......"The medical profession in England is still too much under the sway of the Church and conventional opinion to be able to discuss the population difficulty, except to censure those who are wise enough to follow science instead of theological traditions derived from the _juventus mundi_. Dr. Taylor, of Birmingham, who is said to be an ardent Churchman, in a presidential address to the Gynaecological Society, attacked the views of the Neo-Malthusians."
And again:--
......."We have to chronicle the prosecution of a new organ of the League, _Salud y Fuerza_, published in Barcelona, on account of an admirable article by Senor Leon Devaldez. Spain is the most retrograde of all our European nations; but the prosecution, we believe, will end in the defeat of the clerical party, as has been the case in England and in France. Science is destroying our traditional superst.i.tions."
I feel sure that a great many people have not the slightest idea that not only is this detestable propaganda utterly incompatible with the profession of Christianity, but must logically be opposed to it.
Here is a case in point. The official organ of the Malthusian League quotes a letter from "a warmhearted clergyman," whose name is not given, in which he says:--
"The theory of Neo-Malthusianism finds a way out of the difficulty. It is the use of preventive checks which, while they make possible to all married persons the gratification of their natural desires, will prevent the possibility of the ordinary results of such gratification following. "This clergyman," adds the editor, "is one of the few who are fit to follow in the footsteps of Malthus, Whately, and Chalmers.""
It is a not uninteresting speculation, which we may permit ourselves for a moment, as to the probable ident.i.ty and character of this "clergyman." One hopes, of course, that he was not a clergyman, and that the editor of the journal, naturally unfamiliar with ecclesiastical affairs, gives the t.i.tle to some minister of one of the Unitarian sects. But if the writer of the letter is really an ordained priest, then he must surely be either--
(1) An honest fool who means to do right, and does it as far as he knows how.
(2) A dishonest fool who means to do wrong, and does it.
(3) A fool who does whichever of the two he finds most convenient in this or that regard.
We need not, therefore, take the anonymous writer very seriously, but I quote him because the incident throws a side-light upon the psychology of the half Christian. It would be as unwise as it is unnecessary to quote freely from any of the Neo-Malthusian publications. My business in this essay is to make it quite clear to readers that there is a powerful and able organization which is constantly producing literature teaching the limitation of families.
There are now six or seven "Malthusian Leagues" in existence, in England, Holland, Germany, France, Belgium, and Spain, and a Woman"s International Branch uniting the women of these countries, while the printed matter issued by these organizations is enormous.
In the English journal to which I have been referring there are many advertis.e.m.e.nts of books and pamphlets in which the wording is undoubtedly designed to attract others than the earnest seeker after truth. I read, to give one example, that for eightpence post free I can obtain "_The Strike of a s.e.x_; or, Woman on Strike against the Male s.e.x for her "Magna Charta." One of the most advanced books ever published; intended to revolutionize public opinion on the relation of the s.e.xes. Should be read by every person."
And lower down in the same column I am informed that the publishers of this sort of thing not only sell books advocating Neo-Malthusian practices, but are also willing to provide the means for committing them.
So much for the unsavoury products of the Neo-Malthusian press, products which would make the gentle old clergyman of Haileybury turn away in loathing and disgust could he but see them. Large as the output of this pseudo-economic obscenity is, it does not reach a twentieth part of the people who are responsible for the decline of the birth-rate. They have derived their knowledge from another channel, from the instructions of the medical man or his lesser colleague the chemist.
The poorer cla.s.ses who, a few years ago were ignorant of this propaganda, are now being instructed in it by the men from whom they buy their medicines. Doctors, in the majority of cases, are perfectly willing to explain to married people how they may avoid having children by means other than those of self-control. As a rule the medical man seems to have no conscience at all in this regard. His point of view is too often merely materialistic and concerned with nothing but physical function, and he has become in many cases, the active agent of the malignant forces which are sapping our national honour and prosperity. In discussing the question, more than one person has expressed his amazement at the readiness of doctors to explain and advocate the limitation of families. The doctors of England form one of the finest cla.s.ses in the community. I will venture to say that very few men and women arrive at middle life without experiencing a lively feeling of grat.i.tude, friendship, or even affection for some medical man. The devotion to his high calling, of even the average English doctor, is a fact in the lives of nearly all of us. It is the more surprising, and alarming also, when we realize, as inquirers are forced to realize, how wrong and mistaken the general att.i.tude of the physician is towards this aspect of the s.e.xual relations of men and women. It is said that infidelity is rife among those who are educated to cure our bodily ailments, that the agnostic habit of mind is frequent in this profession. I am not competent to judge of this, or to p.r.o.nounce an opinion upon such a statement, though my own experience is directly opposed to it. But it is certain that until the last fifteen years the scientific temperament was disinclined to believe in anything it could not weigh, measure, a.n.a.lyze, touch, or see. Huxley, for example, was a striking instance of this position. But science has been revolutionized within the experience of one generation, and the "c.o.c.k-sureness" has disappeared. We are all realizing that "unseen" simply means that which does not appeal to our sense of sight, or perhaps that which does not appeal to any of our senses. One of the most famous and honoured scientific men of to-day, Sir Oliver Lodge, says in regard to miracles, "I think we should hesitate very much before saying that they are impossible, because we do not know what may be the power of a great personality over natural forces."
