MR. FROUDE THE HISTORIAN.— SOCIAL REFORM.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3191, 8 October 1867, Page 4

MR. FROUDE THE HISTORIAN.— SOCIAL REFORM.

To th« Editor of th« Dailt Southern Crois. Sib,— l fear this communication is too long. Perhaps you might, however, insert the enclosed extract. You will probably remember that the Rev. Mr. Edger, in a lecture you published some short time ago, stigmatised the Catholic Church, through, its chief rulers, in very violent language as having once been, if it be not now, the very symbol of impiety, tyranny, and sanguinary cruelty. He appealed to Mr. Froude as a witness to the truth and justice of his general denunciation. Either Mr. Froude must have changed his views, or else Mr. Edger has given a very onesided, imperfect, and misleading representation of that eminent historian's sentiments in respect to the character and past social in» fluence of the ancient institution in question. — Yours, &c, J. Wood.

We copy the following remarks, made by the above distinguished gentleman, from the Manchester Examiner and Times : — 44 Never in all history, in ancient or modern times, that the world knew of, bad mankind known out of themselves anything so grand, so useful, so beautiful, as the Catholic Church once waa. la these our times well-regulated selfishness w«s the recognised rule of action— everyone was expected to lookout for himself, and to take care of his own interests. At the time he spoke of, the Church ruled the State with the authority of a conscience, and self-interest as a motive of action was only named to be abhorred. (Cheers.) Wisdom, justice, self denial, nobleness, purity, high-mindedness — those were the qualities before which the freeborn races of Europe had been contented to bow, and in no order of men were such qualities to be found as they were found 600 years ago, in the clergy of the Catholic Church. They called themselves the successors of the Apostles ; they claimed in their Master's name universal spiritual authority ; but they made giod their pretensions by the holiness of their lives. They were allowed to rule because they deserved to rule, and in the fulness of reverence kings and nobles bent^ before a power which was nearer to God thon their own. (Applause.) Over prince and subject — chieftain and serf — a body of unarmed, defenceless men reigned supreme by the influence of sanctity. He did not pretend that the clergy were perfect j they were very far from being perfecb at the best of times ; and the European nations were never completely submissive to them; it would not have been well if they had been. The business of human creatures in this planet was not summed up in the most excellent of priestly catechisms j the ~world and its concerns continued to interest men, though priests insisted on their nothingness. They could not prevent kings from quarrelling with each other j they could not hinder disputed successions, and civil feuds, wars, and political conspiracies j what they did was to shelter the weak from the strong. In the eyes of the clergy, the serf and his lord stood on the common level of sinful humanity. Into their ranki high birth was no passport. They were for the most part children of the people, and the son of the artisan and peasant rose to the mitre and triple crown just as now-a-days the rail-splitter and the tailor became presidents of the Kepublic of the West. . . . After alluding to the extraordinary privileges which the clergy possessed, he glanced at the monasteries as another vast feature of the middle ages, when they were in- < habited by fraternities of men who desired to devote themselves to goodness ; and who, in order the belter to do so, took vows of poverty, that they might not be entangled with the pursuit of money, and of chastity, that they might not be distracted with the cares of a family. Their days were spent in hard bodily labour, in study, or in visiting the sick ; at nitght they were on the stone floors of their chapels, holding np their withered hands to heaven interceding for the poor ■ouls who were suffering in purgatory. The system spread to the farthest limits ofChristendom. The religious houses became places of refuge, where, men of noble birth, kings and

queens, »nd emperor«, and warriors, and statesmen, retired to lay down their splendid cares and end their days in peaoe. Those with whom the world had dealt hardly, and those whom it had surfeited with its unsatisfying pleasures, those who were disappointed with eaith, and those who were filled with passionate aspirations after heaven, alike found a haven of rest in the quiet cloisters. Gradually lands came to them, and wealth, and social dignity— all gratefully extended to men who deserved well of tbeir iellows j while no landlords were more popular than they, for the sanctity of the monks sheltered their dependent" as well as themselves." .