"—\"that the\nroot of this ethical change, private and public, is the Christian home.\"\nA moment afterward, this prelate insists that celibacy is far better\nthan marriage. If the world could be induced to live in accordance with\nthe \"highest state,\" this generation would be the last. Why were men and\nwomen created? Why did not the Catholic God commence' with the sinless\nand sexless? The Cardinal ought to take the ground that to talk well is\ngood, but that to be dumb is the highest condition; that hearing is a\npleasure, but that deafness is ecstasy; and that to think, to reason, is\nvery well, but that to be a Catholic is far better.\n\nWhy should we desire the destruction of human passions? Take passions\nfrom human beings and what is left? The great object should be not to\ndestroy passions, but to make them obedient to the intellect. To indulge\npassion to the utmost is one form of intemperance—to destroy passion is\nanother. The reasonable gratification of passion under the domination of\nthe intellect is true wisdom and perfect virtue.\n\nThe goodness, the sympathy, the self-denial of the nun, of the monk, all\ncome from the mother-instinct, the father-instinct—all were produced by\nhuman affection, by the love of man for woman, of woman for man. Love is\na transfiguration. It ennobles, purifies and glorifies. In true marriage\ntwo hearts burst into flower. Two lives unite. They melt in music. Every\nmoment is a melody. Love is a revelation, a creation. From love\nthe world borrows its beauty and the heavens their glory. Justice,\nself-denial, charity and pity are the children of love. Lover, wife,\nmother, husband, father, child, home—these words shed light—they are\nthe gems of human speech. Without love all glory fades, the noble falls\nfrom life, art dies, music loses meaning and becomes mere motions of the\nair, and virtue ceases to exist.\n\nIt is asserted that this life of celibacy is above and against the\ntendencies of human nature; and the Cardinal then asks: \"Who will\nascribe this to natural causes, and, if so, why did it not appear in the\nfirst four thousand years?\"\n\nIf there is in a system of religion a doctrine, a dogma, or a practice\nagainst the tendencies of human nature—if this religion succeeds,\nthen it is claimed by the Cardinal that such religion must be of divine\norigin. Is it \"against the tendencies of human nature\" for a mother to\nthrow her child into the Ganges to please a supposed God? Yet a religion\nthat insisted on that sacrifice succeeded, and has, to-day, more\nbelievers than the Catholic Church can boast.\n\nReligions, like nations and individuals, have always gone along the line\nof least resistance. Nothing has \"ascended the stream of human license\nby a power mightier than nature.\" There is no such power. There never\nwas, there never can be, a miracle. We know that man is a conditioned\nbeing. We know that he is affected by a change of conditions. If he\nis ignorant he is superstitious; this is natural. If his brain is\ndeveloped—if he perceives clearly that all things are naturally\nproduced, he ceases to be superstitious, and becomes scientific. He is\nnot a saint, but a savant—not a priest, but a philosopher. He does\nnot worship, he works; he investigates; he thinks; he takes advantage,\nthrough intelligence, of the forces of nature. He is no longer the\nvictim of appearances, the dupe of his own ignorance, and the persecutor\nof his fellow-men.\n\nHe then knows that it is far better to love his wife and children than\nto love God. He then knows that the love of man for woman, of woman for\nman, of parent for child, of child for parent, is far better, far holier\nthan the love of man for any phantom born of ignorance and fear.\n\nIt is illogical to take the ground that the world was cruel and ignorant\nand idolatrous when the Catholic Church was established, and that\nbecause the world is better now than then, the church is of divine\norigin.\n\nWhat was the world when science came? What was it in the days of\nGalileo, Copernicus and Kepler? What-was it when printing was invented?\nWhat was it when the Western World was found? Would it not be much\neasier to prove that science is of divine origin?\n\nScience does not persecute. It does not shed blood—it fills the world\nwith light. It cares nothing for heresy; it develops the mind, and\nenables man to answer his own prayers.\n\nCardinal Manning takes the ground that Jehovah practically abandoned\nthe children of men for four thousand years, and gave them over to every\nabomination. He claims that Christianity came \"in the fullness of time,\"\nand it is then admitted that \"what the fullness of time may mean is one\nof the mysteries of times and seasons, that it is not for us to know.\"\nHaving declared that it is a mystery, and one that we are not to\nknow, the Cardinal explains it: \"One motive for the long delay of four\nthousand years is not far to seek—it gave time, full and ample, for the\nutmost development and consolidation of all the falsehood and evil of\nwhich the intellect and will of man are capable.\"\n\nIs it possible to imagine why an infinitely good and wise being \"gave\ntime full and ample for the utmost development and consolidation of\nfalsehood and evil\"? Why should an infinitely wise God desire this\ndevelopment and consolidation? What would be thought of a father who\nshould refuse to teach his son and deliberately allow him to go into\nevery possible excess, to the end that he might \"develop all the\nfalsehood and evil of which his intellect and will were capable\"? If a\nsupernatural religion is a necessity, and if without it all men simply\ndevelop and consolidate falsehood and evil, why was not a supernatural\nreligion given to the first man? The Catholic Church, if this be true,\nshould have been founded in the Garden of Eden.\n\nWas it not cruel to drown a world just for the want of a supernatural\nreligion—a religion that man, by no possibility, could furnish? Was\nthere \"husbandry in heaven\"?\n\nBut the Cardinal contradicts himself by not only admitting, but\ndeclaring, that the world had never seen a legislation so just, so\nequitable, as that of Rome.\n\nIs it possible that a nation in which falsehood and evil had reached\ntheir highest development was, after all, so wise, so just and so\nequitable?\n\nWas not the civil law far better than the Mosaic—more philosophical,\nnearer just?\n\nThe civil law was produced without the assistance of God.\n\nAccording to the Cardinal, it was produced by men in whom all the\nfalsehood and evil of which they were capable had been developed and\nconsolidated, while the cruel and ignorant Mosaic code came from the\nlips of infinite wisdom and compassion.\n\nIt is declared that the history of Rome shows what man can do without\nGod, and I assert that the history of the Inquisition shows what man\ncan do when assisted by a church of divine origin, presided over, by the\ninfallible vicars of God.\n\nThe fact that the early Christians not only believed incredible things,\nbut persuaded others of their truth, is regarded by the Cardinal as a\nmiracle. This is only another phase of the old argument that success is\nthe test of divine origin. All supernatural religions have been founded\nin precisely the same way. The credulity of eighteen hundred years ago\nbelieved everything except the truth.\n\nA religion is a growth, and is of necessity adapted in some degree to\nthe people among whom it grows. It is shaped and molded by the general\nignorance, the superstition and credulity of the age in which it lives.\nThe key is fashioned by the lock.\n\nEvery religion that has succeeded has in some way supplied the wants of\nits votaries, and has to a certain extent harmonized with their hopes,\ntheir fears, their vices, and their virtues.\n\nIf, as the Cardinal says, the religion of Christ is in absolute harmony\nwith nature, how can it be supernatural? The Cardinal also declares that\n\"the religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral nature\nin all nations and all ages to this day.\"\n\nWhat becomes of the argument that Catholicism must be of divine origin\nbecause \"it has ascended the stream of human license, _contra ictum\nfluminis_, by a power mightier than nature\"?\n\nIf \"it is in harmony with the reason and moral nature of all nations and\nall ages to this day,\" it has gone with the stream, and not against\nit. If \"the religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral\nnature of all nations,\" then the men who have rejected it are unnatural,\nand these men have gone against the stream. How then can it be said\nthat Christianity has been in changeless opposition to nature as man has\nmarred it? To what extent has man marred it?\n\nIn spite of the marring by man, we are told that the reason and moral\nnature of all nations in all ages to this day is in harmony with the\nreligion of Jesus Christ.\n\nAre we justified in saying that the Catholic Church is of divine origin\nbecause the Pagans failed to destroy it by persecution?\n\nWe will put the Cardinal's statement in form:\n\nPaganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution, therefore\nCatholicism is of divine origin.\n\nLet us make an application of this logic:\n\nPaganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution; therefore,\nCatholicism is of divine origin.\n\nCatholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by persecution; therefore,\nProtestantism is of divine origin.\n\nCatholicism and Protestantism combined failed to destroy Infidelity;\ntherefore, Infidelity is of divine origin.\n\nLet us make another application:\n\nPaganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism; therefore, Paganism\nwas a false religion.\n\nCatholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestantism; therefore,\nCatholicism is a false religion.\n\nCatholicism and Protestantism combined failed to destroy Infidelity;\ntherefore, both Catholicism and Protestantism are false religions.\n\nThe Cardinal has another reason for believing the Catholic Church of\ndivine origin. He declares that the \"Canon Law is a creation of wisdom\nand justice to which no statutes at large or imperial pandects can bear\ncomparison;\" \"that the world-wide and secular legislation of the church\nwas of a higher character, and that as water cannot rise above its\nsource, the church could not, by mere human wisdom, have corrected and\nperfected the imperial law, and therefore its source must have been\nhigher than the sources of the world.\"\n\nWhen Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law was supreme.