It should hardly need pointing out that the facts presented in the last
chapter are not offered as an attempt at the--to use Professor William
James's expression--"reinterpretation of religion as perverted
sexuality." Nor, so far as the present writer is aware, has anyone ever
so presented them. The expression, indeed, seems almost a deliberate
mis-statement of a position in order to make its rebuttal easier.
Obviously the idea of religion must be already in existence before it
could be utilised for the purpose of explaining any group of phenomena.
But if the biographic and other facts described have any value whatever,
they are at least strong presumptive evidence in favour of the position
that in very many cases a perverted or unsatisfied sexuality has been at
the root of a great deal of the world's emotional piety. Of course, the
strong religious belief must be in existence before-hand. But given
this, and add thereto a sexual nature imperious in its demands and yet
denied legitimate outlet, and we have the conditions present for its
promptings being interpreted as the fruits of supernatural influence. It
is not a reinterpretation of _religion_ that is attempted, but a
reinterpretation of phenomena that have been erroneously called
religious. And on all sides the need for this reinterpretation is
becoming clear. Over sixty years ago Renan wrote, "A rigorous
psychological analysis would class the innate religious instinct of
women in the same category with the sexual instinct,"[121] and since
then a very much more detailed knowledge of both physiology and
psychology has furnished a multitude of data for an exhaustive study of
the whole question.
In the present chapter our interest is mainly historical. And for
various reasons, chief amongst which is that interested readers may the
more easily follow up the study should they feel so inclined, the survey
has been restricted to the history of that religion with which we are
best acquainted--Christianity. Moreover, if we are to form a correct
judgment of the part played in the history of religions by the
misinterpretations already noted, it is necessary to trace the extent to
which they have influenced men and women in a collective capacity. For
the striking fact is that, in spite of the purification of the sexual
relations being one of the avowed objects of Christianity, in spite,
too, of the attempts of the official churches to suppress them, the
history of Christianity has been dogged by outbreaks of sexual
extravagance, by the continuous emergence of erotico-religious sects,
claiming Christian teachings as the authority for their actions. We need
not discuss the legitimacy of their inferences. We are concerned solely
with a chronicle of historic facts so far as they can be ascertained;
and these have a certain significance of their own, as events, quite
apart from their reasonableness or desirability.
A part cause of the movements we are about to describe may have been a
violent reaction against an extravagant asceticism. Something may also
be due to the fact that over-concentration of mind upon a particular
evil is apt to defeat its end by the mere force of unconscious
suggestion in the contrary direction. But in all probability much was
due to the presence of certain elements inherited by Christianity from
the older religions. At any rate, those whose minds are filled with the
idea that sexual extravagance on a collective scale and under the cloak
of religion is either a modern phenomenon, or was unknown to the early
history of Christianity, would do well to revise their opinions in the
light of ascertainable facts. No less a person than the Rev. S.
Baring-Gould has reminded us that criticism discloses "on the shining
face of primitive Christianity rents and craters undreamt of in our old
simplicity," and also asserts "that there was in the breast of the
newborn Church an element of antinomianism, not latent, but in virulent
activity, is a fact as capable of demonstration as any conclusion in a
science which is not exact."[122]
There would be little value in a study of these erotico-religious
movements if they involved only a detection of individual lust
consciously using religion as a cloak for its gratification. Such a
conclusion is a fatally easy one, but it does little justice to the
chief people concerned, and it is quite lacking in historical
perspective. In most cases the initiators of these strange sects have
put forward a philosophy of religion as a justification of their
teaching, and only a slight knowledge of this is enough to prove that we
are face to face with a phenomenon of much greater significance than
mere immorality. This may be recognised even in the pages of the New
Testament itself. It is not a practice that is there denounced; it is a
teaching that is repudiated. And one sees the same thing at later
periods. The conviction on the one side that certain actions are
unlawful, is met on the other side with the conviction that they are
perfectly legitimate. Conviction is met with conviction. Each side
expresses itself in terms of religion; the ethical aspect is incidental
or subordinate. It is a contest of opposing religious beliefs and
practices.
The real nature of the conflict is often obscured by the fact of social
opinion and the social forces generally being on the side of the more
normal expression of sexual life. This, however, is no more than a
necessity of the situation. The continuance of a healthful social life
is dependent upon the maintenance of a certain balance in the relations
of the sexes, and anything that strikes at this strikes at social life
as a whole. In such cases we have, therefore, to allow for the operation
of social selection, which is always on the side of the more normal
type. From this it follows that although a small body of people may
exemplify a variation that is in itself socially disastrous, the main
forces of social life will prevent its ever assuming large dimensions.
