PARIS, Wednesday, _September 11th_.
It is announced officially that by the 1st of next month
not a single Jesuit will be left in France. Most of them
are emigrating to England, and will make Canterbury their
headquarters.--DALZIEL.
France will not have the Jesuits; may it be asked why we are to have
them? It is England’s proud privilege to be an international workhouse
for all the decrepit of the world, and for this cause a happy hunting
ground is open to Rome among these same decrepit. There is no creed
in the world which is better adapted for those who are morally weak
and frightened of themselves. All the millionaires who have gotten
their goods by fraud, can, by leaving the greater part of these goods
to Rome, secure a reserved seat in Rome’s Heaven, with a special harp
and crown. All the women with “soul-affinities” other than lawful, can,
after a considerable wallow in social mire, enter the Church of Rome,
and after confession, be “cleansed” sufficiently to begin again a new
life approved of the saints. All the spiritualists and faith-healers
can find support for their theories with Rome,--and the Roman hell,
full of large snakes and much brimstone, is a satisfactory place
to consign one’s enemies to, when we have quite put aside Christ’s
command, “Love one another.” Altogether Romanism is calculated to
appeal to a very large majority of persons through the sensuous and
emotional beauty of its ritual;--it is a kind of heavenly narcotic
which persuades the believer to resign his own will into the hypnotic
management of the priests. The church is made gorgeous with soft
lights and colours,--glorious music resounds through the building, and
the mind drowses gently under the influence of the Latin chanting,
which we need not follow unless we like,--we are permitted to believe
that a large number of saints and angels are specially looking after
us, and the sweet Virgin Mary is ever ready with outstretched hands
to listen to all our little griefs and vexations. It is a beautiful
and fascinating creed, hallowed by long antiquity, graced by deeds
of romance and chivalry, sanctified by the memories of great martyrs
and pure saints, and even in these degenerate days, glorified by
the noble-hearted men and women who follow it without bigotry or
intolerance, doing good everywhere, tending the sick, comforting the
sorrowful, and gathering up the little children into their protecting
arms, even as Jesus Himself gathered them. It would need an angel’s pen
dipped in fire to record the true history of a faithful, self-denying
priest of the Roman Church, who gives up his own advantage for the
sake of serving others--who walks fearlessly into squalid dens reeking
with fever, and sets the pure Host between the infected lips of the
dying,--who combats with the Demon of Drink, and drags up the almost
lost reprobate out of that horrible chasm of vice and destruction.
No one could ever give sufficient honour to such a man for all the
immense amount of good he does, unostentatiously and without hope of
reward. But many men like himself exist equally in the English Church
as the Roman,--in the Presbyterian Church, in the Greek Church, in the
Buddhist temples, among the Quakers, “Plymouth Brethren,” and other
sects--among the followers of Mahomet or of Confucius. For there are
good men and good women in every Church, faithful to the SPIRIT OF
CHRIST, and therefore, “Christians,” even if called Jews or Hindoos.
Personally, I have no more objection or dislike to Romanism than I
have to any other “ism” ever formulated. From a student’s point of
view I admire the Roman Catholic priesthood, because they understand
their business, and thoroughly know the material with which they have
to deal. Wise as their Egyptian prototypes of old, they decline to
unveil “mysteries” to the uninitiated vulgar--therefore the laity are
not expected to read the Bible for themselves. Knowing the terrors
of a guilty conscience, they are able to intimidate the uneducated
ruffian of both sexes more successfully than all the majesty of
the law. Thoroughly aware of the popular delight in “shows,” they
organize public processions on feast days, just as the “Masters of
the Stars” used to do in Memphis, where, by the way (as those who
take the trouble to study ancient Egyptian records will discover),
our latest inventions, such as the electric light, the telephone, the
phonograph, and many other modern utilities were used by the priests
for “miraculous” effects. From the Egyptian priesthood we derive the
beginnings of scientific discovery;--to the early Roman Catholic
priesthood we owe the preservation of much history and learning. The
one is, intellectually speaking, a lineal descendant of the other, and
both deserve the utmost respect for their immense capacity as Rulers of
the Ignorant.
