« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Observer, Oet. 1, 71.
greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things. If our love be gone, our condition before God is sad indeed. Satan has triumphed. Our spiritual life has been poisoned at its very source. The Lord have mercy upon us. We may put forth great efforts in the Lord's work: we may advertise lectures, and circulate Old Paths till the day of doom : we may practise the strictest morality: we may, in our zeal for truth, lead a crusade against Mormonism, Irvingism, and all Sectarianism: amid reproach and shame we may adhere till the hour of death to our Confession of Faith in the name of Jesus ; but, if below all this there be not pure, simple, genuine love to Christ, it will all go for nothing. Love is the very life of the soul. It is the grand, distinguishing, differential principle of the Christian religion. Without it all we do for God will be dry, cold, formal, mechanical, and powerless, Though we should speak in all the languages of men, and with all the eloquence of angels : though we had the gift of prophecy, and understood all mysteries, and all knowledge : though we had all faith, so that we could remove mountains : though we should bestow all our goods to feed the poor: yea, although, in stubborn adherence to our convictions, we should give our bodies to be burned : it would profit us nothing
· MR. GLADSTONE IN A FIX.
The Government is clearly placed in a difficulty: it has pronounced itself to be in favour of religious equality in the colonies, and it has done something towards its promotion at home; but the misfortune is, that while it is willing to apply the principle, to the fullest extent abroad, it stops short of the application of it at home. The Premier himself is compelled to make this admission, when replying to Mr. Charley in the House of Commons on the 17th ult. Mr. Charley had been reading the West Indian despatches, from which we gave some extracts in our last number. He found therein the remarkable words of Earl Granville to Governor Rawson, “ that the principle of religious equality is inconsistent with, and opposed to, the principle of Establishment." Mr. Charley, very naturally, wanted to know which of these two inconsistent principles Mr. Gladstone intended to carry out. In his reply, Mr. Gladstone spoke as follows :
“The phrase "religious equality' admits of different interpretations. You may say that religious equality prevails conditionally or unconditionally. In a country where there is an Established Church it cannot be said that absolute and abstract religious equality prevails. Notwithstanding that, it can and may be said that a substantial and practical religious equality, at any rate, to a very great extent prevails. Now I see plainly that when my noble friend wrote this despatch, he spoke of the principle of religious equality as applicable to the colonies, where really the principle of an Establishment has never had anything but a very partial and shadowy existence. Moreover, he had before him the great example set by the party to which the hon. and learned member belongs in the case of the island of Jamaica. In that case the principle of religious equulity had been laid down in the most stringent manner in which it is capable of application. That became, I may say, the model case to which the policy of other colonies, and especially of the West Indian colonies, was to conform, and, therefore, adverting to the mode in which it was understood . that the principle of religious equality had been applied to Jamaica, my
Observer, Oct. 1, 71.
noble friend said that the principle of religious equality is inconsistent with, and opposed to, the principle of Establishment.' That has nothing whatever to do with the principle of religious equality as it subsists and is understood at home. If, therefore, the hon. and learned member wishes to know whether we adhere to the terms used by the Foreign Minister, for colonial purposes,
Ι say we do adhere to them. If he wishes to know what principle I, for one, and, I believe, I may speak for my colleagues, intend to act upon with regard to this country, I say that those principles may be gathered from the speeches which we have had an opportunity of delivering in the present session on the motion of my hon. friend the member for Bradford."
The meaning of this is sufficiently plain : it is that Englishmen abroad may have perfect equality, while Englishmen at home must put up with scandalous inequality. We wonder how long Mr. Gladstone thinks this state of things can last !
FACTS ABOUT TITHES.
The following useful summary of tithe history is from a letter from Mr. George Tatham, of Leeds, in the British Friend :
At our last Yearly Meeting the subject of the payment of rent-charge in lieu of tithe was discussed, and deferred until next year.
The question is somewhat complicated, and worthy of efforts for its simplification, in order that it may be understood by our members generally.
Tithe rent-charge being of a like origin and nature, and for the same purposes, differing only in mode of collection, is essentially the same thing as tithes, and may be treated as such.
The history of the system shows-
kind were unknown in the Christian Church.
4. That the first fund was for the use of the poor, and was distributed by deacons and elders.
5. That bishops then got the manageinent, and began to devote a portion to the support of poor
ministers. 6. That then all ministers were paid out of this poor's fund, and large amounts being needed, tenths of the income were recommended, mixed with promises and threats if less was given.