\n\nAs a matter of fact, the good in the Canon Law was borrowed—the bad\nwas, for the most part, original. In my judgment, the legislation of the\nRepublic of the United States is in many respects superior to that of\nRome, and yet we are greatly indebted to the Civil Law. Our legislation\nis superior in many particulars to that of England, and yet we are\ngreatly indebted to the Common Law; but it never occurred to me that our\nStatutes at Large are divinely inspired.\n\nIf the Canon Law is, in fact, the legislation of infinite wisdom, then\nit should be a perfect code. Yet, the Canon Law made it a crime next to\nrobbery and theft to take interest for money. Without the right to take\ninterest the business of the whole world, would to a large extent, cease\nand the prosperity of mankind end. There are railways enough in the\nUnited States to make six tracks around the globe, and every mile was\nbuilt with borrowed money on which interest was paid or promised. In no\nother way could the savings of many thousands have been brought together\nand a capital great enough formed to construct works of such vast and\ncontinental importance.\n\nIt was provided in this same wonderful Canon Law that a heretic could\nnot be a witness against a Catholic. The Catholic was at liberty to\nrob and wrong his fellow-man, provided the fellow-man was not a fellow\nCatholic, and in a court established by the vicar of Christ, the man\nwho had been robbed was not allowed to open his mouth. A Catholic could\nenter the house of an unbeliever, of a Jew, of a heretic, of a Moor, and\nbefore the eyes of the husband and father murder his wife and children,\nand the father could not pronounce in the hearing of a judge the name of\nthe murderer.\n\nThe world is wiser now, and the Canon Law, given to us by infinite\nwisdom, has been repealed by the common sense of man.\n\nIn this divine code it was provided that to convict a cardinal bishop,\nseventy-two witnesses were required; a cardinal presbyter, forty-four;\na cardinal deacon, twenty-four; a subdeacon, acolyth, exorcist, reader,\nostiarius, seven; and in the purgation of a bishop, twelve witnesses\nwere invariably required; of a presbyter, seven; of a deacon, three.\nThese laws, in my judgment, were made, not by God, but by the clergy.\n\nSo too in this cruel code it was provided that those who gave aid,\nfavor, or counsel, to excommunicated persons, should be anathema, and\nthat those who talked with, consulted, or sat at the same table with or\ngave anything in charity to the excommunicated should be anathema.\n\nIs it possible that a being of infinite wisdom made hospitality a crime?\nDid he say: \"Whoso giveth a cup of cold water to the excommunicated\nshall wear forever a garment of fire\"? Were not the laws of the Romans\nmuch better? Besides all this, under the Canon Law the dead could be\ntried for heresy, and their estates confiscated—that is to say, their\nwidows and orphans robbed.\n\nThe most brutal part of the common law of England is that in relation\nto the rights of women—all of which was taken from the _Corpus Juris\nCanonici_, \"the law that came from a higher source than man.\"\n\nThe only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by the pious canonists\nwas propter infidelitatem, which was when one of the parties became\nCatholic, and would not live with the other who continued still an\nunbeliever. Under this divine statute, a pagan wishing to be rid of\nhis wife had only to join the Catholic Church, provided she remained\nfaithful to the religion of her fathers. Under this divine law, a man\nmarrying a widow was declared to be a bigamist.\n\nIt would require volumes to point out the cruelties, absurdities and\ninconsistencies of the Canon Law. It has been thrown away by the world.\nEvery civilized nation has a code of its own, and the Canon Law is\nof interest only to the historian, the antiquarian, and the enemy of\ntheological government.\n\nUnder the Canon Law, people were convicted of being witches and wizards,\nof holding intercourse with devils. Thousands perished at the stake,\nhaving been convicted of these impossible crimes. Under the Canon Law,\nthere was such a crime as the suspicion of heresy. A man or woman could\nbe arrested, charged with being suspected, and under this Canon Law,\nflowing from the intellect of infinite wisdom, the presumption was in\nfavor of guilt. The suspected had to prove themselves innocent. In all\ncivilized courts, the presumption of innocence is the shield of the\nindicted, but the Canon Law took away this shield, and put in the hand\nof the priest the sword of presumptive guilt.\n\nIf the real pope is the vicar of Christ, the true shepherd of the sheep,\nthis fact should be known not only to the vicar, but to the sheep. A\ndivinely founded and guarded church ought to know its own shepherd, and\nyet the Catholic sheep have not always been certain who the shepherd\nwas.\n\nThe Council of Pisa, held in 1409, deposed two popes—rivals—Gregory\nand Benedict—that is to say, deposed the actual vicar of Christ and the\npretended. This action was taken because a council, enlightened by the\nHoly Ghost, could not tell the genuine from the counterfeit. The council\nthen elected another vicar, whose authority was afterwards denied.\nAlexander V. died, and John XXIII. took his place; Gregory XII. insisted\nthat he was the lawful pope; John resigned, then he was deposed, and\nafterward imprisoned; then Gregory XII. resigned, and Martin V. was\nelected. The whole thing reads like the annals of a South American\nrevolution.\n\nThe Council of Constance restored, as the Cardinal declares, the unity\nof the church, and brought back the consolation of the Holy Ghost.\nBefore this great council John Huss appeared and maintained his own\ntenets. The council declared that the church was not bound to keep its\npromise with a heretic. Huss was condemned and executed on the 6th\nof July, 1415. His disciple, Jerome of Prague, recanted, but having\nrelapsed, was put to death, May 30, 1416. This cursed council shed the\nblood of Huss and Jerome.\n\nThe Cardinal appeals to the author of \"Ecce Homo\" for the purpose of\nshowing that Christianity is above nature, and the following passages,\namong others, are quoted:\n\n\"Who can describe that which unites men? Who has entered into the\nformation of speech, which is the symbol of their union? Who can\ndescribe exhaustively the origin of civil society? He who can do these\nthings can explain the origin of the Christian Church.\"\n\nThese passages should not have been quoted by the Cardinal. The author\nof these passages simply says that the origin of the Christian Church\nis no harder to find and describe than that which unites men—than that\nwhich has entered into the formation of speech, the symbol of their\nunion—no harder to describe than the origin of civil society—because\nhe says that one who can describe these can describe the other.\n\nCertainly none of these things are above nature. We do not need the\nassistance of the Holy Ghost in these matters. We know that men are\nunited by common interests, common purposes, common dangers—by race,\nclimate and education. It is no more wonderful that people live in\nfamilies, tribes, communities and nations, than that birds, ants and\nbees live in flocks and swarms.\n\nIf we know anything, we know that language is natural—that it is a\nphysical science. But if we take the ground occupied by the Cardinal,\nthen we insist that everything that cannot be accounted for by man,\nis supernatural. Let me ask, by what man? What man must we take as the\nstandard?\n\nCosmas or Humboldt, St. Irenaeus or Darwin? If everything that we\ncannot account for is above nature, then ignorance is the test of the\nsupernatural. The man who is mentally honest, stops where his knowledge\nstops. At that point he says that he does not know. Such a man is a\nphilosopher. Then the theologian steps forward, denounces the modesty\nof the philosopher as blasphemy, and proceeds to tell what is beyond the\nhorizon of the human intellect.\n\nCould a savage account for the telegraph, or the telephone, by natural\ncauses? How would he account for these wonders? He would account for\nthem precisely as the Cardinal accounts for the Catholic Church.\n\nBelonging to no rival church, I have not the slightest interest in the\nprimacy of Leo XIII., and yet it is to be regretted that this primacy\nrests upon such a narrow and insecure foundation.\n\nThe Cardinal says that \"it will appear almost certain that the original\nGreek of St. Irenaeus, which is unfortunately lost, contained either\n[—Greek—], or some inflection of [—Greek—], which signifies\nprimacy.\"\n\nFrom this it appears that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome rests on\nsome \"inflection\" of a Greek word—and that this supposed inflection\nwas in a letter supposed to have been written by St. Irenaeus, which has\ncertainly been lost. Is it possible that the vast fabric of papal power\nhas this, and only this, for its foundation? To this \"inflection\" has it\ncome at last?\n\nThe Cardinal's case depends upon the intelligence and veracity of his\nwitnesses. The Fathers of the church were utterly incapable of examining\na question of fact. They were all believers in the miraculous. The same\nis true of the apostles. If St. John was the author of the Apocalypse,\nhe was undoubtedly insane. If Polycarp said the things attributed to him\nby Catholic writers, he was certainly in the condition of his master.\nWhat is the testimony of St. John worth in the light of the following?\n\"Cerinthus, the heretic, was in a bathhouse. St. John and another\nChristian were about to enter. St. John cried out: 'Let us run away,\nlest the house fall upon us while the enemy of truth is in it.'\" Is\nit possible that St. John thought that God would kill two eminent\nChristians for the purpose of getting even with one heretic?\n\nLet us see who Polycarp was. He seems to have been a prototype of the\nCatholic Church, as will be seen from the following statement concerning\nthis Father: \"When any heretical doctrine was spoken in his presence\nhe would stop his ears.\" After this, there can be no question of his\northodoxy. It is claimed that Polycarp was a martyr—that a spear was\nrun through his body, and that from the wound his soul, in the shape\nof a bird, flew away. The history of his death is just as true as the\nhistory of his life.\n\nIrenaeus, another witness, took the ground that there was to be a\nmillennium—a thousand years of enjoyment in which celibacy would not be\nthe highest form of virtue. If he is called as a witness for the purpose\nof establishing the divine origin of the church, and if one of his\n\"inflections\" is the basis of papal supremacy, is the Cardinal also\nwilling to take his testimony as to the nature of the millennium?