The greater majority of persons have no force of will and no decided
opinions, but only an undersense of coward fear or vexation at the
possible unsuccessful or damaging result of their own ill-doings. Hence
the power of the Roman Catholic dogma. It is not Christianity, it has
not the delicate subtlety of Greek mythology, it is simply Pagan Rome
engrafted on the conversion and repentance of the Jew, Peter, who, in
the time of trial, “knew not the Man.” Curiously enough, it is just the
“Man,” the real typical Christ, the pure, strong God-in-humanity who
is still “not known” in the Roman Catholic ritual. There are prayers
to the “Sacred Heart” and to other physical attributes of Jesus,--just
as in old Rome there were prayers to the physical attributes of
the various deities, but of the perfect “Man,” as seen in Christ’s
dauntless love of truth and exposure of shams, His scourging of the
thieves out of the holy temple, His grand indifference to the world’s
malice and hatred, and his conquest over death and the grave,--of
these things we are given no clear or helpful image. Nevertheless, it
is the “Man” we most need,--the “Man” who came to us to teach us how
to live;--the brother, the friend, the close sympathizer,--the great
Creator of all life mingling Himself with his human creation in a
beautiful, tender, loving, wise, and all-pitiful Spirit, wherein is no
hate, no revenge, and no intolerance! This is the Christ;--this is His
Christianity. Romanism, on the contrary, allows plenty of space for
those who want to hate as well as to love, and it is as helpful or as
useless as any of the thousand and one dogmas built up around Christ
which include bad passions as well as divine aspirations. The danger
of such a creed gaining too much ground in England, the land where our
forefathers fought against it and trampled it out with their own blood
and tears, is not because it is a particular form of religious faith,
but because it is an intolerant system of secret government. This has
been proved over and over again throughout history. Its leaders have
not shown themselves as gentle as pagans by any means, either now or in
the past, and intolerance in any form, from any sect, is no part of the
Constitution of a free country.
Hence the real cause of the objection entertained by millions of
persons in the Empire to the suggested alteration of the King’s
Coronation oath. Edward VII. is a Constitutional monarch,--and the
words “Defender of the Faith” imply that he is equally Defender of
the Constitution. He agrees, when he is crowned King of England, to
uphold that Constitution,--he therefore tacitly rejects all that might
tend to undermine it, all secret methods of tampering with political,
governmental, or financial matters relating to the State. The wording
of the Coronation Oath is and must be distinctly offensive to thousands
of excellent persons who are Roman Catholics,--nevertheless, in the
times when it was so worded, the offending terms were made necessary
by the conduct of the Roman Catholics themselves. Those times, we
are assured, are past. We have made progress in education,--we are
now broad-minded enough to be fair to foes as well as to friends. We
should, therefore, in common courtesy to a rival Church, consent to
have this irritating formula altered. Perhaps we should,--but is it
too much to ask our Roman Catholic brethren that they also, should, if
they wish for tolerance, exhibit it on their own side? When our good
and beloved Queen Victoria died, was it not quite as offensive on the
part of Pope Leo to publicly state that he “could not be represented
at the funeral of a Protestant Queen”--as it may be for our King to
publicly repudiate the service of the Mass? Nothing could have been
more calculated to gratuitously wound the feelings of a great People
than that most unnecessary announcement made from an historical
religious centre like the Vatican at a time of universal grief for
the death of a great Monarch. If the Pope’s act was according to the
rule of his Church, the King’s oath will be taken according to the
rule of the British Constitution. No one could accuse the Pope of any
particularly “Christian” feeling in declining to be represented at
the last obsequies of the best Queen that ever reigned--no one can or
will accuse King Edward of “religious intolerance” if he takes the
oath as it is set down for him. Both acts are matters of policy. When
we have the foremost peer of England, the Duke of Norfolk, forgetting
himself so far as to drag his religious creed into the political arena
and express the hope on behalf of all English Catholics that the Pope
may soon regain temporal power (which means, to put it quite plainly,
that the British Constitution should be disintegrated and laid under
subjection to Rome), the natural consequence of such conduct is that
an enormous majority of perfectly sensible, broad-minded people doubt
whether it is wise to leave an entirely loose rein on the neck of the
papal Pegasus, and whether it will not be as well, after all, to
allow the Coronation oath to be spoken by Edward VII. as Victoria,
of ever glorious memory, spoke it? For tolerance and equity on the
one side must be met by tolerance and equity on the other, if a fair
understanding is to be arrived at. And when the professors of any
religious Creed still persecute heroism and intellect, as personated
in the grand and venerable figure of Tolstoy, or refuse reverence to
the last rite of a noble Queen, whose reign was a blessing to the whole
world, one may be permitted to question their fitness for the task
of elevating and refining the minds and morals of those whom their
teachings help to influence. And having, as a man of intellectual
and keen perception, the full consciousness that such unuttered
“questioning” was burning the hearts and minds of thousands, Cardinal
Vaughan showed himself a master of the art of Roman Catholic diplomacy
in his speech at Newcastle-on-Tyne on September 9th. Speaking of the
inrush of Roman Catholic priests into England, he said:--
“A statement from a London paper has been running through the
provincial Press to the effect that I have deliberately outraged
public feeling by inviting to England certain French religieux,
some of those _confrères_ who have made themselves particularly
obnoxious by their constant attacks upon this country. The fact is
that, upon the passing of the iniquitous law against the religious
congregations, I gave a general invitation to any religieux who
might wish to come to my diocese until they could return to France.
Among those who applied were three or four fathers, some of those
_confrères_ who do not love England. My invitation being general,
I was not, and am not going to make distinctions. None will come who
do not intend to obey the laws and follow my direction. And if there
be any who have not been sufficiently enlightened to appreciate this
country while living in France, they are the very people who had best
come and make our acquaintance. This is the surest way to change their
views. But while England boasts of her generous hospitality to every
kind of refugee, I shall certainly offer whatever hospitality I can
to the men and women who have suffered for Christ’s sake. _I am too
broad an Englishman to know any other policy._”
“Broad Englishman” as the Cardinal may be, he had no pity on the aged
Dr. St. George Mivart, the circumstances of whose treatment are not yet
forgotten.
