THE RELIGIOUS WORLD.

Evening Star, Issue 14308, 5 March 1910, Page 9

THE RELIGIOUS WORLD.

I A STURDY BISHOP. VALIANTLY DEFENDS POPULAR RIGHTS. ■ Tho Bishop of Hereford lias sent the following loiter to a clergyman in his diocese : —• “ My dear brother, —Yon’ ask mo what I consider tho right course for a clergyman to adopt in the present grave constitutional crisis—whether, for instance, lie should professedly stand aloof, as most of tho bishops did tho other day in the House of Lords, or should nso his influence and register his vote in favor of ono side or tho other, and, it so, which side h:us the higher claim on his allegiance. It may bo more helpful if we consider the points at issue in some detail, being careful to keep tho cardinal facts in view. . . . Tho ono paramount question now at issue is whether tho House of Lords is to be allowed to usurp the power of slopping the annual supplies, thus robbing tho House of Commons of the power of the purse, stopping tho machinery of government, putting an end to a Parliament, and sending His Majesty’s Ministers to the country' whenever it may he pleased to do so. —Freedom at Stake.— “If the people of England submit (o this they aro no longer worthy of their inherited freedom. If this is constitutional, there is an cud of popular government ns wc have hitherto understood it, and we may giveup tho hope of any certain progress in the social welt aro of the masses except by permission of the House of Lords. On this ground alone it is, to my mind, tho plain duty of every ono of us to support tho Government and the House of Commons as the representatives of the people in their -conflict with tho Lords. We shall do a great and enduring national service if wo enable them to resist this at reactionary usurpation, fraught as it is with mischief to tho general well-being should it be allowed to succeed. Two appeals :n particular are being made to its which aro likely to mislead a great many of onr clergy. First, we aro told that wo should vote for no candidate who does not promise to oppose Welsh Disestablishment. But this is to set what is primarily anl almost exclusively a purely Welsh question above tho fundamental liberties and tho social welfare of the whole people, of Great Britain and Ireland. And wo should also hear in mind that tho Welsh have as good a claim as the Irish or the Scotch lo have their ecclesiastical affairs regulated according to (heir own national sentiment. . . . This question ought- not to influence onr votes on this occasion. Tho other appeal which is being pressed upon ns is to the effect that wo should oppose every candidate who will not promise to support tho claims of any parents or groups of parents to have Iheir children taught their own denominational tenets in our elementary schools, such instruction (o ho given by teachers under a test, in school hours, and at tho public cost. —Religion Not in Danger.— “Now, tho only possible icsult of such a claim as ’.his would he toe e.-fahlishment. of a system of secular schools from which the daily Bible lesson given by the teacher would ho excluded, and this would mean that multitudes of children in our great cities would grow up without receiving any regular religious instruction of any kind. Common sense and regard for the wellbeing of the children alike rebel against it. . . . Tho real fact is that religious instruction in our schools is in no danger, except from tho policy of these sectarian fanatics; and the wise man will not listen to them. 'I tuning now for a moment to the provisions of the Budget, which tho House of Lords and their party reject. I find that it is rejected mainly on three grounds—first, because it is a Frcelrade Budget; secondly, because it puts new taxation on urban land, claiming for tho taxpayer a share of Use unearned increment,' which is really duo to tho taxpaying community ; and lastly, because, after long neglect, it exacts something like an adequate rent from tho liquor trade for Hie monopoly given by the Slate. I do not see how'wo clergy can reasonably support any one of (he.-e three objections. All experience shows that, while protective tariffs may increase the profits of the rich, they sink tho working multitudes into a harder lot and deeper poverty. Every vote given for a Tariff Reformer is, in fact, given in favor of the rich capitalist and landlord and against tire poor working man and working woman." In conclusion. Hie bishop defends tho land taxes and tho liquor duties. " I do not see.” bo says, “ how any clergyman can with a good conscience give iris support to lire brewers’ claims.” WESLEY ANS AND THE CHURCH OR ENGLAND. Let nro frankly say that I am by profo’renco a Nonconformist, luit 1 could, without violating conscience, conform to what is essential in tho institutionalism of the Church of England. The late Dr Rigg was accustomed to say that ho could conceive of himself accepting the hospitality of the Established Church : and 1 would follow that great man in such an assertion. Having thus candidly expressed myself as to my angle of vision. Id me with equal candor pioccecl to contemplate ceitain considerations which bear not remotely upon Homo Reunion. First of all, there can he no question of more absorption by the Church of England. This is axiomatic with us. We cannot reason with those who deny I In’s thesis. Wo will say in affectionate sincerity “Tho Lord he with you,” but must also say "Farewell in the Lord” to oil such. Gladly will wo cooperate with such in all wherein they desire our co-operation, hut of r-.ui.ion them can bo no possibility. Reunion must be reunion, and not absorption. Tremendous difficulties stand in the nay, but that those hindrances need bo for ever invincible I cannot imagine. Tho question of ministerial “orders” is, of course, primary and paramount ; no reunion ran be accom-, plifibed till the validity of tho Wesleyan "orders” is acknowledged. . . They would, it seems to mo, bo wise and prudent’ who did not press such a question as rcordination. It would bo asking much of ono side. Would tho other side bo likely to ask proportionately much? I have gone further in this than many of my dear brethren would go, simply because T foci that all ibo possibilities of the discussion ought to ho faced. But I repeat my complete persuasion that no reunion is conceivable except on the mutual recognition of our Wesleyan ministerial "orders.” If this woio generally conceded, other considerations, though all grave, would not, 1 think, he so insuperable.—The Rev. Hinsdale T. Young, in the ‘Churchman.’ THE SALVATION ARMY. The ‘Salvation Army Year Rook’ for 1910 contains Hie following;—“ The succession to the position of the General is not in any shape or form hereditary, nor is it intended ever to ho so. Every .successive General will ho under tho most solemn obligation to select that officer to succeed him whom he considers best adapted to till so important a position. By a further provision a high council of the Army is constituted, providing means for removing from his position as General of the Salvation Army any General committing a breach of trust, and also for the selection of a General if. through failure to appoint or from any other cause, there should at any time in'fact he no General.” • Tho publication is announccd-oi a Papal decree under tho title of “ De Episcopis,” which grants important civil and religious powers to Roman Catholic Bishops throughout the world, including the right to settle all questions relating to the marriage of Catholics without reference to tho Pope. —Central News.