\n\nAll the Fathers were infinitely credulous. Every one of them believed,\nnot only in the miracles said to have been wrought by Christ, by the\napostles, and by other Christians, but every one of them believed in\nthe Pagan miracles. All of these Fathers were familiar with wonders and\nimpossibilities. Nothing was so common with them as to work miracles,\nand on many occasions they not only cured diseases, not only reversed\nthe order of nature, but succeeded in raising the dead.\n\nIt is very hard, indeed, to prove what the apostles said, or what the\nFathers of the church wrote. There were many centuries filled with\nforgeries—many generations in which the cunning hands of ecclesiastics\nerased, obliterated or interpolated the records of the past—during\nwhich they invented books, invented authors, and quoted from works that\nnever existed.\n\nThe testimony of the \"Fathers\" is without the slightest value.\nThey believed everything—they examined nothing. They received as a\nwaste-basket receives. Whoever accepts their testimony will exclaim with\nthe Cardinal: \"Happily, men are not saved by logic.\"\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nIs Divorce Wrong\n\nBy Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Henry C. Potter, and Colonel Robert G.\nIngersoll.\n\nTHE attention of the public has been particularly directed of late\nto the abuses of divorce, and to the facilities afforded by\nthe complexities of American law, and by the looseness of its\nadministration, for the disruption of family ties. Therefore the _North\nAmerican Review_ has opened its pages for the thorough discussion of\nthe subject in its moral, social, and religious aspects, and some of the\nmost eminent leaders of modern thought have contributed their opinions.\nThe Rev. S. W. Dike, LL.D., who is a specialist on the subject of\ndivorce, has prepared some statistics touching the matter, and, with\nthe assistance of Bishop Potter, the four following questions have been\nformulated as a basis for the discussion:\n\n1. Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any circumstances?\n\n2. Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry under any circumstances?\n\n3. What is the effect of divorce on the integrity of the family?\n\n4. Does the absolute prohibition of divorce where it exists contribute\nto the moral purity of society?\n\nEditor North American Review,\n\nIntroduction by the Rev. S. W. Dike, LL.D.\n\nI AM to introduce this discussion with some facts and make a few\nsuggestions upon them. In the dozen years of my work at this problem I\nhave steadily insisted upon a broad basis of fact as the only foundation\nof sound opinion. We now have a great statistical advance in the report\nof the Department of labor. A few of these statistics will serve the\npresent purpose.\n\nThere were in the United States 9,937 divorces reported for the year\n1867 and 25,535 for 1886, or a total 328,716 in the twenty years. This\nincrease is more than twice as great as the population, and has been\nremarkably uniform throughout the period. With the exception of New\nYork, perhaps Delaware, and the three or four States where special\nlegislative reforms have been secured, the increase covers the\ncountry and has been more than twice the gain in population. The South\napparently felt the movement later than the North and West, but its\ngreater rapidity there will apparently soon obliterate most existing\ndifferences. The movement is well-nigh as universal in Europe as here.\nThirteen European countries, including Canada, had 6,540 divorces in\n1876 and 10,909 in 1886—an increase of 67 per cent. In the same period\nthe increase with us was 72.5 per cent. But the ratios of divorce\nto population are here generally three or four times greater than in\nEurope. The ratios to marriage in the United States are sometimes as\nhigh as 1 to 10, 1 to 9, or even a little more for single years. In\nheathen Japan for three years they were more than 1 to 3. But divorce\nthere is almost wholly left to the regulation of the family, and\npractically optional with the parties. It is a re-transference of the\nwife by a simple writing to her own family.\n\n1. The increase of divorce is one of several evils affecting the family.\nAmong these are hasty or ill-considered marriages, the decline of\nmarriage and the decrease of children,—too generally among classes\npecuniarily best able to maintain domestic life,—the probable increase\nin some directions of marital infidelity and sexual vice, and last, but\nnot least, a tendency to reduce the family to a minimum of force in the\nlife of society. All these evils should be studied and treated in their\nrelations to each other. Carefully-conducted investigations alone can\nestablish these latter statements beyond dispute, although there can be\nlittle doubt of their general correctness as here carefully made. And\nthe conclusion is forced upon us that the toleration of the increase\nof divorce, touching as it does the vital bond of the family, is so far\nforth a confession of our western civilization that it despairs of\nall remedies for ills of the family, and is becoming willing, in great\ndegree, to look away from all true remedies to a dissolution of the\nfamily by the courts in all serious cases. If this were our settled\npurpose, it would look like giving up the idea of producing and\nprotecting a family increasingly capable of enduring to the end of its\nnatural existence. If the drift of things on this subject during the\npresent century may be taken as prophetic, our civilization moves in an\nopposite direction in its treatment of the family from its course with\nthe individual.\n\n2. Divorce, including these other evils related to the family, is\npreeminently a social problem. It should therefore be reached by all\nthe forces of our great social institutions—religious, educational,\nindustrial, and political. Each of these should be brought to bear on it\nproportionately and in cooperation with the others. But I can here take\nup only one or two lines for further suggestion.\n\n3. The causes of divorces, like those of most social evils, are\noften many and intricate. The statistics for this country, when the\nforty-three various statutory causes are reduced to a few classes, show\nthat 20 per cent, of the divorces were based on adultery, 16 on cruelty,\n38 were granted for desertion, 4 for drunkenness, less than 3 for\nneglect to provide, and so on. But these tell very little, except that\nit is easier or more congenial to use one or another of the statutory\ncauses, just as the old \"omnibus clause,\" which gave general discretion\nto the courts in Connecticut, and still more in some other States, was\nmade to cover many cases. A special study of forty-five counties in\ntwelve States, however, shows that drunkenness was a direct or indirect\ncause in 20.1 per cent, of 29,665 cases. That is, it could be found\neither alone or in conjunction with others, directly or indirectly, in\none-fifth of the cases.\n\n4. Laws and their administration affect divorce. New York grants\nabsolute divorce for only one cause, and New Jersey for two. Yet New\nYork has many more divorces in proportion to population, due largely to\na looser system of administration. In seventy counties of twelve States\n68 per cent, of the applications are granted. The enactment of a more\nstringent law is immediately followed by a decrease of divorces, from\nwhich there is a tendency to recover. Personally, I think stricter\nmethods of administration, restrictions upon remarriage, proper delays\nin hearing suits, and some penal inflictions for cruelty, desertion,\nneglect of support, as well as for adultery, would greatly reduce\ndivorces, even without removing a single statutory cause. There would\nbe fewer unhappy families, not more. For people would then look to real\nremedies instead of confessing the hopelessness of remedy by appeals to\nthe courts. A multitude of petty ills and many utterly wicked frauds\nand other abuses would disappear. \"Your present methods,\" said a\nNova Scotian to a man from Maine a few years ago, \"are simply ways of\nmultiplying and magnifying domestic ills.\" There is much force in this.\nBut let us put reform of marriage laws along with these measures.\n\n5. The evils of conflicting and diverse marriage and divorce laws are\ndoing immense harm. The mischief through which innocent parties are\ndefrauded, children rendered illegitimate, inheritance made uncertain,\nand actual imprisonments for bigamy grow out of divorce and remarriage,\nare well known to most. Uniformity through a national law or by\nconventions of the States has been strongly urged for many years.\nUniformity is needed. But for one, I have long discouraged too early\naction, because the problem is too difficult, the consequences too\nserious, and the elements of it still too far out of our reach for any\nreally wise action at present. The government report grew immediately\nout of this conviction. It will, I think, abundantly justify the\ncaution. For it shows that uniformity could affect at the utmost only a\nsmall percentage of the total divorces in the United States. _Only 19.9\npercent of all the divorced who were married in this country obtained\ntheir divorces in a different State from the one in which their marriage\nhad taken place, in all these twenty years, 80.1 per cent, having been\ndivorced in the State where married_. Now, marriage on the average lasts\n9.17 years before divorce occurs, which probably is nearly two-fifths\nthe length of a married life before its dissolution by death. From this\n19.9 per cent, there must, therefore, be subtracted the large migration\nof married couples for legitimate purposes, in order to get any fair\nfigure to express the migration for divorce. But the movement of the\nnative population away from the State of birth is 22 or 23 per cent.\nThis, however, includes all ages. For all who believe that divorce\nitself is generally a great evil, the conclusion is apparently\ninevitable that the question of uniformity, serious as it is, is a very\nsmall part of the great legal problem demanding solution at our hands.\nThis general problem, aside from its graver features in the more\nimmediate sphere of sociology and religion, must evidently tax our\npublicists and statesmen severely. The old temptation to meet special\nevils by general legislation besets us on this subject. I think\ncomparative and historical study of the law of the family, (the\nFamilienrecht of the Germans), especially if the movement of European\nlaw be seen, points toward the need of a pretty comprehensive and\nthorough examination of our specific legal problem of divorce\nand marriage law in this fuller light, before much legislation is\nundertaken.\n\nSamuel W. Dike.