Speaking of the King’s oath, the Cardinal said--“I entirely and frankly
accept the decision of the country that the King must be a Protestant.
They believe that this is in some way bound up with the welfare of the
Empire. WITHOUT GOING THIS LENGTH, I am convinced that in the
present condition of the English people, HAUNTED AS THEY ARE BY
FEARS AND SUSPICIONS, it is expedient that the King should be of
the religion of the overwhelming majority. Besides, the King being, in
virtue of Royal supremacy, head of the State Church, it is impossible
that he should be other than a Protestant. Catholics have no difficulty
in paying most loyal allegiance to a Protestant Sovereign. In this
they seem to be of more liberal and confiding temper than those who
would refuse allegiance to a King unless he professed their creed. The
Catholic has no difficulty, because he gives his allegiance and his
life, when needed, primarily to the civil power ordained of God.”
(The Cardinal did not pause here to try and explain why God has
“ordained” a Protestant sovereign instead of a Roman Catholic one. Yet
no doubt he will admit that God knows best.)
“The Sovereign REPRESENTS THIS POWER, whatever be his religion. Was it
not Catholic Belgium that placed the Protestant King Leopold upon the
Throne, and gave to him at least as hearty a devotion as ever has been
shown to his Catholic successor? Other Catholic States are ruled by
Protestant Sovereigns. And who can say that the 16,000,000 of German
Catholics are a whit less loyal to their German Protestant Emperor than
the millions who are of the Protestant or of no religion? There are
people, I believe, pursued by the conviction that we Catholics would
do anything in the world to get a Catholic King upon the Throne; that
the Pope would give us leave to tell lies, commit perjury, plot,
scheme, and kill to any extent for such a purpose; that there is no
crime we should stick at if the certainty, or even the probability
of accomplishing such an end were in view. Now let me put it to
our Protestant friends in this way. If the King of England were an
absolute Monarch, the dictator of the laws to be enacted, and his
own executive, there might be something of vital importance to our
interests and to those of religion to excite in us an intense desire
to have a Catholic King. Though even then the end could never, even
remotely, justify the means suggested. But how do matters really
stand? We have a constitutional Monarch who is subject to the laws and
in practice bound to follow the advice of his Ministers. A Catholic
King, under present circumstances, would be a cause of weakness, of
perpetual difficulty, and of untold anxiety. We are far better off
as we are. Our dangers and grievances, our hopes and our happiness,
LIE IN THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTION, not in the favour or power of
any Sovereign. IT IS THE PARLIAMENT, THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, THAT WE
MUST CONVERT, or at least strive to retain within the influence of
Christianity. For the well-being of this country and the salvation of
its people depend, above all other human things, UPON THE VIEW THAT
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS CAN BE GOT TO TAKE OF ITS DUTY--to respect and
obey the law of Christ. What we want is to get the House of Commons to
maintain the Christian laws of marriage as the basis of society, and
to secure to parents and their children a true and proper liberty in
the matter of Christian education. And in this, remember well THAT
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS DEPENDS NOT UPON THE KING, WHATEVER HIS RELIGION,
BUT UPON OURSELVES. The people of this country must work out their
own salvation. And here let me point out to you, in passing, that
THE NEXT SESSION OF PARLIAMENT MAY SETTLE FOR EVER THE POSITION OF
CHRISTIANITY IN THIS COUNTRY. Secondary and middle-class education will
be thrown into the melting-pot. In the process of the devolution of
educational authority upon county councils, Christianity will run the
risk of losing rights which it seems to have almost secured under the
working of the Education Department. The adoption of a single clause or
principle will have far-reaching and most vital results. There will be
another educational struggle. Struggles will be inevitable until the
Christian cause, which is becoming more and more openly the cause of
the majority, has permanently triumphed.”
Here we have four distinct “moves” on the plan of campaign.
1. “It is the Parliament, the House of Commons, that we must
convert.”
This means that wherever influence can be brought to bear on the return
of Roman Catholic members to the House, that influence will not be
lacking.
2. “The next Session of Parliament may settle for ever the
position of Christianity in this country.”
Not CHRISTIANITY, my lord Cardinal!--for that is above all
“settling,”--save with its Founder--but that the next Session may
open the way to a more complete Roman Catholic domination is what you
venture to hope and to work for.
3. “The adoption of a _single clause_ or principle will
have far-reaching and most vital results.”
Precisely;--so far-reaching and vital that England must be on her guard
against even a “single clause or principle” which endangers the liberty
of the subject.
4. “Struggles will be inevitable until the Christian cause,
which is becoming more and more openly the cause of the
majority, has permanently triumphed.”
For Cardinal Vaughan there is only one “Christian” cause--viz., the
Roman Catholic, and he who runs may read the meaning of the above
phrase without much difficulty.