Moreover, a large body of people, such as is represented by a church
holding a commanding position in society, will be forced to come to
terms with the permanent tendencies of social life, and will either
suppress undesirable variations or expel them. It thus happens that
while the larger and more dominant churches have been on the side of
normal, regularised expressions of the sexual life, abnormal variations
have constantly arisen and have been denounced by them. But the
significant feature is that they have arisen within the churches, and
most commonly during periods of great religious stress or excitement.
These tendencies, as the Rev. S. Baring-Gould has pointed out, existed
in the very earliest days of Christianity. It is quite apparent from
Paul's writings that as early as the date of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians some of the more objectionable features of the older Pagan
worship had shown themselves in the Church. The doctrine of 'spiritual
wifehood' appeared at a very early date in the Church, and its teachers
cited even St. Paul himself as their authority. Their claim was based
upon Paul's declaration (1 Cor. ix. 5) that he had power to lead about
"a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the
Lord and Cephas." Curiously enough, commentators have never agreed as to
what Paul meant by this expression. The word translated may mean either
wife, or sister, or woman. Had it been wife in the ordinary sense, it
does not appear that at that date there would have been any room for
scandal. The clear fact is, however, that others claimed a like
privilege; the privilege was not always restricted to one woman, and the
practice, if not general, became not uncommon, and furnished the ground
for scandal for a long period. Two epistles, wrongly attributed to St.
Clement of Rome, and dating from some time in the second century,
condemn the practice of young people living together under the cloak of
religion, and specially warns virgins against cohabiting with the clergy
and so giving offence. That the practice was difficult to suppress is
shown by its being condemned by several church councils--Antioch in 210,
Nicea in 325, and Elvira in 350.[123] At a later date a much more
elaborate theory has been built on Paul's claim. The Pauline Church has
found several expressions both in England and America within recent
times.[124] These sects have claimed that both St. Paul and the woman
with whom he travelled were in a state of grace, and, therefore, above
all law. We do not mean the maintenance of an ascetic relationship, but
the normal relation of husband and wife. It is really the doctrine of
'Free Love' with a spiritual warranty instead of a secular one.
This doctrine of religious 'Free Love' rests upon a twofold basis.
First, it was held that, apart from a wife after the flesh, one might
also have a wife after the spirit, and this spiritual union might exist
side by side with the fleshly one, and with different persons. A great
impetus appears to have been given to this theory from Germany, many of
the originators of the American sects of Free Lovers being Germans.
Secondly, it was held that a Christian in a state of grace was absolved
from laws that were binding upon other people. His actions were no
longer subject to the categories of right and wrong; as it was said, to
one in a state of grace all things were lawful, even though all things
might not be expedient. Some went the length of teaching that not only
were all things lawful, but all things were desirable. Separating by a
sharp division things that influenced the soul from things that
influenced the body, it was openly taught by some of the early sects
that nothing done by the body could injure the soul, and so could not
affect its salvation. Reversing the practice of asceticism, which sought
to crush bodily passions by a course of deprivation, it was taught that
all kinds of forbidden conduct might be practised in order to
demonstrate the soul's superiority. There is no question whatever that
this tendency was very prominent in the early Christian Church. It was
not there as something hidden, something of which men ought to be
ashamed; it was an avowed teaching, claiming full religious sanction.
"The Church," says Baring-Gould, "trembled on the verge of becoming an
immoral sect." The same writer also says:--
"This _teaching_ of immorality in the Church is a startling feature, and
it seems to have been pursued by some who called themselves apostles as
well as by those who assumed to be prophets. In the Corinthian Church
even the elders encouraged incest. Now, it is not possible to explain
this phenomenon except on the ground that Paul's argument as to the Law
being overridden had been laid hold of and elevated into a principle.
These teachers did not wink at lapses into immorality, but defiantly
urged on the converts to the Gospel to commit adultery, fornication, and
all uncleanness ... as a protest against those who contended that the
moral law as given on the tables was still binding upon the
Church."[125]
A certain detachment from modern conditions, and from modern frames of
mind, is essential to an adequate appreciation of what has been said.