7. That about the year 1000 the poor's fund was determined in fixed proportions, namely :-One quarter to the poor; one quarter to the repairs and building of religious edifices; one quarter to the ministers ; one quarter to the bishops, who at this time provided for the ministers.
8. That when the ministers no longer lived with the bishops in monasteries, &c., the division was made-One-third to the
poor; one-third for repairs, &c., of buildings; one-third for the ininisters.
9. That ministers were supported in ecclesiastical abbeys, &c., and the poor more generally in lay abbeys, &c., and to either of these classes the people contributed as they chose, generally preferring the lay abbeys.
10. That in 1180 Pope Alexander III. forbade the people to make appropriations without the consent of the bishops in whose diocese they lived, and in 1200 Pope Innocent III. enforced by censure that payment be made by each one in his own parish.
Observer, Oct. 1, '91.
11. That until 1274 tithes were only free-will offerings. In this year the council of Lyons decreed it to be no longer lawful to pay tithe where they pleased, but only to Mother Church ; and in 1560 Pius IV., at the Council of Trent, confirmed tithes as due by Divine right.
12. That in 1600, after forty years of censures and excommunications, the right of prescription was set up, and all now went to the clergy.
The same history applies to tithes in England. In 795 Offa, King of Mercia, caused tithes in his own dominions to be due by right, which before were only free-will offerings, in return to the Pope for his pardon of the murder of Ethelbert, King of the East Angles; and in 855 the clergy persuaded Ethelwolf to extend this to the whole of the kingdom, though the poor were still supported, and the option as to the place of payment remained.
Pope Innocent's decree sent to King John ordered every man to pay tithe to those who administered spiritual help in his own parish, and by setting up
ecclesiastical courts, and thundering his interdicts, he frightened both king and people into acquiescence.
An act of Henry VIII. fully confirmed tithes as “due to God and holy Church ;" but he seized the Church property, sold most of it, founded six bishoprics, and bestowed some of the tithes on his favourites-hence the present lay impropriations.
Tithes were given to Papists up to 1538, then to Protestants for fifteen years, until Queen Mary's reign, when the Papists had them again for five years; at Elizabeth's succession, 1558, and for eighty-eight years, they were given to Protesants.
At the Commonwealth they passed to the Presbyterians, and then to the Independents, many thinking they had better have been extinguished altogether.
Charles II. again restored them in 1660, and now for above 200 years they have been paid to Protestant Episcopalian ministers.
În 1836 tithes were commuted to a fixed rent-charge in money.
Government or Parliament has thus exercised an absolute authority in dealing with tithes, applying them to different purposes, introducing new principles, altering the amounts, and abolishing them altogether, and can again exercise a similar authority in any way that may seem best.
Thus tithes may be regarded on the same basis as would be a national poor or other rate, fixed in amount.
Parliament has laid this rate for a certain purpose, and if the need has disappeared, or it be desirable to apply the amount to other objects, Parliament can either extinguish the claim or divert the fund.
LETTER FROM GERMANY. [We take the following from a letter which appears in the Journal and Messenger under the above heading :)
“ An incident scarcely less significant than Victor Emmanuel's entry into Rome has recently occurred in Bavaria. Formerly, the King, all the Court, the Ministers, and other high State functionaries, followed the Corpus Christi procession; this year His Majesty informed the episcopal ordinary that he not only would not take part in the procession in person, but that he would not even be represented. The astonishment of the clergy at receiving this unexpected information can better be imagined than described.
Observer, Oct. 1, '71.
" This withdrawal of the King from such marked ceremonies, and the annulling, thereby, of a custom so prominent in the State's history, is considered by the general public as an event of great importance, and as one calculated to put an end to Catholic sway in the country. The young sovereign is a firm supporter of the anti-infallibilistic movement, and the probabilities are that he will marry a Protestant princess despite the repeated fulminations of his Holiness.
“Serious polemics are now in progress between the Catholic press and the official organs in this city.
“The German Government complained to the Pope of the ill-conduct of Catholic members in the Parliament. In due time the Imperial Chancellor was informed, and simultaneously announced that the Pope and Cardinal Antonelli personally disapproved of the anti-national course taken by the Catholic leaders. The chief of the party, the Bishop of Mayence, contested this announcement by publishing a letter addressed to him by the Cardinal, and in which the Secretary of State denies having ever disapproved of the religious tendencies of the Catholics in the Parliament.
" As you will at once see, this is but a Jesuitical distinction. Bismarck has branded the political attitude of the Catholic members ; Cardinal Antonelli has not disapproved of the good will and efforts of the Catholics for the Papacy.