\n\nHowever much men may differ in their views of the nature and attributes\nof the matrimonial contract, and in their concept of the rights and\nobligations of the marriage state, no one will deny that these are grave\nquestions; since upon marriage rests the family, and upon the family\nrest society, civilization, and the highest interests of religion and\nthe state. Yet, strange to say, divorce, the deadly enemy of marriage,\nstalks abroad to-day bold and unblushing, a monster licensed by the laws\nof Christian states to break hearts, wreck homes and ruin souls. And\npassing strange is it, too, that so many, wise and far-seeing in less\nweighty concerns, do not appear to see in the evergrowing power of\ndivorce a menace not only to the sacredness of the marriage institution,\nbut even to the fair social fabric reared upon matrimony as its\ncorner-stone.\n\nGod instituted in Paradise the marriage state and sanctified it. He\nestablished its law of unity and declared its indissolubility. By divine\nauthority Adam spoke when of his wife he said: \"This now is bone of my\nbones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she\nwas taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and\nshall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.\"*\n  • Gen., ii., 23-24.\n\nBut like other things on earth, marriage suffered in the fall; and\nlittle by little polygamy and divorce began to assert themselves against\nthe law of matrimonial unity and indissolubility. Yet the ideal of the\nmarriage institution never faded away. It survived, not only among the\nchosen people, but even among the nations of heathendom, disfigured\nmuch, 'tis true, but with its ancient beauty never wholly destroyed.\n\nWhen, in the fullness of time, Christ came to restore the things\nthat were perishing, he reasserted in clear and unequivocal terms the\nsanctity, unity, and indissolubility of marriage. Nay, more. He gave to\nthis state added holiness and a dignity higher far than it had \"from the\nbeginning.\" He made marriage a sacrament, made it the type of his own\nnever-ending union with his one spotless spouse, the church. St. Paul,\nwriting to the Ephesians, says: \"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ\nalso loved the church, and delivered himself up for it, that he might\nsanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life,\nthat he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot\nor wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without\nblemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies....\nFor this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave\nto his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.\"*\n  • Ephes., v., 25-31.\n\nIn defence of Christian marriage, the church was compelled from the\nearliest days of her existence to do frequent and stern battle. But\ncultured pagan, and rough barbarian, and haughty Christian lord were\nmet and conquered. Men were taught to master passion, and Christian\nmarriage, with all its rights secured and reverenced, became a ruling\npower in the world.\n\nThe Council of Trent, called, in the throes of the mighty moral upheaval\nof the sixteenth century, to deal with the new state of things, again\nproclaimed to a believing and an unbelieving world the Catholic doctrine\nof the holiness, unity, and indissolubility of marriage, and the\nunlawfulness of divorce. The council declared no new dogmas: it simply\nreaffirmed the common teaching of the church for centuries. But some\nof the most hallowed attributes of marriage seemed to be objects of\npeculiar detestation to the new teachers, and their abolition was\nsoon demanded. \"The leaders in the changes of matrimonial law,\" writes\nProfessor Woolsey, \"were the Protestant reformers themselves, and that\nalmost from the beginning of the movement.... The reformers, when they\ndiscarded the sacramental view of marriage and the celibacy of the\nclergy, had to make out a new doctrine of marriage and of divorce.\"*\nThe \"new doctrine of marriage and of divorce,\" pleasing as it was to the\nsensual man, was speedily learned and as speedily put in practice. The\nsacredness with which Christian marriage had been hedged around began to\nbe more and more openly trespassed upon, and restive shoulders wearied\nmore and more quickly of the marriage yoke when divorce promised freedom\nfor newer joys.\n\nTo our own time the logical consequences of the \"new doctrine\" have\ncome. To-day \"abyss calls upon abyss,\" change calls for change, laxity\ncalls for license. Divorce is now a recognized presence in high life and\nlow; and polygamy, the first-born of divorce, sits shameless in palace\nand in hovel. Yet the teacher that feared not to speak the words of\ntruth in bygone ages is not silent now. In no uncertain tones, the\nchurch proclaims to the world to-day the unchangeable law of the strict\nunity and absolute indissolubility of valid and consummated Christian\nmarriage.\n\nTo the question then, \"Can divorce from the bond of marriage ever be\nallowed?\" the Catholic can only answer no.\n  • \"Divorce and Divorce Legislation,\" by Theodore D. Woolsey,\n    2d Ed., p. 126.\n\nAnd for this no, his first and last and best reason can be but this:\n\"Thus saith the Lord.\"\n\nAs time goes on the wisdom of the church in absolutely forbidding\ndivorce from the marriage bond grows more and more plain even to the\nmany who deny to this prohibition a divine and authoritative sanction.\nAnd nowhere is this more true than in our own country. Yet our\nexperience of the evils of divorce is but the experience of every people\nthat has cherished this monster.\n\nLet us take but a hasty view of the consequences of divorce in ancient\ntimes. Turn only to pagan Greece and Rome, two peoples that practised\ndivorce most extensively. In both we find divorce weakening their\nprimitive virtue and making their latter corruption more corrupt. Among\nthe Greeks morality declined as material civilization advanced. Divorce\ngrew easy and common, and purity and peace were banished from the family\ncircle. Among the Romans divorce was not common until the latter days of\nthe Republic. Then the flood-gates of immorality were opened, and, with\ndivorce made easy, came rushing in corruption of morals among both sexes\nand in every walk of life. \"Passion, interest, or caprice,\" Gibbon, the\nhistorian, tells us, \"suggested daily motives for the dissolution\nof marriage; a word, a sign, a message, a letter, the mandate of a\nfreedman, declared the separation; the most tender of human connections\nwas degraded to a transient society of profit or pleasure.\"* Each\nsucceeding generation witnessed moral corruption more general, moral\ndegradation more profound; men and women were no longer ashamed of\nlicentiousness; until at length the nation that became mighty because\nbuilt on a pure family fell when its corner-stone crumbled away in\nrottenness.\n  • \"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,\" Milman's Ed., Vol.\n    III., p. 236.\n\nHeedless of the lessons taught by history, modern nations, too, have\nmade trial of divorce. In Europe, wherever the new gospel of marriage\nand divorce has had! notable influence, divorce has been legalized; and\nin due proportion to the extent of that influence causes for divorce\nhave been multiplied, the bond of marriage more and more recklessly\nbroken, and the obligations of that sacred state more and more\nshamelessly disregarded. In our own country the divorce evil has grown\nmore rapidly than our growth and strengthened more rapidly than our\nstrength. Mr. Carroll D. Wright, in a special report on the statistics\nof marriage and divorce made to Congress in February, 1889, places the\nnumber of divorces in the United States in 1867 at 9,937, and the number\nin 1886 at 25,535. These figures show an increase of the divorce evil\nmuch out of proportion to our increase in population. The knowledge that\ndivorces can easily be procured encourages hasty marriages and\nequally hasty preparations. Legislators and judges in some States\nare encouraging inventive genius in the art of finding new causes for\ndivorce. Frequently the most trivial and even ridiculous pretexts are\nrecognized as sufficient for the rupture of the marriage bond; and\nin some States divorce can be obtained \"without publicity,\" and even\nwithout the knowledge of the defendant—in such cases generally an\ninnocent wife. Crime has sometimes been committed for the very purpose\nof bringing about a divorce, and cases are not rare in which plots have\nbeen laid to blacken the reputation of a virtuous spouse in order\nto obtain legal freedom for new nuptials. Sometimes, too, there is a\ncollusion between the married parties to obtain divorce. One of them\ntrumps up charges; the other does not oppose the suit; and judgment is\nentered for the plaintiff. Every daily newspaper tells us of divorces\napplied for or granted, and the public sense of decency is constantly\nbeing shocked by the disgusting recital of of divorce-court scandals.\n\nWe are filled with righteous indignation at Mormonism; we brand it as\na national disgrace, and justly demand its suppression. Why? Because,\nforsooth, the Mormons are polygamists. Do we forget that there are\ntwo species of polygamy—simultaneous and successive? Mormons practise\nwithout legal recognition the first species; while among us the second\nspecies is indulged in, and with the sanction of law, by thousands in\nwhose nostrils Mormonism is a stench and an abomination. The Christian\npress and pulpit of the land denounce the Mormons as \"an adulterous\ngeneration,\" but too often deal very tenderly with Christian\npolygamists. Why? Is Christian polygamy less odious in the eyes of God\nthan Mormon polygamy? Among us, *tis true, the one is looked upon as\nmore respectable than the other. Yet we know that the Mormons as a\nclass, care for their wives and children; while Christian polygamists\nbut too often leave wretched wives to starve, slave, or sin, and\nleave miserable children a public charge. \"O divorced and much-married\nChristian,\" says the polygamous dweller by Salt Lake, \"pluck first the\nbeam from thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to pluck the mote from\nthe eye of thy much-married, but undivorced, Mormon brother.\" It follows\nlogically from the Catholic doctrine of the unity and indissolubility\nof marriage, and the consequent prohibition of divorce from the marital\nbond, that no one, even though divorced a vinculo by the civil power,\ncan be allowed by the church to take another consort during the lifetime\nof the true wife or husband, and such connection the church can but hold\nas sinful. It is written: \"Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry\nanother committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away\nher husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.