As the years go on, we may have great hopes that the regarding of psychology as just as much a necessary part of a doctor"s education as biology, or therapeutics will produce a better feeling among medical men in regard to the great question of which the statistics of the birth-rate form the gauge. Doctors will probably understand that harm done to the body and harm done to the soul react upon one another with remorseless certainty, and that there can be no real separation of spirit and matter. And directly this is understood we shall never find medical men recommending and a.s.sisting what Dr. Roux calls "sterile love" though some of us could find a very different name for it.
The layman unhesitatingly accepts the advice of his physician, and here "private judgment" hardly exists. If a priest tells a certain type of Englishman that Evening Communions spoil and maim our holiest sacrament, and are bad for the soul, he will resent it, and say that he will choose for himself in the matter. Yet if a doctor tells the same person that it is dangerous to eat mushrooms that have been gathered for more than two days, or that the irritation at his wrists is a symptom of uric acid in the blood, there will be no question of disbelief. The influence of doctors is incalculable, they rule us by our fear of death and our instinct of self-preservation, and rarely do we find that they abuse the trust reposed in them, or use their great power for ill always excepting the instance under discussion. When, therefore, the medical profession can be brought to see the preventive check system as it really is, when doctors understand that interference with natural laws induces a deterioration of character and temperament which eventually acts upon the body for its harm, and tends to race-degeneracy, then much will be gained. And when they progress still further in the coming reconciliation of science with the Christian Revelation, and own that the laws of G.o.d, set out and promulgated by His Holy Church, are no less binding than the laws made known by the revelation of science, then the battle will be half won.
The final victory or defeat will be with the priests and ministers of every church and sect, the men who are the physicians of our souls.
The last few pages have been occupied with a statement of the Neo-Malthusian propaganda. I have been careful rather to understate than exaggerate the case. Much that I might have included, corroborative testimony from people who know, individual instances, letters, and so forth, has been rejected for the purposes of this essay. Were I writing another book upon the subject I should have used this material. In a collection of papers devoted to various subjects, and which will have a more general appeal than a work devoted entirely to vital statistics, it is impossible. But any one who has followed me thus far may be sure that I have been strictly temperate in statement.
We have seen what the Neo-Malthusians, avowed and secret, are doing.
What is the Church doing to stem the evil? and what is the teaching of the Church upon the subject?
The teaching of the Church is perfectly clear; my contention is that it is so rarely taught as to be practically unknown to large ma.s.ses of Christians.
No one ever goes to his parish priest and asks if adultery is wrong.
Yet innumerable clergymen have told me that they are constantly asked by parishioners if there is "any harm" in the use of methods to limit families.
Such people are not, of course, of a very spiritual life, or very acute intelligence, or they would easily find the answer to such a question for themselves. But very few of us are either spiritually minded or of uncommon intelligence, and legislation must be for the average man. Voltaire said, "_on dit que Dieu est toujours pour les gros bataillons_," and what was spoken as a sneer contains the germ of a great truth. Let me say once more, and I am certain of what I say, that the "_gros bataillons_" are quite ignorant of their moral obligations in marriage in so far as they relate to the question under discussion.
Why?