“ Bismarck is not double-faced, and, if our information be correct, he will soon show these Judas-like gentlemen that it makes no difference whatever to Germany whether Cardinal Antonelli and his master encourage or blame representatives of the nation who forget their German citizenship to constitute themselves allies of the Holy See.
“As for the Prussian Government, it has taken a firm stand against the growing pretensions of the Catholic clergy and the introduction of religious doctrines elaborated at Rome. A professor who had charge of the theological department in the Catholic College of Bruansberg, having failed to conform his teachings to the dogma of infallibility, the Bishop of Ermeland, after having suspended the professor, requested the Government to make him retract his teachings, or at least, to remove him. The Minister of Public Instruction, Her Von Muhler, informed the prelate that he had gone beyond what was in his power to do when he suspended the said professor, and that the Government would sustain him (the professor) in the enjoyment of his office and the exercises of his functions, and that he would not even consent to transferring him to another destination.
“The minister adds, that as religious instruction is obligatory, the Catholic students will not be excused from following the course thereof. The Bishop having tried to support his request by stating that the Braunsberg College was founded by Catholics, Her Von Muhler coolly replied that the foundation of the institution was prior to last year's decree of the Council.
“Two more similar cases have taken place in other parts of the country.
"To be brief, here is an incident which pretty accurately illustrates the present phase of the reformatory movement now progressing in all parts of Europe. A few days since Prof. Zeuger, of the University of Munich, lay at the point of death, and was refused the last sacraments by the orthodox clergy because he would not retract his adhesion to the anti-infallibilistic doctrines of Doellinger. But one of his colleagues, Dr. Frederich, a priest who, like Doellinger, and for the same reason, bas
Observer, Oct. 1, 71.
been excommunicated, administered the last sacraments to the dying prelate and officiated at the funeral on the following day, as if Rome had never breathed a word of disapproval regarding his conduct, and his ecclesiastical rights and privileges had never been touched. An enormous multitude, headed by the burgomaster, and all the notabilities of the capital, attended the obsequies.
“This event, naturally, is making a great stir in the Catholic circles of Germany, and if the opposition to Ultramontanism, of which it is an unmistakeable proof, holds out and develops as it now seems to promise, the infallible resolutions of the infallible Ecumenical Council will infallibly force the infallible church into a schism whose consequences cannot but prove infallibily disastrous."
AUSTRIA AND GERMANY. AUSTRJA has no intention of being left behind in the onward march toward perfect liberty. Among the signs of better days in that once retrogressive empire not the least encouraging is a congress of 2,000 school-teachers recently held at Linz. The governor of the province of upper Austria presided, and announced that the Government continued to be animated by a progressive spirit in educational matters, and that it would never permit retrogression. This struck the key-note of the congress, and was à death-knell to the unreasonable hopes of the clerical party. Yet more emphatic was Herr Hein, of Vienna, who contented that the religious instruction given in day-schools should not touch upon dogmas or differences of creed. It was resolved—(1.) The teaching of religion according to creed is opposed to the fundamental principle of popular education. (2.) Religious education should develop as simply and spiritually as possible the knowledge of the orginal source of existence by means of science and history.. (3.) The teaching of morality should proceed by example as well as by precept. (4.) It being admitted that the teaching of religion and morality is irrespective of creed, the necessity for an ecclesiastical teacher of religion in national schools disappears. And thus Catholic Austria decisively declares against denominational day-school education. The congress at Linz holds that the national, excludes the denominational. We wish Mr. Forster could have been present at this congress. The radical M.P. for Bradford and the son of a Quaker might have learnt what popular education really is from the Governor of Upper Austria. Evidently Mr. Forster would not be tolerated in Vienna. The wonder is that a party, three-fourths or five-sixths of which are Nonconformists, permit him to remain in office as a member of a Liberal Government. Bishop Fraser, too, who thinks that the Church Catechism ought to be taught in Stateaided schools, is not so liberal as Liberal Catholics in Austria. The editor of the Spectator, and even our good friend Dr. Green, of Rawdon College, is not so far advanced in educational matters as Herr Hein and the school teachers of Austria. If England fails to move forward, she will be compelled to follow in the wake of Austria, or to share with the Pope and his Cardinals the questionable distinction of preferring sectarian to national education.
The second Reformation in Germany is making head. Bavaria, long halting between two opinions, has at last declared against Baal and his priests. The King and his Government have intimated to the Archbishop of Munich their determination to protect Dr. Döllinger and his fellow protesters from the pains and penalties denounced against them. Not