The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1886-09-04
THE CHURCH ANDSINFlDELITY.
BY REV. G. X. GIBSON.
Patriot, Ip0

Doubtless the long contest between
the church and infideliE would ere this
have been ended had not the church
continually asserted th& the unbeliever
was likewise a moral outlaw. 1t has
forgotten that mere Intellectual errors
have no necessary connection with moral
delinquencies. It is true these may
sometimes, and do son1etimes, go hand
in hand, but history shows us that or
thodoxy of belief has Ten been united
with the deepest deprayity. We may
make this one count against the church:
During most of her history she has
been most insufferably insulting in her
attitude toward her did-time enemy :;
and if, in extenuation, Ehe declares she
has had great provocStions, which is
doubtless true, yet her Conduct has not
been at all in accord With the great
foundation principles lid down by her
Master and Lord and she has richly
merited much of the keen sc0rn and
satire which has BEEN lavished upon
her by leading infidels.I She has con-
tinually declared that 81 infidels were
the offscouring Of the q &th and she is
doing SO still and sha5 may justly ex-
pect to receive in retl4n the keenest
shafts which infidelity Gan fashion and
hurl at her.
1t would seem that tl church might
have at least measareibf respect for a
religion which inscribe& on its banner !:
Help for the Fing,
Hope for the d{ad.'
Instead of this, the 3nlpit and the
orthodox press have al ost invariably
conveyed the insinuatin that Colonel
Ingersoll, the author e his motto, and
perhaps the chief expo ent of what is
known as modern Amdfican infidelity,
is a moral outlaw. Doubtless millions
of Christian believers lave been led to
regard him as almost lend in human
shape, because, smart{ug under the
lashing of large and snail pulpits, he
has used the treasures a his biting sar-
casm and matchiess eloquence, not only
in defending himself, put in carrying
the war into the enemyH camp. Now,
it is not difficult to sea that the past
course of the church 1.-THE condaet of
this case has not been d accord with
its profcssed .principle4 but has been
the most wretehe iey as we'll.
g People who live in glass houses
shouldn't throw stones" says the old
adage, and yet writers in these very
columns in the immediate past have
had the audacity to refer the infidel of
to-day to the history of infdelity in
France, thinking this to be an unan-
swerable argument. Yet this class of
writers forget or are ignorant of the
fact that this is q two-edged sword, and
is apt to cut the wielder.
Let us take q hasty review of the his
tory of the church of the past. Its con-
sideration may tend to cure some dog
matte but small Gathered publisher
who thinks denunciation is argument,
or that he can convert man with club
The early church was measurably
free from reproach on this score. ''In
the early church, not merely from the
necessity of her condition says one
tT"but from principle, it's treatment OF
heretics was purely moral. But with
the conjunction of church and State
heresy came to be regarded as also a
civil offense in the nature of a double
treason, and was punished with forfeit.
ure of office and dignities, with 'confis-
cation of property, and even DEATH"
The first instance of the infiiction OF
death on heretics was the beheading OF
Priscilhan and two of his adherents,
A. D. 3S5. The last person put to
death in Great Britain for heresy was
Thomas Aikenhead, young student OF
divinity, A. d. 1886. Thus we have a
period of 800 years of blood. But in
1904 man named Ford petitioned the
King to the effect that the Lord Chan
cellor had done him an injustice. Fol
the offense of this petition merely the
said Ford was sentenced to ride back
ward from the Fleet Prison to West
minister, with his crime plaearded on
his head to acknowledge his crime in
all the courts of Westminster to stand
a reasonable time in the pillory to
have one of his ears cut off; to be re-
manded to Jail for few days, and then
have the other ear cut off topay fine
of So, 900, and then to be imprisoned for
life.
Another man-Alexander Lei hton,
Professor of Moral Philosophy in the
University of Edinburgh-published a
book which did not happen to please
the bishops. 1t was deemed a most
odious and heinous offense, deserving
the severest punishment the court could
infiet for framing and publishing what
they deemed "a book so full of most
pestilent and devilish and dangerous
assertions, to the scandal of the King,
Queen and Peers, and especially the
bishops"
1t was accordingly ordered, first, that
he be degraded from his ministry into