Looking at these events through the distorting medium of an altogether
different social atmosphere, one is apt to attribute them to the
operation of lawless desire, and so have done with it. This, however, is
to overlook the fact that we are dealing with a society in which sexual
symbols were common in religious worship, and in which theories of the
religious life were propounded and accepted which to-day would be
regarded as little less than maniacal. Unquestionably even then, once
the situation had established itself it would be utilised by those of a
coarser nature for mere sensual gratification. But practices such as we
know existed, on the scale we have every reason for believing they were,
could never have been had they not taken the form of an intense
conviction. To assume otherwise is equal to arguing that because men
have entered the Church from mere love of power or lust for wealth, the
Church owed its establishment to the play of these motives. It is true
that those who opposed these religio-erotic sects accused them of
immorality, but it is the form these teachings assumed to the members of
the impeached sects, not how they appeared to their enemies, that is
important. Eroticism taught and practised as a religious
conviction--that is the essential and significant feature of the
situation. Not to grasp this is to fail to realise the vital fact
embodied in the phenomena under consideration. We are not dealing with
mere sensualists, even though we may be dealing with what is largely an
expression of sensualism. It is sensualism expressed as, and sanctioned
by, religious conviction that is the vital fact of the situation.
One of the earliest Christian institutions around which scandals
gathered was that of the Agapæ, or love-feasts. From the outset the
Pagan writers asserted that these love-feasts were new versions of
various old orgiastic practices, some of which were still current,
others of which had been suppressed by the Roman government. There is no
doubt that they were the grounds of very serious accusations against the
Christians. On the other hand, it must be remembered that, at the outset
at least, these charges were indignantly rejected by the Christians. The
Agapæ were called indiscriminately Feasts of Love and Feasts of
Charity. Each member, male and female, greeted each other with a holy
kiss, and the institution was described by Tertullian as "a support of
love, a solace of purity, a check on riches, a discipline of weakness."
These love-feasts were held on important occasions, such as a marriage,
a death, or the anniversary of a martyrdom. Some churches celebrated
them weekly. From the Acts of the Apostles we learn that the feasts
began about nightfall, and continued till after midnight, or even till
daybreak. It was only natural that mixed assemblies of men and women
that gathered in this manner, and where there was eating and drinking,
should create scandal. It is absolutely certain that some of this
scandal had a basis in fact. The Rev. S. Baring-Gould confesses that "at
Corinth, and certainly elsewhere, among excitable people, the wine, the
heat, the exaltation of emotion, led to orgiastic ravings, the jabbering
of disconnected, unintelligible words, to fits, convulsions, pious
exclamations, and incoherent ravings." And unless St. Paul was
deliberately slandering his fellow-believers worse things than these
occurred.
Generally, even by non-Christian writers, it has been assumed that the
Agapæ commenced as a perfectly harmless, even admirable institution, and
afterwards degenerated, and so gave genuine cause for scandal. It is not
easy to see that this opinion rests on anything better than a mere
prejudice. It is true that there is no unmistakable evidence to the
contrary, but no clear evidence is to be found in its behalf. The Agapæ
was not, after all, an essentially Christian institution. Similar
gatherings existed among the Pagans, more or less orgiastic in
character. And even though at first some of the more extreme forms were
avoided amongst the Christians, it is not improbable, on the face of it,
that some kind of sexual extravagance or symbolism was present from the
outset. At any rate, as I have said, the charges were made, first by
Pagans, afterwards by Christians against other Christians. The charges
were persistent, and were made in districts far removed from each other.
Says Lecky: "When the Pagans accused the Christians of indulging in
orgies of gross licentiousness, the first apologist, while repudiating
the charge, was careful to add, of the heretics, 'Whether or not these
people commit those shameful acts ... I know not.' In a few years the
language of doubt and insinuation was exchanged for that of direct
assertion; and if we may believe St. Irenæus and St. Clement of
Alexandria, the followers of Carpocrates, the Marcionites, and some
other gnostic sects habitually indulged, in their secret meetings, in
acts of impurity and licentiousness as hideous and as monstrous as can
be conceived, and their conduct was one of the causes of the persecution
of the orthodox."[126] Tertullian accused some of the sects of
practising incestuous intercourse at the Agapæ. Ambrose compared the
institution to the Pagan Parentalia. Clement says, probably referring to
the Agapæ, "the shameless use of the rite occasions foul suspicion and
evil reports." The first epistle on Virginity by the Pseudo-Clement
(probably written in the second century) admits the existence of
immorality by saying, "Others eat and drink with them (_i.e._ the
virgins) at feasts, and indulge in loose behaviour and much uncleanness,
such as ought not to be among those who have elected holiness for
themselves." Justin Martyr, referring to certain sects, says more
cautiously: "Whether or not these people commit these shameful acts (the
putting out of lights, and indulging in promiscuous intercourse) I know
not." Others are more precise in their charges. That the Agapæ became
the legitimate cause of complaint is admitted by all. The only question
is whether it was the institution itself or the public mind in relation
to it that underwent a change. Eventually, on the avowed ground of evil
conduct, the Agapæ were forbidden by the Council of Carthage, 391, of
Orleans, 541, and of Constantinople, 680.