\"*\n  • Mark, x., ii, 12.\n\nOf course, I am well aware that upon the words of our Saviour as found\nin St. Matthew, Chap. xix., 9, many base the right of divorce from the\nmarriage bond for adultery, with permission to remarry. But, as is\nwell known, the Catholic Church, upon the concurrent testimony of the\nEvangelists Mark and Luke, and upon the teaching of St. Paul,\ninterprets our Lord's words quoted by St. Matthew as simply permitting,\non account of adultery, divorce from bed and board, with no right to\neither party to marry another.\n\nBut even if divorce a vinculo were not forbidden by divine law, how\ninadequate a remedy would it be for the evils for which so many deem it\na panacea. \"Divorce a vinculo,\" as Dr. Brownson truly says, \"logically\ninvolves divorce ad libitum.\"* Now, what reason is there to suppose\nthat parties divorced and remated will be happier in the new connection\nthan in the old? As a matter of fact, many persons have been divorced\na number of times. Sometimes, too, it happens that, after a period of\nseparation, divorced parties repent of their folly, reunite, and are\nagain divorced. Indeed, experience clearly proves that unhappiness\namong married people frequently does not arise so much from \"mutual\nincompatibility\" as from causes inherent in one or both of the\nparties—causes that would be likely to make a new union as wretched\nas the old one. There is wisdom in the pithy saying of-a recent writer:\n\"Much ill comes, not because men and women are married, but because they\nare fools.\"*\n  • Mark, x., n, 12. Luke, xvi., 18. J I. Cor.,vii., 10, 11.\n     Essay on \"The Family—Christian and Pagan.\"\n  • Prof. David Swing in Chicago Journal.\n\nThere are some who think that the absolute prohibition of divorce does\nnot contribute to the purity of society, and are therefore of opinion\nthat divorce with liberty to remarry does good in this regard. He who\nbelieves the matrimonial bond indissoluble, divorce a vinculo evil, and\nthe connection resulting from it criminal, can only say: \"Evil should\nnot be done that good may come.\" But, after all, would even passing good\ncome from this greater freedom? In a few exceptional cases—Yes: in\nthe vast majority of cases—No. The trying of divorce as a safeguard of\npurity is an old experiment, and an unsuccessful one. In Rome adulteries\nincreased as divorces were multiplied. After speaking of the facility\nand frequency of divorce among the Romans, Gibbon adds:\n\n\"A specious theory is confuted by this free and perfect experiment,\nwhich demonstrates that the liberty of divorce does not contribute\nto happiness and virtue. The facility of separation would destroy\nall mutual confidence, and inflame every trifling dispute. The minute\ndifference between a husband and a stranger, which might so easily be\nremoved, might still more easily be forgotten.\"*\n\nHow apropos in this connection are the words of Professor Woolsey:\n\n\"Nothing is more startling than to pass from the first part of the\neighteenth to this latter part of the nineteenth century, and to observe\nhow law has changed and opinion has altered in regard to marriage, the\ngreat foundation of society, and to divorce; and how, almost pari passu,\nvarious offences against chastity, such as concubinage, prostitution,\nillegitimate births, abortion, disinclination to family life, have\nincreased also—not, indeed, at the same pace everywhere, or all of them\nequally in all countries, yet have decidedly increased on the whole.\"!\n\nSurely in few parts of the wide world is the truth of these strong words\nmore evident than in those parts of our own country where loose divorce\nlaws have long prevailed.\n\nIt should be noted that, while never allowing the dissolution of the\nmarriage bond, the Catholic Church has always permitted, for grave\ncauses and under certain conditions, a temporary or permanent\n\"separation from bed and board.\"\n  • \"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,\" Milman's Ed., Vol.\n    III., p. 236.\n    ** \"Divorce and Divorce Legislation,\" 2d Ed., p. 274.\n\nThe causes which, positis ponendis, justify such separation may be\nbriefly given thus: mutual consent, adultery, and grave peril of soul or\nbody.\n\nIt may be said that there are persons so unhappily mated and so\nconstituted that for them no relief can come save from divorce _a\nvinculo_, with permission to remarry. I shall not linger here to point\nout to such the need of seeking from a higher than earthly power the\ngrace to suffer and be strong. But for those whose reasoning on this\nsubject is of the earth, earthy, I shall add some words of practical\nworldly wisdom from eminent jurists. In a note to his edition of\nBlackstone's \"Commentaries,\" Mr. John Taylor Coleridge says:\n\n\"It is no less truly than beautifully said by Sir W. Scott, in the case\nof Evans v. Evans, that 'though in particular cases the repugnance\nof the law to dissolve the obligation of matrimonial cohabitation may\noperate with great severity upon individuals, yet it must be carefully\nremembered that the general happiness of the married life is secured\nby its indissolubility.' When people understand that they must live\ntogether, except for a few reasons known to the law, they learn to\nsoften by mutual accommodation that yoke which they know they cannot\nshake off: they become good husbands and good wives from the necessity\nof remaining husbands and wives: for necessity is a powerful master in\nteaching the duties which it imposes. If it were once understood that\nupon mutual disgust married persons might be legally separated, many\ncouples who now pass through the world with mutual comfort, with\nattention to their common offspring, and to the moral order of civil\nsociety, might have been at this moment living in a state of mutual\nunkindness, in a state of estrangement from their common offspring, and\nin a state of the most licentious and unrestrained immorality. In this\ncase, as in many other cases, the happiness of some individuals must be\nsacrificed to the greater and more general good.\"\n\nThe facility and frequency of divorce, and its lamentable consequences,\nare nowadays calling much attention to measures of \"divorce reform.\"\n\"How can divorce reform be best secured?\" it may be asked. Believing,\nas I do, that divorce is evil, I also believe that its \"reformation\"\nand its death must be simultaneous. It should cease to be. Divorce as we\nknow it began when marriage was removed from the domain of the church:\ndivorce shall cease when the old order shall be restored. Will this ever\ncome to pass? Perhaps so—after many days. Meanwhile, something might\nbe done, something should be done, to lessen the evils of divorce. Our\npresent divorce legislation must be presumed to be such as the majority\nof the people wish it. A first step, therefore, in the way of \"divorce\nreform\" should be the creation of a more healthy public sentiment on\nthis question. Then will follow measures that will do good in proportion\nto their stringency. A few practical suggestions as to the salient\nfeatures of remedial divorce legislation may not be out of place.\nPersons seeking at the hands of the civil law relief in matrimonial\ntroubles should have the right to ask for divorce a vinculo, or\nsimple separation a mensa et thoro, as they may elect. The number\nof legally-recognized grounds for divorce should be lessened, and\n\"noiseless\" divorces forbidden. \"Rapid-transit\" facilities for passing\nthrough divorce courts should be cut off, and divorce \"agencies\" should\nbe suppressed. The plaintiff in a divorce case should be a bona fide\nresident of the judicial district in which his petition is filed, and in\nevery divorce case the legal representatives of the State should appear\nfor the defendant, and, by all means, the right of remarriage after\ndivorce should be restricted. If divorce cannot be legislated out of\nexistence, let, at least, its power for evil be diminished.\n\nJames Cardinal Gibbons.\n\nI am asked certain questions with regard to the attitude of the\nEpiscopal Church towards the matter of divorce. In undertaking to answer\nthem, it is to be remembered that there is a considerable variety of\nopinion which is held in more or less precise conformity with doctrinal\nor canonical declarations of the church. With these variations this\npaper, except in so far as it may briefly indicate them, is not\nconcerned. Nor is it an expression of individual opinion. That is not\nwhat has been asked for or attempted.\n\nThe doctrine and law of the Protestant Episcopal Church on the subject\nof divorce is contained in canon 13, title II., of the \"Digest of the\nCanons,\" 1887. That, canon has been to a certain extent interpreted by\nEpiscopal judgments under section IV. The \"public opinion\" of the\nclergy or laity can only be ascertained in the usual way; especially\nby examining their published treatises, letters, etc., and perhaps most\nsatisfactorily by the reports of discussion in the diocesan and general\nconventions on the subject of divorce. Among members of the Protestant\nEpiscopal Church divorce is excessively rare, cases of uncertainty in\nthe application of the canon, are much more rare, and the practice of\nthe clergy is almost perfectly uniform. There is, however, by no means\nthe same uniformity in their opinions either as to divorce or marriage.\n\nAs divorce is necessarily a mere accident of marriage, and as divorce is\nimpossible without a precedent marriage, much practical difficulty might\narise, and much difference of opinion does arise, from the fact that the\nProtestant Episcopal Church has nowhere defined marriage. Negatively,\nit is explicitly affirmed (Article XXV.) that \"matrimony is not to\nbe counted for a sacrament of the Gospel.\" This might seem to reduce\nmatrimony to a civil contract. And accordingly the first rubric in\nthe Form of Solemnization of Matrimony directs, on the ground of\ndifferences of laws in the various States, that \"the minister is left\nto the direction of those laws in everything that regards the civil\ncontract between the parties.\" Laws determining what persons shall be\ncapable of contracting would seem to be included in \"everything that\nregards the civil contract;\" and unquestionably the laws of most of\nthe States render all persons legally divorced capable of at once\ncontracting a new marriage. Both the first section of canon 13 and the\nForm of Solemnization, affirm that, \"if any persons be joined together\notherwise than as God's word doth allow, their marriage is not\nlawful.\" But it is nowhere excepting as to divorce, declared _what the\nimpediments are_. The Protestant Episcopal Church has never, by canon\nor express legislation, published, for instance, a table of prohibited\ndegrees.