You are in:
Spiritist Review - Journal of Psychological Studies - 1866 > August > Prophets of the Past
Prophets of the Past
There are sometimes,
A work entitled The Prophets of the Past, by Mr. Barbey d'Aurévilly, contains the praise of Joseph de Maistre and Bonald, because they remained ultramontane[1] all their life, while Chateaubriand is blamed and Lamennais insulted and presented in a hateful manner. The following passage shows the mindset in which the book was conceived.
“In this world, where the spirit and the body are united by an indissoluble mystery, the corporeal punishment has its spiritual reason of being, because man is not responsible for duplicating the creation. Now, instead of burning the writings of Luther, whose ashes fell on Europe like a seed, if they had burned Luther himself the world would be saved, at least for a century. Burned Luther, they will scream, but I am not essentially attached to the stake, as long as the error is suppressed in its momentary manifestation and in its continuous manifestation, that is, the man that said it and wrote it and that calls it the truth. It is too much for the lambs of anarchy that only freedom bleats! A man of genius, the most positive since Machiavelli, and that was not absolutely Catholic, but on the contrary, somewhat liberal, used to say with the brutality of a necessary decision: “My policy is that of killing two men when necessary to save three.” Well, killing Luther it would not be three saved to the price of two; it would be thousands of men to the price of only one. Moreover, there is more than saving the blood of men, there is respect to the conscience and intelligence of mankind. Luther distorted both. Then, when there is a teaching and a social faith – it was Catholicism then – it is necessary to protect and defend it or perish one day or another as a society. Hence the courts and institutions to identify crimes against faith and teachings. The inquisition is, therefore, a logical necessity of any society.”
If the principles that we have just mentioned were not more than the personal opinion of the author, they would not need more concern than many other eccentricities, but he does not speak in his name only, and the party for which he is the spokesperson does not reproach him, giving at least a tacit approval. As a matter of fact, this is not the first time that these doctrines are preconized publicly in our days, and it is very certain that still today they constitute the opinion of a certain class of people. If people are not touched enough it is because society has much conscience of its strength to be afraid.
Everybody understands that such anachronisms are harmful, before anything else, to those that practice them, because the dig up a more profound abyss between past and present; enlighten the masses and keep them alert.
As it can be seen, the author does not disguises his thoughts and is not cautionary on his speech; here he goes straight to the point, without subterfuges: “Luther should have been burnt; all the authors of heresies should have been burnt for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of religion.” He is clear and precise.
It is sad that a religion has such an expedient as the basis of its authority and stability; it is a demonstration of little confidence in its moral ascendency. If its basis is the absolute truth, it must challenge all the contrary arguments; like with the Sun, it must suffice to show up to dissipate darkness. Every religion that comes from God has nothing to fear from the caprice or malice of men; its strength comes from reasoning, and if a man had the power to overthrow it, it would be one of two things, either that it would not be the work of God or that man would be more logical than God, so that his arguments would prevail against those of God.
The author would rather have burnt Luther than his books, because, he says, their ashes fell on Europe like a seed. He agrees, therefore, that the auto-da-fé of the books benefit more than harm the idea that one wants to destroy. This is a great and profound truth attested by experience. Thus, burn the man seems more efficient to him, because, in his opinion, it is to stop the evil at the source. But, does he believe that the ashes of the man are less fecund than those of the books? Has he given any thought to all the offspring produced by four hundred thousand heretics burnt by the Inquisition, not accounting for the even greater number of those that perished in other tortures? Burnt books only give ashes but human victims yield blood that produce indelible stains that fall on those who spill it. It was that blood that fed the fever of incredulity that torments our century, and if the faith is extinguished, it is because they wanted to cement it by blood and not by the love of God. How to love a God that has his children burnt? How can we believe in his goodness if the smoke of the victims is an incense that pleases him? How to believe in his infinite power if he needs the arm of man to make his authority prevail by destruction?
It is not religion, they will say, but abuse. In fact, if this were the essence of Christianity three would be nothing to envy Paganism, even regarding human sacrifice, and the world would not have gained much with the exchange. Yes, it is certainly abuse; but when the abuse is the works of leaders that have authority, that turn it into a law and present it as the most holy orthodoxy, it is not surprising that the poorly educated masses will later on confound everything in the same disapproval. However, it was precisely the abuse that gave rise to the reforms, and those that advocated them are reaping what they sowed.
It is remarkable that ninety percent of the three hundred and sixty something sects that divided Christianity since its origin had the objective of coming closer to the principles of the Gospels, from which it is rational to conclude that if they had not distanced themselves from them, these sects would not have been formed. Which weapons were used? Always by iron, fire, proscriptions, and persecutions. Sad and poor means of convincing! It was in blood that we wanted to suffocate them. In the absence of reasoning, force may overpower individuals, destroy, and disperse them, but it cannot annihilate the idea. That is why we see them reappearing incessantly, with some variants, with other names and other leaders.