The whole subject is obscure, but the one certain and significant thing
is that charges of licentiousness were connected with the Agapæ from the
outset. These may at first have been unfounded or exaggerated. On the
other hand, it is quite probable that just as Christianity continued
Pagan ceremonies in other directions, so there was also a carrying over
into the Church of some of the sexual rites and ceremonies connected
with earlier forms of worship. And we know that the principle of
Antinomianism, a prolific cause of evil at all times, was active amongst
the Christians from the outset.
It is almost impossible to say at this distance how many sects
exhibiting marked erotic tendencies appeared in the early Christian
centuries. Many must have disappeared and left no trace of their
existence. But there can be no question that they were fairly numerous.
The extensive sect, or sects, of the gnostics contained in its teachings
elements that at least paved the way for the conduct with which other
Christians charged them, although the charges made may not have been
true of all. To some of the gnostic sects belongs the teaching--quite in
accord with the doctrine of the evil nature of the world, that
liberation from the 'Law' was one of the first conditions of spiritual
freedom. From this came the teaching, subsequently held by numerous
other sects, that those born of the Spirit could not be defiled by any
acts of the flesh, and that so-called vicious actions were rather to be
encouraged as providing experience useful to spiritual welfare. Some
branches of the gnostics had 'spiritual marriages,' similar to what
existed in India in the Sakti rites already described. Thus the
Adamites, a rather obscure gnostic sect of the second century, attempted
to imitate the Edenic state by condemning marriage and abandoning
clothing. Their assemblies were held underground, and on entering the
place of worship both sexes stripped themselves naked, and in that state
performed their ceremonies. They called their church Paradise, from
which all dissentients were promptly expelled. The Adamites themselves
claimed that their object was to extirpate desire by familiarising the
senses to strict control. Their religious opponents gave a very
different account of the practice, and it is not difficult to realise,
whatever may have been the motive of the founders, the consequences of
such a practice. It is curious, by the way, to observe how strong
religious excitement seems to lead people to discard clothing. Thus,
during the Crusade of 1203-42 the women crusaders rushed about the
streets in a state of nudity.[127] During the wars of the League in
France, men and women walked naked in procession headed by the
clergy.[128] Other examples of this curious practice might be given.
The Nicolaitanes, a second-century sect referred to in the New Testament
(Rev. ii. 14), were accused of practising religious prostitution. So
also were the Manichæans, a very numerous sect, against whom the charges
were of a much more detailed character. With them the ceremonial
violation of a virgin is said to have formed a part of their regular
ritual, and that their meetings frequently ended in an orgy of
promiscuous intercourse.[129] As both these acts are found in connection
with other religious ceremonies, and, as will be seen later, have
persisted until recent times, the story does not sound so incredible as
otherwise it might. The difficulty of deciding definitely is intensified
by the fact of the Manichæans being split into a number of sects, and
statements true of some might be untrue of others. So we find St.
Augustine, who had been a Manichæan, declaring that if all did not
practise licentious rites, one sect (the Catharists) did, believing that
they could only mortify the flesh by the exercise of bad instincts,
since the flesh proceeded from demons. St. Augustine himself confesses
to have taken part in various phallic ceremonies before his conversion.
