340 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



man. We must take care to keep this question 

 to itself, and not to let it be confused with quite 

 different ones. The priesthood in question, as 

 we all know, has taught that as right which is 

 not right, and bas condemned as wrong some of 

 the holiest duties of mankind. But this is not 

 what we are here concerned with. Let us put 

 an ideal case of a priesthood which, as a matter 

 of fact, taught a morality agreeing with the 

 healthy conscience of all men at a given time ; 

 but which, neverthless, taught this as an infal- 

 lible revelation. The tendency of such teaching, 

 if really accepted, would be to destroy morality 

 altogether, for it is of the very essence of the 

 moral sense that it is a common perception by 

 men of what is good for man. It arises, not in 

 one man's mind by a flash of genius or a trans- 

 port of ecstasy, but in all men's minds, as the 

 fruit of their necessary intercourse and united 

 labor for a common object. When an infallible 

 authority is set up, the voice of this natural hu- 

 man conscience must be hushed and schooled, 

 and made to speak the words of a formula. Obe- 

 dience becomes the whole duty of man ; and the 

 notion of right is attached to a lifeless code of 

 rules, instead of being the informing character 

 of a nation. The natural consequence is, that it 

 fades gradually out and ends by disappearing al- 

 together. I am not describing a purely con- 

 jectural state of things, but an effect which has 

 actually been produced at various times and in 

 considerable populations by the influence of the 

 Catholic Church. It is true that we cannot find 

 an actually crucial instance of a pure morality 

 taught as an infallible revelation, and so in time 

 ceasing to be morality for that reason alone. 

 There are two circumstances which prevent this. 

 One is, that the Catholic priesthood has always 

 practically taught an imperfect morality, and 

 that it is difficult to distinguish between the ef- 

 fects of precepts which are wrong in themselves 

 and precepts which are only wrong because of 

 the manner in which they are enforced. The 

 other circumstance is, that the priesthood has 

 very rarely found a population willing to place 

 itself completely and absolutely under priestly 

 control. Men must live together and work for 

 common objects even in priestridden countries ; 

 and those conditions, which in the course of 

 ages have been able to create the moral sense, 

 cannot fail in some degree to recall it to men's 

 minds and gradually to reenforce it. Thus it 

 comes about that a great and increasing portion 

 of life breaks free from priestly influences, and 

 is governed upon right and rational grounds. 



The goodness of men shows itself in time more 

 powerful than the wickedness of some of their 

 religions. 



The practical inference is, then, that we ought 

 to do all in our power to restrain and diminish 

 the influence of any priesthood which claims to 

 rule consciences. But when we attempt to go 

 beyond this plain Protestant principle, we find 

 that the question is one of history and politics. 

 The question which we want to ask ourselves — 

 " Is it right to support this or that priesthood ? " 

 — can only be answered by this other question, 

 " What has it done or got done ? " 



In asking this question, we must bear in mind 

 that the word priesthood, as we have used it 

 hitherto, has a very wide meaning — namely, it 

 means any body of men who perform special 

 ceremonies in the name of religion ; a ceremony 

 being an act which is prescribed by religion to 

 that body of men, but not on account of its in- 

 trinsic Tightness or wrongness. It includes, 

 therefore, not only the priests of Catholicism, or 

 of the Obi rites, who lay claim to a magical 

 character and powers, but the more familiar 

 clergymen or ministers of Protestant denomina- 

 tions, and the members of monastic orders. But 

 there is a considerable difference, pointed out by 

 Hume, between a priest, who lays claim to a 

 magical character and powers, and a clergyman, 

 in the English sense, as it was understood in 

 Hume's day, whose office was to remind people 

 of their duties every Sunday, and to represent a 

 certain standard of culture in remote country 

 districts. It will, perhaps, conduce to clearness 

 if we use the word priest exclusively in the first 

 sense. 



There is another confusion which we must 

 endeavor 1o avoid, if we would really get at the 

 truth of this matter. When one ventures to 

 doubt whether the Catholic clergy has really 

 been an unmixed blessing to Europe, one is gener- 

 ally met by the reply, " You cannot find any fault 

 with the Sermon on the Mount." Now, it would 

 be too much to say that this has nothing to do 

 Avith the question we were proposing to ask, for 

 there is a sense in which the Sermon on the 

 Mount and the Catholic clergy have something to 

 do with each other. The Sermon on the Mount 

 is admitted on all hands to be the best and most 

 precious thing that Christianity has offered to the 

 world ; and it cannot be doubted that the Cath- 

 olic clergy of East and West were the only 

 spokesmen of Christianity until the Reformation, 

 and are the spokesmen of the vast majority of 

 Christians at this moment. But it must surely 



