"every religion is a getting religion; for though i myself get nothing, i am subordinate to those that do. so you may find a lawyer in the temple that gets little for the present; but he is fitting himself to be in time one of those great ones that do get."—selden's table talk.
"the divine stands wrapt up in his cloud of mysteries, and the amused laity must pay tithes and veneration to be kept in obscurity, grounding their hope of future knowledge on a competent stock of present ignorance."—george farquhar.
religion and priestcraft may not be the same thing in essence. that is a point on which we do not intend to dogmatise, and this is not the opportunity to argue it. but practically religion and priestcraft are the same thing. they are inextricably bound up together,. and they will suffer a common fate. in saying this, however, we must be understood to use the word "religion" in its ordinary sense, as synonymous with theology. religion as non-supernatural, as the idealism of morality, the sovereign bond of collective society, is a matter with which we are not at present concerned.
priestcraft did not invent religion. to believe that it did is the error of an impulsive and uninformed scepticism. but priestcraft developed it, systematised it, enforced it, and perpetuated it. this could not be effected, however, except in alliance with the temporal power; and accordingly, in every country—savage, barbaric, or civilised—the priests and the privileged classes are found in harmony. they have occasional differences, but these are ultimately adjusted. sometimes the priesthood overrules the temporal power, but more frequently the former gives way to the latter; indeed, it is instructive to watch how the course of religion has been so largely determined by political influences. the development of judaism was almost entirely controlled by the political vicissitudes of the hebrews. the political power really decided the great controversy between arianism and athanasianism. politics again, twelve hundred years later, settled the bounds of the reformation, not only for the moment, but for subsequent centuries. where the prince's sword was thrown into the scale, it determined the balance. england, for instance, was non-papal catholic under henry viii., protestant under edward vi., papal-catholic under mary, and protestant again under elizabeth; although every one of these changes, according to the clergy, was dictated by the holy ghost.
priests and the privileged classes must settle their differences in some way, otherwise the people would become too knowing, and too independent. the co-operation of impostor and robber is necessary to the bamboozlement and exploitation of the masses. this co-operation, indeed, is the great secret of the permanence of religion; and its policy is twofold—education and the power of money.
the value of education may be inferred from the frantic efforts of the clergy to build and maintain schools of their own, and to force their doctrines into the schools built and maintained by the state. in this respect there is nothing to choose between church and dissent. the reading of the bible in board schools is a compromise between themselves, lest a worse thing should befall them both. if one section were strong enough to upset the compromise it would do so; in fact, the church party is now attempting this stroke of policy on the london school board, with the avowed object of giving a church color to-the religious teaching of the children. the very same principle was at work in former days, when none but churchmen were admitted to the universities or public positions. it was a splendid means of maintaining the form of religion which was bound up with the monarchy and the aristocracy. learning and influence were, as far as possible, kept on the side of the established faith, which thus became the master of the masters of the people. this is perfectly obvious to the student of history, and freethinkers should lay its lesson to heart. it is only by driving religion entirely out of education, from the humblest school to the proudest college, that we shall ever succeed in breaking the power of priestcraft and freeing the people from the bondage of superstition.
we could write a volume on this theme—the power of education in maintaining religion; but we must be satisfied with the foregoing at present, and turn our attention to the power of money. it is a wise adage that money is the sinews of war. fighting is very largely, often wholly, a question of resources. troops may be ever so brave, generals ever so skilful, but they will be beaten unless they have good rifles and artillery, plenty of ammunition, and an ample commissariat. now the same thing obtains in all warfare. it would be foolish, no less than base, to deny the inspiring efficacy of ideas, the electric force of enthusiasm; but, however highly men may be energised, they cannot act without instruments; and money buys them, whether the instruments be rifles and artillery, or schools, or churches, or any kind of organisation.
given churches with great wealth, as well as control over public education, and it is easy to see that they will be able to perpetuate themselves. endowments are specially valuable. they are rooted, so to speak, in the past, and hold firm. they bear golden fruit to be plucked by the skilful and adventurous. besides, the very age of an endowed institution gives it a venerable ora; and its freedom from the full necessity of "cadging" lends it a certain "respectability"—like that of a man who lives on his means, instead of earning his living.
it is not an extravagant calculation that, in england alone, twenty millions a year are spent on religion. the figures fall glibly from the tongue, but just try to realise them! think first of a thousand, then of a thousand thousand, then of twenty times that. take a single million, and think what its expenditure might do in the shaping of public opinion. a practical friend of ours, a good radical and freethinker, said that he would undertake to create a majority for home rule in england with a million of money; and if he spent it judiciously, we think he might succeed. well then, just imagine, not one million, but twenty millions, spent every year in maintaining and propagating a certain religion. is it not enough, and more than enough, to perpetuate a system which is firmly founded, to begin with, on the education of little children?
here lies the strength of christianity. it is not true, it is not useful. its teachings and pretensions are both seen through by tens of thousands, but the wealth supports it. "without money and without price," is the fraudulent language of the pious prospectus. it would never last on those terms. the money keeps it up. withdraw the money, and the black army would disband, leaving the people free to work out their secular salvation, without the fear and trembling of a foolish faith.