"I myself," he says, "when a young man used to go sometimes to the
sacrilegious entertainments and spectacles; I saw the priests raving in
religious excitement, and heard the choristers; I took pleasure in the
shameful games which were celebrated in honour of gods and goddesses, of
the Virgin Coelestia, and of Berecynthia, the mother of all gods. And
on the day consecrated to her purification, there were sung before her
couch productions so obscene and filthy to the ear--I do not say of the
mother of the gods, but of the mother of any senator or honest man--nay,
so impure that not even the mother of the foul-mouthed players
themselves could have formed one of the audience."[130]
The Carpocratians, who claimed to be a branch of the Gnostics, taught
that faith and charity were alone necessary virtues: all others were
useless. There is nothing evil in itself, and life only becomes complete
when all so-called blemishes are fully displayed in conduct. Their
leader "not only allowed his disciples a full liberty to sin, but
recommended a vicious course of life as a matter of obligation and
necessity; asserting that eternal salvation was only attainable by those
who had committed all sorts of crimes.... It was the will of God that
all things should be possessed in common, the female sex not
excepted."[131]
A little later we have the sect of the Agapetæ. They rejected marriage
as an institution, and permitted unrestrained intercourse between the
sexes. St. Jerome, alluding to this sect, says: "It is a shame even to
allude to the true facts. Whence did the pest of the Agapetæ creep into
the Church? Whence is this new title of wives without marriage rites?
Whence this new class of concubines? I will infer more. Whence these
harlots cleaving to one man? They occupy the same house, a single
chamber, often a single bed, and call us suspicious if we think anything
of it. The brother deserts his virgin sister, the virgin despises her
unmarried brother, and seeks a stranger, and since they pretend to be
aiming at the same object, they ask for the spiritual consolation of
each other that they may enjoy the pleasures of the flesh."[132]
This form of extravagance does not appear to have been limited to a
single sect. It was more or less general during the ascendancy of
asceticism. Tertullian says that the desire to enjoy the reputation of
virginity led to much immorality, the effects of which were concealed by
infanticide. The Council of Antioch lamented the practice of unmarried
men and women sharing the same room. In 450, the Anchorites of Palestine
are described as herding together without distinction of sex, and with
no garments but a breech-clout.[133] The practice of priests travelling
about with women, mothers and wives, and the scandals created thereby,
is referred to in regulation after regulation. Although legislated
against, it never entirely disappeared, and eventually led to a
recognised priestly concubinage--recognised, that is, by public opinion,
although condemned by the Church.
There is no need to go over even the names of all the numerous sects
that appeared during the early centuries manifesting curious features
concerning sexual relations. When suppressed in one form they reappeared
in another, and were unusually prominent during seasons of religious
unrest. Many of the teachings already noted made their appearance again
with the "Brethren of the Free Spirit" in the thirteenth, fourteenth,
and fifteenth centuries. Some of these sects took their stand on the
Pauline teaching, "The law of the spirit of life in Jesus Christ hath
made me free from the law of sin and death," and claimed freedom from
sin, no matter what their actions. The "Brethren of the Free Spirit"
carried women about with them, held midnight assemblies, and, according
to Mosheim, attended these meetings in a state of nudity. The Ranters,
the Spirituels of Geneva, the Berghards, the Flagellants, the Molinists,
were all accused of sexual misconduct in their assemblies. One of the
specific teachings of the last-named body, as condemned by the
Inquisition, ran as follows: "God, to humble us, permits in certain
perfect souls that the devil should make them commit certain acts. In
this case, and in others, which without the permission of God, would be
guilty, there is no sin because there is no consent. It may happen, that
this violent movement, which excites to carnal acts, may take place in
two persons, a man and a woman, at the same instant."[134]
It has been pointed out that the dominant Church made continuous efforts
to suppress these sects, but the remarkable thing is that they should so
often reappear, and always with strong claims to existence on the basis
of religious conviction. That a number of men and women should seek
gratification of their sensual feelings in ways not countenanced by the
laws of normal life need not excite surprise. There always have been and
always will be such. But to do this in the name of religion, and with a
persistency as great as that of the religious idea itself, is a
phenomenon that surely deserves more attention than it ordinarily
receives. Nor can it be said with justice that these sects began in mere
conscious lust. They ended there, true; more or less disguised, it may
always have been present, but those who initiated them believed that
they were justified in doing so by religious principles, and appealed to
those principles to justify their conduct. Why should this have been the
case? Why should conduct of which men and women are ashamed in the
social sphere, and which their social sense promptly condemns, in the
religious sphere be crowned with the dignity of lofty principles and
fought for with the fervour of intense conviction? So long as
theologians leave that question unanswered, their arguments are simply
wide of the real issue.