The author of this book, as we saw, is in favor of heroic remedies. However, since he is afraid that the idea of burning may lead to “screaming” in our century, declaring “I am not essentially attached to the stake, as long as the error is suppressed in its momentary manifestation and in its continuous manifestation, that is, the man that said it and wrote it and that calls it the truth.” Thus, as long as the man disappears, it does not matter how.
We know that resources are not lacking; the end justifies the means. So much for the manifestation of the moment; but to have the error destroyed in its continuous manifestation, it is necessary to eliminate all the followers that are not willing to surrender willingly. We can see that this takes us far. Moreover, if the means is hard, it is infallible to get rid of any opposition.
Such ideas, in the present century, can only be imports and reminisces of previous existences. As for the lambs bleating freedom, that is an anachronism, a memory of the past. In fact, in the past the lambs could only bleat, but today the lambs became rams; they no longer bleat freedom: they take it.
However, let us see if burning Luther, they would have stopped the movement of which he had been the instigator. The author does not seem to be quite sure about it, since he says: “The world was saved, at least for a century.” A century of respite, that is all that would have been gained! And why? Here is the answer:
If the reformers only expressed their personal opinions, they would reform absolutely nothing at all because they would not find echoes. A man alone is powerless to move the masses if the masses are inert and do not feel any fiber vibrating in them. It is noticeable that the great social renovations never arrive suddenly; like volcanic eruptions, they are preceded by precursor symptoms. The new ideas germinate, boil in many heads; society is agitated by a kind of frisson, that has it in the expectation of something. That is the time when the true reformers arrive, that are then seeing not as a representative of an individual idea, but of a vague, collective idea to which the reformer gives a precise and concrete shape, and he only succeeds because he finds the minds ready to receive it.
That was the position of Luther. But Luther was neither the first nor the only promoter of the reform. Before him there were apostles like John Wycliffe, Jean Huss, Jerome of Prague. The two latter ones were burnt by the order of the Council of Constance; the Hussites were persecuted after a ferocious war, defeated, and massacred. The men were destroyed but not the idea that was later retaken with another form and modified in some details by Luther, Calvino, Zwingli, and others, from what we can conclude that if Luther had been burnt this would not have served any purpose, and not even given a century of break because the idea of reform was not only in Luther’s mind, but in thousands of others, from which men were to emerge, capable of sustaining it. It would have been only one more crime, without benefit to the cause that had provoked it. This is so much true that when a current of ideas crosses the world, nothing can stop it.
By reading those words, one would believe that they were written during the fever of religious wars, and not in times when doctrines are judged with the calm of reason.
[1] Advocating supreme Papal authority in matters of faith and discipline (T.N.)
A work entitled The Prophets of the Past, by Mr. Barbey d'Aurévilly, contains the praise of Joseph de Maistre and Bonald, because they remained ultramontane[1] all their life, while Chateaubriand is blamed and Lamennais insulted and presented in a hateful manner. The following passage shows the mindset in which the book was conceived.
“In this world, where the spirit and the body are united by an indissoluble mystery, the corporeal punishment has its spiritual reason of being, because man is not responsible for duplicating the creation. Now, instead of burning the writings of Luther, whose ashes fell on Europe like a seed, if they had burned Luther himself the world would be saved, at least for a century. Burned Luther, they will scream, but I am not essentially attached to the stake, as long as the error is suppressed in its momentary manifestation and in its continuous manifestation, that is, the man that said it and wrote it and that calls it the truth. It is too much for the lambs of anarchy that only freedom bleats! A man of genius, the most positive since Machiavelli, and that was not absolutely Catholic, but on the contrary, somewhat liberal, used to say with the brutality of a necessary decision: “My policy is that of killing two men when necessary to save three.” Well, killing Luther it would not be three saved to the price of two; it would be thousands of men to the price of only one. Moreover, there is more than saving the blood of men, there is respect to the conscience and intelligence of mankind. Luther distorted both. Then, when there is a teaching and a social faith – it was Catholicism then – it is necessary to protect and defend it or perish one day or another as a society. Hence the courts and institutions to identify crimes against faith and teachings. The inquisition is, therefore, a logical necessity of any society.”
If the principles that we have just mentioned were not more than the personal opinion of the author, they would not need more concern than many other eccentricities, but he does not speak in his name only, and the party for which he is the spokesperson does not reproach him, giving at least a tacit approval. As a matter of fact, this is not the first time that these doctrines are preconized publicly in our days, and it is very certain that still today they constitute the opinion of a certain class of people. If people are not touched enough it is because society has much conscience of its strength to be afraid.
Everybody understands that such anachronisms are harmful, before anything else, to those that practice them, because the dig up a more profound abyss between past and present; enlighten the masses and keep them alert.
As it can be seen, the author does not disguises his thoughts and is not cautionary on his speech; here he goes straight to the point, without subterfuges: “Luther should have been burnt; all the authors of heresies should have been burnt for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of religion.” He is clear and precise.