The truth is, in the first instance, very difficult to convey from the pulpit and to a mixed audience, though, to take three great names at random, the President of the United States, and our own Bishops of Ripon and London have spoken out. In accusing the clergy and nonconformist ministers of shirking their duty we must remember the enormous difficulty of their task. I have no responsibility but that of my own conviction, and no one is compelled to buy this book who does not wish to do so. It is therefore quite easy for me to sit in my study and write as I am doing. But the preacher, great as his opportunity and influence are, must by the nature of the case, be in a very different position. He is an official and recognized leader of his flock in spiritual affairs, a hundred considerations weigh with him; he is constrained on all sides by prejudice and convention which might do incalculable harm in other directions if the one was outraged and the other ignored. The position of the priest is admirably summed up in a pamphlet which Father Black has sent me. In it he explains that it is impossible for a preacher when addressing a general congregation to speak in other than general terms, or to say all that he may feel it is, in some cases, very desirable or even necessary to convey. He cannot but be aware that with sins of impurity especially, the very persons who commit them are generally of too delicate ears to endure to hear them called by their right names. This _sentimental_ purity is not incompatible with corruption of life. He wishes to warn the innocent without enlightening their innocence, to lift the veil sufficiently to show their sin to the guilty, and yet to teach them by delicacy and not bring a railing accusation which would probably only harden instead of converting.
It is gravely necessary to realize how difficult the priest"s task is, but at the same time it is extraordinary how little organized condemnation of the evil exists. No one can accurately measure or gauge the influence exercised by clergy in private conversations and admonitions, and this is doubtless considerable. But it is sporadic and not systematic, there is too much timidity and hesitation, and while the enemy is well organized and equipped we are without a plan of campaign and have no regular army in the field.
The Prayer-book, in the Marriage Service, tells us explicitly, "First it was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of His Holy Name."
Here we have the voice of the Church speaking plainly enough, and both it and the authority of Scripture are unanimous in clear expression or unmistakable implication. The Christian att.i.tude has been admirably summed up in Father Black"s pamphlet, to which I acknowledged my indebtedness in the preface of my book _First it was Ordained_, and from which strong, lucid, and outspoken statement I quote a few sentences:--
"Of this systematic wickedness, unfaithfulness is the natural consequence in many cases. Logically there is nothing but a sense of commercial honesty to keep a woman who has lost the reverence of marriage to one man. The obligation has no hold on her higher nature, and when pa.s.sion or convenience press the balance there is no sufficient reason why she should be very scrupulous.
"If women treat themselves, and are treated by their husbands as mere animals, all idea of chivalry is at an end; and this, no doubt, is in a measure the ground for a license of speech and action in even our public amus.e.m.e.nts, contrary not only to the _ethos_ of Christianity, but to the principles of a civilization worthy of the name.
"Women who interfere with the natural end of marriage--the bearing of children--are wives in name, in reality prost.i.tutes.
Men who require or encourage such acts are corrupters, not husbands. When I said in my sermon that trifling with G.o.d"s laws of marriage was a horrible sin, I was thinking chiefly of the woman"s side of the matter.
"True manliness is, however, no less to be desired than true womanliness. In the words of Lord Tennyson--
""Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control," the man should find in himself and display to his wife. Philosophy and religion are in accord here. St. John writes to young men, "because ye are _strong_ and have overcome the wicked one."
Professor Huxley, "that man has had a liberal education who has been so trained that his body is the ready servant of his will; whose pa.s.sions are trained to come to heel by a vigorous will the servant of a tender conscience, who has learned to love all beauty and to hate all vileness, to respect others as himself."
To me that judgment seems a manly one which p.r.o.nounces the corruption of a wife by a husband a viler thing than the gratification of l.u.s.t in the common stews. This latter less deeply degrading to society or injurious to the nation at large.
"But you and I, my dear sir, are Christians; and our concern is with Christian marriage. Here, as in everything else, the truth of Christ will deliver men from mistakes. Christian marriage in common with all other Christian things has in it the law of self-denial and self-conquest. Such is the Apostolic view of it; thus it is to be "in the Lord," and only "in the Lord" is it permitted to the Christian.
"Holy Scripture is of course everywhere clear as to the end of marriage, and G.o.d"s condemnation express against the perversion of it, "the Lord slew him." St. Paul wills "that women marry _and bear children_.""
Is not this plain speaking? and could it be bettered as an expression of a militant Christian"s hatred and horror of what is debasing and foul?--I think not. We are not all given the power of feeling the intense loathing for a very generally committed sin which is manifested here. A life in the world and of the world induces a tolerance which is very often laziness and cowardice. We are not to hate the sinner, of course, but only the sin, but which of us cares to inveigh against the vice of a friend? Savonarola was not a popular parson, though Santa Maria del Fiore was always crowded when he was in the pulpit. We ought to be thankful for such bludgeon-st.u.r.dy words as these which show us the carrion-pa.s.sions which war against the soul in their true light.