\n\nOn the matter of divorce, however, canon 13, title II., supersedes, for\nthe members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, both a part of the civil\nlaw relating to the persons capable of contracting marriage, and also\nall private judgment as to the teaching of \"the Word of God\" on that\nsubject. No minister is allowed, as a rule, to solemnize the marriage of\nany man or woman who has a divorced husband or wife still living. But\nif the person seeking to be married is the innocent party in the divorce\nfor adultery, that person, whether man or woman, may be married by\na minister of the church. With the above exception, the clergy are\nforbidden to administer the sacraments to any divorced and remarried\nperson without the express permission of the bishop, unless that person\nbe \"penitent\" and \"in imminent danger of death.\" Any doubts \"as to the\nfacts of any case under section II. of this canon\" must be referred to\nthe bishop. Of course, where there is no reasonable doubt the minister\nmay proceed. It may be added that the sacraments are to be refused also\nto persons who may be reasonably supposed to have contracted marriage\n\"otherwise,\" in any respect, \"than as the Word of God and the discipline\nof this Church doth allow.\" These impediments are nowhere defined; and\naccordingly it has happened that a man who had married a deceased wife's\nsister and the woman he had married were, by the private judgment of\na priest, refused the holy communion. The civil courts do not seem\ninclined to protect the clergy from consequences of interference with\nthe civil law. In Southbridge, Mass., a few weeks ago, a man who\nhad been denounced from the altar for marrying again after a divorce\nobtained a judgment for $1,720 damages. The law of the church would\nseem to be that, even though a legal divorce may have been obtained,\nremarriage is absolutely forbidden, excepting to the innocent party,\nwhether man or woman, in a divorce for adultery. The penalty for breach\nof this law might involve, for the officiating clergyman, deposition\nfrom the ministry; for the offending man or woman, exclusion from the\nsacraments, which, in the judgment of a very large number of the clergy,\ninvolves everlasting damnation.\n\nIt is obvious, then, that the Protestant Episcopal Church allows the\ncomplete validity of a divorce a vinculo in the case of adultery, and\nthe right of remarriage to the innocent party. But that church has\nnot determined in what manner either the grounds of the divorce or the\n\"innocence\" of either party is to be ascertained. The canon does not\nrequire a clergyman to demand, nor can the church enable him to secure,\nthe production of a copy of the record or decree of the court of law\nby which a divorce is granted, nor would such decree indicate the\n\"innocence\" of one party, though it might prove the guilt of the other.\n\nThe effect of divorce upon the integrity of the family is too obvious to\nrequire stating. As the father and mother are the heads of the family,\ntheir separation must inevitably destroy the common family life. On the\nother hand, it is often contended that the destruction has been already\ncompleted, and that a divorce is only the legal recognition of what has\nalready taken place; \"the integrity of the family\" can scarcely remain\nwhen either a father or mother, or both, are living in violation of the\nlaw on which that integrity rests. The question may be asked whether the\nabsolute prohibition of divorce would contribute to the moral purity of\nsociety. It is difficult to answer such a question, because anything\non the subject must be comparatively worthless until verified by\nexperience. It is quite certain that the prohibition of divorce never\nprevents illicit sexual connections, as was abundantly proved when\ndivorce in England was put within the reach of persons who were not able\nto afford the expense of a special act of Parliament. It is, indeed,\nso palpable a fact that any amount of evidence or argument is wholly\nsuperfluous.\n\nThe law of the Protestant Episcopal Church is by no means identical with\nthe opinion of either the clergy or the laity. In the judgment of many,\nthe existing law is far too lax, or, at least, the whole doctrine\nof marriage is far too inadequately dealt with in the authoritative\nteaching of the church. The opinion of this school finds, perhaps,\nits most adequate expression in the report of a committee of the last\nGeneral Convention forming Appendix XIII. of the \"Journal\" of that\nconvention. It is, substantially, that the Mosaic law of marriage is\nstill binding upon the church, unless directly abrogated by Christ\nhimself; that it was abrogated by him only so far that all divorce was\nforbidden by him, excepting for the cause of fornication; that a woman\nmight not claim divorce for any reason whatever; that the marriage of a\ndivorced person until the death of the other party is wholly forbidden;\nthat marriage is not merely a civil contract, but a spiritual and\nsupernatural union, requiring for its mutual obligation a supernatural,\ndivine grace; that such grace is only imparted in the sacrament of\nmatrimony, which is a true sacrament and does actually confer grace;\nthat marriage is wholly within the jurisdiction of the church, though\nthe State may determine such rules and guarantees as may secure\npublicity and sufficient evidence of a marriage, etc.; that severe\npenalties should be inflicted by the State, on the demand of the church,\nfor the suppression of all offences against the seventh commandment and\nsundry other parts of the Mosaic legislation, especially in relation to\n\"prohibited degrees.\"\n\nThere is another school, equally earnest and sincere in its zeal for\nthe integrity of the family and sexual purity, which would nevertheless\nrepudiate much the greater part of the above assumption. This school, if\none may so venture to combine scattered opinions, argues substantially\nas follows: The type of all Mosaic legislation was circumcision; that\nrite was of universal obligation and divine authority. St. Paul so\nregarded it. The abrogation of the law requiring circumcision was,\ntherefore, the abrogation of the whole of the Mosaic legislation. The\n\"burden of proof,\" therefore, rests upon those who affirm the present\nobligation of what formed a part of the Mosaic law; and they must show\nthat it has been reenacted by Christ and his Apostles or forms some part\nof some other and independent system of law or morals still in force.\nChrist's words about divorce are not to be construed as a positive law,\nbut as expressing the ideal of marriage, and corresponding to his words\nabout eunuchs, which not everybody \"can receive.\" So far as Christ's\nwords seem to indicate an inequality as to divorce between man and\nwoman, they are explained by the authoritative and inspired assertion of\nSt. Paul: \"In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.\" A divine\nlaw is equally authoritative by whomsoever declared—whether by the Son\nIncarnate or by the Holy Ghost speaking through inspired Apostles. If,\nthen, a divine law was ever capable of suspension or modification, it\nmay still be capable of such suspension or modification in corresponding\ncircumstances. The circumstances which justified a modification of the\noriginal divine law of marriage do still exist in many conditions of\nsociety and even of individual life. The Protestant Episcopal Church\ncannot, alone, speak with such authority on disputed passages of\nScripture as to justify her ministers in direct disobedience to the\ncivil authority, which is also \"ordained of God.\" The exegesis of the\nearly church was closely connected with theories about matter, and\nabout the inferiority of women and of married life, which are no longer\nbelieved.\n\nOf course this is a very brief statement. As a matter of fact the actual\neffect of the doctrine and discipline of the Protestant Episcopal Church\non marriage and divorce is that divorce among her members is excessively\nrare; that it is regarded with extreme aversion; and that the public\nopinion of the church maintains the law as it now is, but could not be\ntrusted to execute laws more stringent. A member of the committee of the\nGeneral Convention whose report has been already referred to closes that\nreport with the following protest:\n\n\"The undersigned finds himself unable to concur in so much of the\n[proposed] canon as forbids the holy communion to a truly pious and\ngodly woman who has been compelled by long years of suffering from\na drunken and brutal husband to obtain a divorce, and has regularly\nmarried some suitable person according to the established laws of the\nland. And also from so much of the [proposed] canon as may seem to\nforbid marriage with a deceased wife's sister.\"\n\nThe final action on these points, which has already been stated,\nindicates that the proposed report thus referred to was, in one\nparticular at least, in advance of the sentiment of the church as\nexpressed in her General Convention.\n\nHenry C. Potter.\n\n_Question (1.) Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any\ncircumstances?_\n\nThe world for the most part is ruled by the tomb, and the living are\ntyrannized over by the dead. Old ideas, long after the conditions under\nwhich they were produced have passed away, often persist in surviving.\nMany are disposed to worship the ancient—to follow the old paths,\nwithout inquiring where they lead, and without knowing exactly where\nthey wish to go themselves.\n\nOpinions on the subject of divorce have been, for the most part,\ninherited from the early Christians. They have come to us through\ntheological and priestly channels. The early Christians believed that\nthe world was about to be destroyed, or that it was to be purified by\nfire; that all the wicked were to perish, and that the good were to\nbe caught up in the air to meet their Lord—to remain there, in all\nprobability, until the earth was prepared as a habitation for the\nblessed. With this thought or belief in their minds, the things of this\nworld were of comparatively no importance. The man who built larger\nbarns in which to store his grain was regarded as a foolish farmer, who\nhad forgotten, in his greed for gain, the value of his own soul.\nThey regarded prosperous people as the children of Mammon, and the\nunfortunate, the wretched and diseased, as the favorites of God. They\ndiscouraged all worldly pursuits, except the soliciting of alms. There\nwas no time to marry or to be given in marriage; no time to build homes\nand have families. All their thoughts were centred upon the heaven\nthey expected to inherit. Business, love, all secular things, fell into\ndisrepute.