ictions that the dogmas are radically absurd and immoral, or
that the whole claim to authority is opposed to all rational progress.
In the Manning articles he ends by accepting the issue as between the
secular view and the claims of a priesthood to authority. In the last
resort it is a question whether State or Church shall rule. He prefers
the State, because it has more rational aims, uses more appropriate
means, has abler rulers, produces verifiable results, and has generally
'less nonsense about it.' The clergy are 'male old maids'; often very
clever, charitable, and of good intentions, but totally devoid of real
wisdom or force of mind or character, and capable on occasions of any
amount of spite, falsehood, and 'gentle cruelty.' It is impossible to
accept the claims of the priesthood to supernatural authority. If
ultimately a division has to be made, human reason will have to decide
in what shape the legal sanction, 'or, in other words, disciplined and
systematic physical force,' shall be used. We shall then come to the
_ultima ratio_, after all compromises have been tried. There may be an
inevitable conflict. The permanent principles of nature and society,
which are beyond all laws, will decide the issue. But Manning's is a
mere quack remedy.

This represents one aspect of Fitzjames's character. The struggle which
is going on is a struggle between priest and layman, mysticism and
common sense, claims to supernatural authority and clear downright
reasoning from experience, and upon all grounds of theory and practice
he is unequivocally on the side of reason. I need only add a remark or
two. In the first place, I think that he never materially altered this
position, but he was rather less inclined after a time to take up the
cudgels. He never lost a conviction of the importance of his 'sanction.'
He always held to the necessity of some kind of religious belief,
although the precise dogma to be maintained became rather more shadowy.
But, as the discussion went on, he saw that in practice his own
standing-ground was becoming weaker. The tendency of men who were
philosophically on his own side was to regard the whole doctrine of a
future life as not only beyond proof but beyond all legitimate
speculation. Hence he felt the force of the dilemma to which he was
exposed. A genuine religion, as he says in a remarkable letter, must be
founded, like all knowledge, on facts. Now the religions which include a
theology rest on