Naturally, the closer we get to our own day, and to times when religious
feeling is more vigorously controlled by purely social forces, these
manifestations of sexuality become less frequent, less widely spread,
and more transient in character. Still they do occur. For reasons that
do not concern us here, America has in recent years been a favourable
ground for these religio-sexual developments. A sympathetic account of
many of these American sects will be found in Hepworth Dixon's
_Spiritual Wives_, with accounts of similar sects in Germany and
England. In some cases many of the features of the early Christian sects
were reproduced, even to the length of young women sharing the bedrooms
of their spiritual guides. All took Paul as their principal authority.
J. H. Noyes, one of the best known and most representative of these
teachers, laid down the main principles of his teachings thus:--
"When the will of God is done on earth as it is in heaven, there will be
no marriage. The marriage supper of the Lamb is a feast at which every
dish is free to every guest. Exclusiveness, jealousy, quarrelling, have
no place there, for the same reason as that which forbids the guests at
a thanksgiving dinner to claim each his separate dish, and quarrel with
the rest for his rights. In a holy community there is no more reason why
sexual intercourse should be restrained by law, than why eating and
drinking should be; and there is as little occasion for shame in the one
case as in the other.... The guests of the marriage supper may have each
his favourite dish, each a dish of his own procuring, and that without
the jealousy of exclusiveness. I call a certain woman my wife; she is
yours; she is Christ's; and in Him she is the bride of all saints. She
is dear in the hands of a stranger, and according to my promise to her I
rejoice."[135]
In a letter to Mr. Hepworth Dixon, J. H. Noyes claims the "right of
religious inspiration to shape society and dictate the form of family
life," and with probable accuracy says that the origin of these American
sects is to be found in revivals:--
"The philosophy of the matter seems to be this: Revivals are theocratic
in their very nature; they introduce God into human affairs.... In the
conservative theory of revivals, this power is restricted to the
conversion of souls; but in actual experience it goes, or tends to go,
into all the affairs of life.... Religious love is very near neighbour
to sexual love, and they always get mixed in the intimacies and social
excitements of revivals. The next thing a man wants, after he has found
the salvation of his soul, is to find his Eve and his Paradise.... The
course of things may be restated thus: Revivals lead to religious love;
religious love excites the passions; the converts, finding themselves
in theocratic liberty, begin to look about for their mates and their
liberty."[136]
With regard to the beginnings of these modern movements of "Spiritual
Wifehood," all involving the abrogation of the normal relations of the
sexes, Hepworth Dixon writes:--
"It has not, I think, been noticed by any writer that three of the most
singular movements in the churches of our generation seem to have been
connected, more or less closely, with the state of mind produced by
revivals; one in Germany, one in England, and one in the United States;
movements which resulted, among other things, in the establishment of
three singular societies--the congregation of Pietists, vulgarly called
the Mucker, at Königsberg; the brotherhood of Princeites at Spaxton; and
the Bible Communists at Oneida Creek.... They had these chief things in
common: they began in colleges, they affected the form of family life,
and they were carried on by clergymen; each movement in a place of
learning and of theological study: that in Germany at the Luther-Kirch
of Königsberg, that in England at St. David's College, that in the
United States at Yale College.... These three divines, one Lutheran, one
Anglican, one Congregational, began their work in perfect ignorance of
each other.... Each movement was regarded by its votaries as the most
perfect fruit of the revival spirit. In truth, the change which came
upon the saints from their close experience of revival passion, was
regarded by themselves as in some degree miraculous, equal in divine
significance to a new creation of the world."[137]
For an almost exact replica of the erotic extravagances of some of the
early Christian sects, one may turn to Russia. The difficulties and
dangers of political life in Russia are doubtless responsible for having
made religion such a power among the mass of the people, and this will
also explain the diversion into religious channels of energy that under
more favourable conditions is expended in social agitation and activity.
Many of these sects are, of course, of a harmless character, mostly
originating in an even greater love for the past and a more slavish
adherence to ancient formulas than is displayed by the orthodox Church.