\n\nNothing is said in the Testament about the families of the apostles;\nnothing of family life, of the sacredness of home; nothing about the\nnecessity of education, the improvement and development of the mind.\nThese things were forgotten, for the reason that nothing, in the\npresence of the expected event, was considered of any importance, except\nto be ready when the Son of Man should come. Such was the feeling, that\nrewards were offered by Christ himself to those who would desert their\nwives and children. Human love was spoken of with contempt. \"Let the\ndead bury their dead. What is that to thee? Follow thou me.\" They not\nonly believed these things, but acted in accordance with them; and, as a\nconsequence, all the relations of life were denied or avoided, and their\nobligations disregarded. Marriage was discouraged. It was regarded as\nonly one degree above open and unbridled vice, and was allowed only\nin consideration of human weakness. It was thought far better not to\nmarry—that it was something grander for a man to love God than to\nlove woman. The exceedingly godly, the really spiritual, believed in\ncelibacy, and held the opposite sex in a kind of pious abhorrence. And\nyet, with that inconsistency so characteristic of theologians, marriage\nwas held to be a sacrament. The priest said to the man who married:\n\"Remember that you are caught for life. This door opens but once. Before\nthis den of matrimony the tracks are all one way.\" This was in the\nnature of a punishment for having married. The theologian felt that the\ncontract of marriage, if not contrary to God's command, was at least\ncontrary to his advice, and that the married ought to suffer in some\nway, as a matter of justice. The fact that there could be no divorce,\nthat a mistake could not be corrected, was held up as a warning. At\nevery wedding feast this skeleton stretched its fleshless finger towards\nbride and groom.\n\nNearly all intelligent people have given up the idea that the world is\nabout to come to an end. They do not now believe that prosperity is a\ncertain sign of wickedness, or that poverty and wretchedness are sure\ncertificates of virtue. They are hardly convinced that Dives should have\nbeen sent to hell simply for being rich, or that Lazarus was entitled\nto eternal joy on account of his poverty. We now know that prosperous\npeople may be good, and that unfortunate people may be bad. We have\nreached the conclusion that the practice of virtue tends in the\ndirection of prosperity, and that a violation of the conditions of\nwell-being brings, with absolute certainty, wretchedness and misfortune.\n\nThere was a time when it was believed that the sin of an individual\nwas visited upon the tribe, the community, or the nation to which he\nbelonged. It was then thought that if a man or woman had made a vow\nto God, and had failed to keep the vow, God might punish the entire\ncommunity; therefore it was the business of the community to see to it\nthat the vow was kept. That idea has been abandoned. As we progress, the\nrights of the individual are perceived, and we are now beginning dimly\nto discern that there are no rights higher than the rights of the\nindividual. There was a time when nearly all believed in the reforming\npower of punishment—in the beneficence of brute force. But the world is\nchanging. It was at one time thought that the Inquisition was the savior\nof society; that the persecution of the philosopher was requisite to the\npreservation of the state, and that, no matter what happened, the state\nshould be preserved. We have now more light. And standing upon this\nluminous point that we call the present, let me answer your questions.\n\nMarriage is the most important, the most sacred, contract that\nhuman beings can make. No matter whether we call it a contract, or a\nsacrament, or both, it remains precisely the same. And no matter whether\nthis contract is entered into in the presence of magistrate or priest,\nit is exactly the same. A true marriage is a natural concord and\nagreement of souls, a harmony in which discord is not even imagined;\nit is a mingling so perfect that only one seems to exist; all other\nconsiderations are lost; the present seems to be eternal. In this\nsupreme moment there is no shadow—or the shadow is as luminous as\nlight. And when two beings thus love, thus unite, this is the true\nmarriage of soul and soul. That which is said before the altar, or\nminister, or magistrate, or in the presence of witnesses, is only the\noutward evidence of that which has already happened within; it simply\ntestifies to a union that has already taken place—to the uniting of two\nmornings of hope to reach the night together. Each has found the ideal;\nthe man has found the one woman of all the world—the impersonation of\naffection, purity, passion, love, beauty, and grace; and the woman has\nfound the one man of all the world, her ideal, and all that she knows of\nromance, of art, courage, heroism, honesty, is realized in him. The\nidea of contract is lost. Duty and obligation are instantly changed into\ndesire and joy, and two lives, like uniting streams, flow on as one.\nNothing can add to the sacredness of this marriage, to the obligation\nand duty of each to each. There is nothing in the ceremony except the\ndesire on the part of the man and woman that the whole world should know\nthat they are really married and that their souls have been united.\n\nEvery marriage, for a thousand reasons, should be public, should be\nrecorded, should be known; but, above all, to the end that the purity of\nthe union should appear. These ceremonies are not only for the good and\nfor the protection of the married, but also for the protection of their\nchildren, and of society as well. But, after all, the marriage remains\na contract of the highest possible character—a contract in which each\ngives and receives a heart.\n\nThe question then arises, Should this marriage, under any circumstances,\nbe dissolved? It is easy to understand the position taken by the various\nchurches; but back of theological opinions is the question of contract.\n\nIn this contract of marriage, the man agrees to protect and cherish his\nwife. Suppose that he refuses to protect; that he abuses, assaults, and\ntramples upon the woman he wed. What is her redress? Is she under\nany obligation to him? He has violated the contract. He has failed to\nprotect, and, in addition, he has assaulted her like a wild beast. Is\nshe under any obligation to him? Is she bound by the contract he has\nbroken? If so, what is the consideration for this obligation? Must she\nlive with him for his sake? or, if she leaves him to preserve her life,\nmust she remain his wife for his sake? No intelligent man will answer\nthese questions in the affirmative.\n\nIf, then, she is not bound to remain his wife for the husband's sake,\nis she bound to remain his wife because the marriage was a sacrament? Is\nthere any obligation on the part of the wife to remain with the brutal\nhusband for the sake of God? Can her conduct affect in any way the\nhappiness of an infinite being? Is it possible for a human being to\nincrease or diminish the well-being of the Infinite?\n\nThe next question is as to the right of society in this matter. It must\nbe admitted that the peace of society will be promoted by the separation\nof such people. Certainly society cannot insist upon a wife remaining\nwith a husband who bruises and mangles her flesh. Even married women\nhave a right to personal security. They do not lose, either by contract\nor sacrament, the right of self-preservation; this they share in common,\nto say the least of it, with the lowest living creatures.\n\nThis will probably be admitted by most of the enemies of divorce; but\nthey will insist that while the wife has the right to flee from\nher husband's roof and seek protection of kindred or friends, the\nmarriage—the sacrament—must remain unbroken. Is it to the interest of\nsociety that those who despise each other should live together? Ought\nthe world to be peopled by the children of hatred or disgust, the\nchildren of lust and loathing, or by the welcome babes of mutual love?\nIs it possible that an infinitely wise and compassionate God insists\nthat a helpless woman shall remain the wife of a cruel wretch? Can\nthis add to the joy of Paradise, or tend to keep one harp in tune? Can\nanything be more infamous than for a government to compel a woman to\nremain the wife of a man she hates—of one whom she justly holds in\nabhorrence? Does any decent man wish the assistance of a constable,\na sheriff, a judge, or a church, to keep his wife in his house? Is it\npossible to conceive of a more contemptible human being than a man who\nwould appeal to force in such a case? It may be said that the woman is\nfree to go, and that the courts will protect her from the brutality of\nthe man who promised to be her protector; but where shall the woman go?\nShe may have no friends; or they may be poor; her kindred may be\ndead. Has she no right to build another home? Must this woman, full of\nkindness, affection, health, be tied and chained to this living corpse?\nIs there no future for her? Must she be an outcast forever—deceived and\nbetrayed for her whole life? Can she never sit by her own hearth, with\nthe arms of her children about her neck, and with a husband who loves\nand protects her? Is she to become a social pariah, and is this for the\nbenefit of society?—or is it for the sake of the wretch who destroyed\nher life?\n\nThe ground has been taken that woman would lose her dignity if marriage\ncould be annulled. Is it necessary to lose your liberty in order to\nretain your moral character—in order to be pure and womanly? Must a\nwoman, in order to retain her virtue, become a slave, a serf, with a\nbeast for a master, or with society for a master, or with a phantom for\na master?\n\nIf an infinite being is one of the parties to the contract, is it not\nthe duty of this being to see to it that the contract is carried out?\nWhat consideration does the infinite being give? What consideration does\nhe receive? If a wife owes no duty to her husband because the husband\nhas violated the contract, and has even assaulted her life, is it\npossible for her to feel toward him any real thrill of affection? If she\ndoes not, what is there left of marriage? What part of this contract or\nsacrament remains in living force? She can not sustain the relation of\nwife, because she abhors him; she cannot remain under the same roof, for\nfear that she may be killed. They sustain, then, only the relations\nof hunter and hunted—of tyrant and victim. Is it desirable that this\nrelation should last through life, and that it should be rendered sacred\nby the ceremony of a church?