I know, you know, most men know, how extraordinarily easy it is to become familiar with our vices so that in a short time they become no vices at all, but just little pleasant failings which we share with some of the best fellows in the world. And all becomes dim and misty in the shadowy thoroughfares of thought, while it is only now and then--perhaps never at all--that some bugle-breeze blows over us and sounds _reveillee_ to the sleeping soul.
If we are sensualists, though we don"t realize it, we always live as though we were immortal; immortal in the sense that we shall never die and once more be born. Yet it is a strange truth in life that the man or woman who is converted to a clean life from sins of the body, has often more power than any one else to warn and exhort against sensuality. It is the man from whose eye the mote and beam has been removed who can speak most convincingly of the horrors of the dark.
"Experto crede!" he calls out to mankind, and out of the uncleanness is brought forth meat. Let us see what Aurelius Augustinus--that old Father of the Church we call Saint Augustine--has to say of this danger and sin which we are considering. We all know what the Saint"s early life was like, what was the life of a young man at a Pagan University in the fourth century. From his eighteenth year until he was thirty-two the Saint whom we revere lived in open vice at Carthage. On Easter Eve, April 387, he was baptized, and tradition tells us that then the ma.s.sive harmony of the _Te Deum_ was composed.
No theologian has influenced the mind of Christendom more greatly than this man, not only by his writings, but by the spectacle we find in them of the fervour and devotion of his inner life. Remember that he knew all the bitter knowledge of l.u.s.t, and hear how he writes of those who would prevent conception:--
"Quia etsi non causa propagandae prolis conc.u.mbitur, non tamen hujus libidinis causa propagationi prolis obsist.i.tur sive voto malo, sive opere malo. Nam quid hoc faciunt quamvis vocentur conjuges, non sunt, nec ullam nuptiarum retinent veritatem, sed honestum nomen velandae turpitudini obtendunt."
And of those who use drugs to prevent the birth of children, he further says:--
"Aliquando eo usque pervenit haec libidinosa crudelitas, vel libido crudelis, ut etiam sterilitatis venena procuret.
"Prorsus si ambo tales sunt, conjuges non sunt, et si ab initio tales fuerunt, non sibi per connubium, sed per stuprum potius convenerunt. Si autem non ambo sunt tales audeo dicere aut illa est quodam mode meretrix mariti, aut ille adulter uxoris."
What is to be done? What is the duty of Christians, and how shall they combat this evil? Unless it is to spread and spread till every part of our natural life is infected, something must be done. The Neo-Malthusians are not only teaching married people how to avoid the responsibilities of marriage, but they are teaching unmarried people to do so as well. This is a fact which must not be lost sight of, as more than one clergyman has pointed out. If fear of consequences is removed chast.i.ty becomes more than ever threatened. If there is the wish and inclination to sin, and that wish is only not gratified because inconvenient results may lead to discovery, it is true that the moral value of people in such a case is small. But a general recognition of the fact that it is easy to sin will have incalculable influence for harm on those who are as yet on the border-line between the claims of self-gratification and control. Public sentiment becomes lax and unstrung. Simultaneously with the decline of the birth-rate the newspapers show every day that the old ideal, the sacred English ideal of the family is departing. Our greatest living novelist says openly, "Certainly one day the conditions of marriage will be changed.
Marriage will be allowed for a certain period, say ten years." In many parts of America, where the President is ceaselessly urging his countrymen to denounce and give up Neo-Malthusian practices, the home has already disappeared. From a large collection of information and statistics I take only one example, quoted in a leading English newspaper. There is no need for a single word of comment, save that I do not vouch for the truth of the newspaper report which, in its very appearance, proves my point.
"Mrs. Le Page, a New York lady who has just married her eighth husband, crystallizes her experience in life.
"Five of her seven former husbands are still alive, and they have just sent messages of encouragement to the new inc.u.mbent.
The other two have died.
"Mrs. Le Page"s maiden name was Mary Johnson, and she was the daughter of a Connecticut farmer. She was only fourteen, but well grown for her age, when she contracted a runaway marriage with a seventeen-year-old Danbury clerk named William Wakeman.