Some, however, present the wildest excesses of sexual theory and
practice. Nothing seems too wild or too extravagant to become the
originating point of a new sect. Theories of marriage and sexual
relations generally are developed with a logical fearlessness peculiarly
Russian. Among the Bezpopovtsi, a numerous sect split up into several
branches, opinions on marriage vary between regarding it as a mere
conventional affair, and denouncing it as a hindrance to spiritual
development. "Between these two extremes," says Mr. Heard, "there is
room for the wildest and most repulsive theories. Carnal sensuality is
allied in monstrous union with religious mysticism. Free love,
independence of the sexes, possession of women in common, have been
preached and practised. Debauchery, as an incidental weakness of human
nature, has been advocated as the lesser evil; libertinism as preferable
to concubinage, and the latter as better than marriage. One of their
most austere teachers cynically declares that 'it is wiser to live with
beasts than to be joined to a wife; to frequent many women in secret,
rather than to live with one openly.'"[138]
Another sect called 'Eunuchs' take their stand on Matt. xix. 12: "There
are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there
are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs,
which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He
that is able to receive it, let him receive it." This sect believes in
and practises emasculation as the surest way of attaining perfection.
Man, they say, should be like the angels, without sex and without
desire. This practice reminds one of an early Christian sect, the
Valesians, which not only emasculated members of their own sect, but
performed the same operation forcibly on those who fell into their
hands.[139] The Khlysti, a sect which derives its name from the practice
of flagellation, denounce marriage as unclean, and part of their
religious ritual is, according to some writers, the worship of a naked
woman. Baron Von Haxthausen, writing in 1856, gives the following
description of their ceremonies on Easter night:--
"On this night the Khlysti all assemble for a great solemnity, the
worship of the mother of God. A virgin, fifteen years of age, whom they
have induced to act the part by tempting promises, is bound and placed
in a tub of warm water; some old women come, and first make a large
incision in the left breast, then cut it off, and staunch the blood in a
wonderfully short time. During the operation a mystical picture of the
Holy Spirit is put into the victim's hand, in order that she may be
absorbed in regarding it. The breast which has been removed is laid upon
a plate and cut into small pieces, which are eaten by all the members of
the sect present; the girl in the tub is then raised upon an altar which
stands near, and the whole congregation dance wildly round it, singing
at the same time. The jumping then grows madder and wilder, till the
lights are suddenly extinguished and horrible orgies commence."[140]
The 'Jumpers,' an offshoot of the Khlysti, are much more pronounced in
their sexual extravagances. They openly profess debauchery, for the
usual reason, that of conquering the flesh by exhaustion and satiety.
They meet usually by night, and after prayers are chanted and hymns
sung, the leader commences a slow jumping movement, keeping time with a
song. Then:--
"The audience, arranged in couples, engaged to each other in advance,
imitate his example and join the strain; the bounds and the singing grow
faster and louder as it spreads, until, at its height, the elder shouts
that he hears the voices of angels; the lights are extinguished, the
jumping ceases, and the scene that follows in the darkness defies
description. Each one yields to his desires, born of inspiration, and
therefore righteous, and to be gratified; all are brethren in Christ,
all promptings of the inner spirit are holy; incest, even, is no sin.
They repudiate marriage, and justify their abominations by the Biblical
legends of Lot's daughters, Solomon's harem, and the like."[141]
There are many other curious sects in Russia, many of which bring us
back to the religious atmosphere of the European dark ages. But without
pursuing a description of these to any greater extent, enough has been
said to show the persistence of the stream of sexualism in the history
of Christianity. Of course, this feature did not enter religion with
Christianity. On the contrary, I have shown that it was present from the
earliest times. The association of religion with sexual phenomena does
not commence as a sexual aberration; it only assumes that form at a
comparatively late stage in religious history. The origin of the
connection has to be found in that atmosphere of the supernatural which
envelops primitive life, moulds primitive conceptions, and more or less
fashions all primitive institutions. The sexual side of religious belief
and religious symbolism only becomes abnormal, and even morbid, when the
development of social life makes possible a truer view of sexuality. In
this the great churches have, perhaps, unconsciously assisted. Their
position of social control has compelled them to set their faces against
the sexual symbolism which is so closely associated with early religious
history, while at the same time countenancing religious fervour in
general. The consequence has been that small bodies of men and women,
freed from the restraining influence of social responsibility, have
developed to extravagant length certain phases of religious belief that
have been generally discountenanced elsewhere. Their so doing certainly
helps the present-day student to make a more complete survey of all the
factors that have played their part in religious history than would
otherwise have been possible. Repulsive as some of these features now
are, they have helped in their time to nourish the general belief in a
supernatural order, and so to strengthen the general idea to which they
were affiliated.