\n\nAgain I ask, Is it desirable to have families raised under such\ncircumstances? Are we in need of children born of such parents? Can the\nvirtue of others be preserved only by this destruction of happiness, by\nthis perpetual imprisonment?\n\nA marriage without love is bad enough, and a marriage for wealth or\nposition is low enough; but what shall we say of a marriage where the\nparties actually abhor each other? Is there any morality in this?\nany virtue in this? Is there virtue in retaining the name of wife, or\nhusband, without the real and true relation? Will any good man say, will\nany good woman declare, that a true, loving woman should be compelled\nto be the mother of children whose father she detests? Is there a good\nwoman in the world who would not shrink from this herself; and is there\na woman so heartless and so immoral that she would force another to bear\nthat from which she would shudderingly and shriekingly shrink?\n\nMarriages are made by men and women; not by society; not by the state;\nnot by the church; not by supernatural beings. By this time we should\nknow that nothing is moral that does not tend to the well-being of\nsentient beings; that nothing is virtuous the result of which is not\ngood. We know now, if we know anything, that all the reasons for doing\nright, and all the reasons against doing wrong, are here in this world.\nWe should have imagination enough to put ourselves in the place of\nanother. Let a man suppose himself a helpless woman beaten by a brutal\nhusband—would he advocate divorces then?\n\nFew people have an adequate idea of the sufferings of women and\nchildren, of the number of wives who tremble when they hear the\nfootsteps of a returning husband, of the number of children who hide\nwhen they hear the voice of a father. Few people know the number of\nblows that fall on the flesh of the helpless every day, and few know\nthe nights of terror passed by mothers who hold babes to their breasts.\nCompared with these, all the hardships of poverty borne by those who\nlove each other are as nothing. Men and women truly married bear the\nsufferings and misfortunes of poverty together. They console each\nother. In the darkest night they see the radiance of a star, and their\naffection gives to the heart of each perpetual sunshine.\n\nThe good home is the unit of the good government. The hearthstone is\nthe corner-stone of civilization. Society is not interested in the\npreservation of hateful homes, of homes where husbands and wives are\nselfish, cold, and cruel. It is not to the interest of society that good\nwomen should be enslaved, that they should live in fear, or that they\nshould become mothers by husbands whom they hate. Homes should be filled\nwith kind and generous fathers, with true and loving mothers; and when\nthey are so filled, the world will be civilized. Intelligence will rock\nthe cradle; justice will sit in the courts; wisdom in the legislative\nhalls; and above all and over all, like the dome of heaven, will be the\nspirit of liberty.\n\nAlthough marriage is the most important and the most sacred contract\nthat human beings can make, still when that contract has been violated,\ncourts should have the power to declare it null and void upon such\nconditions as may be just.\n\nAs a rule, the woman dowers the husband with her youth, her beauty, her\nlove—with all she has; and from this contract certainly the husband\nshould never be released, unless the wife has broken the conditions of\nthat contract. Divorces should be granted publicly, precisely as the\nmarriage should be solemnized. Every marriage should be known, and\nthere should be witnesses, to the end that the character of the contract\nentered into should be understood; the record should be open and public.\nAnd the same is true of divorces. The conditions should be determined,\nthe property should be divided by a court of equity, and the custody of\nthe children given under regulations prescribed.\n\nMen and women are not virtuous by law. Law does not of itself create\nvirtue, nor is it the foundation or fountain of love. Law should protect\nvirtue, and law should protect the wife, if she has kept her contract,\nand the husband, if he has fulfilled his. But the death of love is the\nend of marriage. Love is natural. Back of all ceremony burns and will\nforever burn the sacred flame. There has been no time in the world's\nhistory when that torch was extinguished. In all ages, in all climes,\namong all people, there has been true, pure, and unselfish love. Long\nbefore a ceremony was thought of, long before a priest existed, there\nwere true and perfect marriages. Back of public opinion is natural\nmodesty, the affections of the heart; and in spite of all law, there is\nand forever will be the realm of choice. Wherever love is, it is pure;\nand everywhere, and at all times, the ceremony of marriage testifies to\nthat which has happened within the temple of the human heart.\n\n_Question (2). Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry under any\ncircumstances?_\n\nThis depends upon whether marriage is a crime. If it is not a crime, why\nshould any penalty be attached? Can any one conceive of any reason why\na woman obtaining a divorce, without fault on her part, should be\ncompelled as a punishment to remain forever single? Why should she be\npunished for the dishonesty or brutality of another? Why should a man\nwho faithfully kept his contract of marriage, and who was deserted by an\nunfaithful wife, be punished for the benefit of society? Why should he\nbe doomed to live without a home?\n\nThere is still another view. We must remember that human passions are\nthe same after as before divorce. To prevent remarriage is to give\nexcuse for vice.\n\n_Question (3). What is the effect of divorce upon the integrity of the\nfamily?_\n\nThe real marriage is back of the ceremony, and the real divorce is\nback of the decree. When love is dead, when husband and wife abhor each\nother, they are divorced. The decree records in a judicial way what has\nreally taken place, just as the ceremony of marriage attests a contract\nalready made.\n\nThe true family is the result of the true marriage, and the institution\nof the family should above all things be preserved. What becomes of the\nsacredness of the home, if the law compels those who abhor each other to\nsit at the same hearth? This lowers the standard, and changes the happy\nhaven of home into the prison-cell. If we wish to preserve the integrity\nof the family, we must preserve the democracy of the fireside, the\nrepublicanism of the home, the absolute and perfect equality of husband\nand wife. There must be no exhibition of force, no spectre of fear. The\nmother must not remain through an order of court, or the command of a\npriest, or by virtue of the tyranny of society; she must sit in absolute\nfreedom, the queen of herself, the sovereign of her own soul and of\nher own body. Real homes can never be preserved through force, through\nslavery, or superstition. Nothing can be more sacred than a home, no\naltar purer than the hearth.\n\n_Question (4). Does the absolute prohibition of divorce where it exists\ncontribute to the moral purity of society?_\n\nWe must define our terms. What is moral purity? The intelligent of\nthis world seek the well-being of themselves and others. They know that\nhappiness is the only good; and this they strive to attain. To live in\naccordance with the conditions of well-being is moral in the highest\nsense. To use the best instrumentalities to attain the highest ends is\nour highest conception of the moral. In other words, morality is the\nmelody of the perfection of conduct. A man is not moral because he\nis obedient through fear or ignorance. Morality lives in the realm\nof perceived obligation, and where a being acts in accordance with\nperceived obligation, that being is moral. Morality is not the child of\nslavery. Ignorance is not the corner-stone of virtue.\n\nThe first duty of a human being is to himself. He must see to it that\nhe does not become a burden upon others. To be self-respecting, he must\nendeavor to be self-sustaining. If by his industry and intelligence he\naccumulates a margin, then he is under obligation to do with that margin\nall the good he can. He who lives to the ideal does the best he can. In\ntrue marriage men and women give not only their bodies, but their souls.\nThis is the ideal marriage; this is moral. They who give their bodies,\nbut not their souls, are not married, whatever the ceremony may be; this\nis immoral.\n\nIf this be true, upon what principle can a woman continue to sustain the\nrelation of wife after love is dead? Is there some other consideration\nthat can take the place of genuine affection? Can she be bribed with\nmoney, or a home, or position, or by public opinion, and still remain a\nvirtuous woman? Is it for the good of society that virtue should be thus\ncrucified between church and state? Can it be said that this contributes\nto the moral purity of the human race?\n\nIs there a higher standard of virtue in countries where divorce is\nprohibited than in those where it is granted? Where husbands and wives\nwho have ceased to love cannot be divorced, there are mistresses and\nlovers.\n\nThe sacramental view of marriage is the shield of vice. The world looks\nat the wife who has been abused, who has been driven from the home of\nher husband, and the world pities; and when this wife is loved by some\nother man, the world excuses. So, too, the husband who cannot live in\npeace, who leaves his home, is pitied and excused.\n\nIs it possible to conceive of anything more immoral than for a husband\nto insist on living with a wife who has no love for him? Is not this a\nperpetual crime? Is the wife to lose her personality? Has she no right\nof choice? Is her modesty the property of another? Is the man she hates\nthe lord of her desire? Has she no right to guard the jewels of her\nsoul? Is there a depth below this? And is this the foundation of\nmorality? this the corner-stone of society? this the arch that supports\nthe dome of civilization? Is this pathetic sacrifice on the one hand,\nthis sacrilege on the other, pleasing in the sight of heaven?\n\nTo me, the tenderest word in our language, the most pathetic fact within\nour knowledge, is maternity. Around this sacred word cluster the joys\nand sorrows, the agonies and ecstasies, of the human race. The mother\nwalks in the shadow of death that she may give another life. Upon\nthe altar of love she puts her own life in pawn. When the world is\ncivilized, no wife will become a mother against her will. Man will then\nknow that to enslave another is to imprison himself.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n"
}