It is sad that a religion has such an expedient as the basis of its authority and stability; it is a demonstration of little confidence in its moral ascendency. If its basis is the absolute truth, it must challenge all the contrary arguments; like with the Sun, it must suffice to show up to dissipate darkness. Every religion that comes from God has nothing to fear from the caprice or malice of men; its strength comes from reasoning, and if a man had the power to overthrow it, it would be one of two things, either that it would not be the work of God or that man would be more logical than God, so that his arguments would prevail against those of God.
The author would rather have burnt Luther than his books, because, he says, their ashes fell on Europe like a seed. He agrees, therefore, that the auto-da-fé of the books benefit more than harm the idea that one wants to destroy. This is a great and profound truth attested by experience. Thus, burn the man seems more efficient to him, because, in his opinion, it is to stop the evil at the source. But, does he believe that the ashes of the man are less fecund than those of the books? Has he given any thought to all the offspring produced by four hundred thousand heretics burnt by the Inquisition, not accounting for the even greater number of those that perished in other tortures? Burnt books only give ashes but human victims yield blood that produce indelible stains that fall on those who spill it. It was that blood that fed the fever of incredulity that torments our century, and if the faith is extinguished, it is because they wanted to cement it by blood and not by the love of God. How to love a God that has his children burnt? How can we believe in his goodness if the smoke of the victims is an incense that pleases him? How to believe in his infinite power if he needs the arm of man to make his authority prevail by destruction?
It is not religion, they will say, but abuse. In fact, if this were the essence of Christianity three would be nothing to envy Paganism, even regarding human sacrifice, and the world would not have gained much with the exchange. Yes, it is certainly abuse; but when the abuse is the works of leaders that have authority, that turn it into a law and present it as the most holy orthodoxy, it is not surprising that the poorly educated masses will later on confound everything in the same disapproval. However, it was precisely the abuse that gave rise to the reforms, and those that advocated them are reaping what they sowed.
It is remarkable that ninety percent of the three hundred and sixty something sects that divided Christianity since its origin had the objective of coming closer to the principles of the Gospels, from which it is rational to conclude that if they had not distanced themselves from them, these sects would not have been formed. Which weapons were used? Always by iron, fire, proscriptions, and persecutions. Sad and poor means of convincing! It was in blood that we wanted to suffocate them. In the absence of reasoning, force may overpower individuals, destroy, and disperse them, but it cannot annihilate the idea. That is why we see them reappearing incessantly, with some variants, with other names and other leaders.
The author of this book, as we saw, is in favor of heroic remedies. However, since he is afraid that the idea of burning may lead to “screaming” in our century, declaring “I am not essentially attached to the stake, as long as the error is suppressed in its momentary manifestation and in its continuous manifestation, that is, the man that said it and wrote it and that calls it the truth.” Thus, as long as the man disappears, it does not matter how.
We know that resources are not lacking; the end justifies the means. So much for the manifestation of the moment; but to have the error destroyed in its continuous manifestation, it is necessary to eliminate all the followers that are not willing to surrender willingly. We can see that this takes us far. Moreover, if the means is hard, it is infallible to get rid of any opposition.
Such ideas, in the present century, can only be imports and reminisces of previous existences. As for the lambs bleating freedom, that is an anachronism, a memory of the past. In fact, in the past the lambs could only bleat, but today the lambs became rams; they no longer bleat freedom: they take it.
However, let us see if burning Luther, they would have stopped the movement of which he had been the instigator. The author does not seem to be quite sure about it, since he says: “The world was saved, at least for a century.” A century of respite, that is all that would have been gained! And why? Here is the answer:
If the reformers only expressed their personal opinions, they would reform absolutely nothing at all because they would not find echoes. A man alone is powerless to move the masses if the masses are inert and do not feel any fiber vibrating in them. It is noticeable that the great social renovations never arrive suddenly; like volcanic eruptions, they are preceded by precursor symptoms. The new ideas germinate, boil in many heads; society is agitated by a kind of frisson, that has it in the expectation of something. That is the time when the true reformers arrive, that are then seeing not as a representative of an individual idea, but of a vague, collective idea to which the reformer gives a precise and concrete shape, and he only succeeds because he finds the minds ready to receive it.
That was the position of Luther. But Luther was neither the first nor the only promoter of the reform. Before him there were apostles like John Wycliffe, Jean Huss, Jerome of Prague. The two latter ones were burnt by the order of the Council of Constance; the Hussites were persecuted after a ferocious war, defeated, and massacred. The men were destroyed but not the idea that was later retaken with another form and modified in some details by Luther, Calvino, Zwingli, and others, from what we can conclude that if Luther had been burnt this would not have served any purpose, and not even given a century of break because the idea of reform was not only in Luther’s mind, but in thousands of others, from which men were to emerge, capable of sustaining it. It would have been only one more crime, without benefit to the cause that had provoked it. This is so much true that when a current of ideas crosses the world, nothing can stop it.
By reading those words, one would believe that they were written during the fever of religious wars, and not in times when doctrines are judged with the calm of reason.
[1] Advocating supreme Papal authority in matters of faith and discipline (T.N.)