HARMONIES OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION 311 



this was to some extent what actually happened. Rousseau spoke 

 partly in the name of theology, and even of Christian theology ; and 

 it was not until the skeptical foundation had been in a manner aban- 

 doned, and an appeal made to religion, that the spirit of political 

 change awoke. 



Indeed, to say that the Revolution has charged upon theology 

 itself what is merely the defect of a particular theology, is a state- 

 ment much short of the truth. The conservatism of the Church in 

 the last ages is not principally due to the natural tendencies of the 

 Christian religion. It is not so much Christianity as the Church that 

 has been conservative. Church and government have been drawn 

 together not so much from any natural sympathy witness their per- 

 petual conflicts in the middle ages as by a common danger. All 

 that can be said is, that in the hour of difficulty, when it was their 

 obvious interest to combine, they have not found themselves so anti- 

 pathetic that they could not do so. In neither of the two great crises 

 was the help rendered by the one to the other disinterested. In the 

 sixteenth century it was the Church that was threatened most ; but 

 governments were also uneasy, and took as well as gave in the arrange- 

 ment they made with the Church. In the Revolution the state strug- 

 gled for life, but the distress of the Church was almost as great. In 

 these circumstances they would be driven into alliance even in the 

 absence of any natural affinity, and being once in alliance would ex- 

 cite the indiscriminate aversion of the Revolution as if they had been 

 natural allies. In one instance at least this has been strikingly real- 

 ized. When the Revolution attacked monarchy and privilege, it was 

 not very surprising that they should attack Christianity at the same 

 time. Christianity is entirely silent on the question of liberty, and 

 lends no support to those who contend against despotism. It has 

 been used to defend despotism, and not without plausibility. It is 

 not quite the same with privilege. Christianity is clearly favorable 

 on the whole to equality, and yet even here its declaration is not very 

 distinct. But in due time the Revolution, having conquered these 

 enemies, went on to attack new ones. Leaving behind its mediaeval 

 monarchy and aristocracy, it proclaimed war against plutocracy. It 

 proclaimed the principle of fraternity, fraternity between individuals 

 as opposed to reckless competition in industry, fraternity between 

 nations as opposed to war. Now, this new principle is not merely 

 consistent with Christianity ; to say this would be almost as absui'd as 

 to call it inconsistent with Christianity. It is neither more nor less 

 than Christianity itself, Christianity is certainly not a socialistic 

 system, because it is not, in that sense of the word, a system at all, 

 but most assuredly Christianity furnished the ideas which the differ- 

 ent socialistic systems are blundering attempts to realize, Not only 

 so, but I believe that Christianity as a morality actually did nothing 

 else, and that the modern word fraternity coincides exactly with the 



