LOCAL OPTION, THE REFFRENDUM, AND PROHIBITION ETHICALLY AND PRACTICALLY CONSIDERED.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13449, 24 November 1905, Page 10

LOCAL OPTION, THE REFFRENDUM, AND PROHIBITION ETHICALLY AND PRACTICALLY CONSIDERED.

Er A. H. M.wde. J? I*-''1 *-''

VI. The priests of Ancient Rome were willing to have placed the statue of Christ in the Pantheon, amongst the other gods of their mythology, if the Christians would lave consented to this, and worshipped Christ., as one amongst a number of deities; but when they refused and claimed that their God was the only true God, and ail the others false ones, then the priests regarded them as the enemies of all the rest of mankind, and, having the civic power on their side_, commenced tho frightful persecutions of the early Christians. We have no reason to believe these priests to havo been any worse than other men. They simuly, in the usual priestly way, took the shortest methods at their disposal to try and stamp out what they believed, as far as we have any evidence to show, to be a menace to religion and society. Tlk persecutions of the Jews and Protestants in Spain was due to tho same cause—viz,, that, the priests liad tho secular power at their back, and honestly believed that they were serving God and protecting tho morals of the people by means of the Inquisition and the stake. The persecutions of the heretics of all denominations were severe and relentless in Franco and other parts of the Continent whenever tho clergy managed to have the civil power at their disposal. To como nearer home, tho persecutions of the Protestants under Queen Mary—which lighted the fires of Smithfield and Oxfordwere due to the same cause, as also later the shameful and bitter persecution of the Soman Catholics in England and Ireland by the Church of England, when the secular power was responsive to its bigotry and intolerance. The clergy of all denominations, when they had the necessary political power on their side, and took a prominent part in political affairs, have always imported into politics the "odium theoiowicum"—the most rancorous, bitter, intolerant, and cruel of all forms of disagreement in opinion,—which will brook no opposition and allow no freedom con. trary to it.s dictates. This has invariably l-.een the case (and always will be the case) whenever Hie ministers of any form of religion get tho support of the civil power in carrying out their behests, and persecutions oil ail Dissentients and Noneomformists •-no matter in what direction noncomformity may manifest itself, in opposition to the' ideals cherished by the clerical politicians. Almost without exception all these ministers, of all the different forms of belief, were sincere, conscientious, earnest, and weli-meaning men. Laud, who persecuted all who disagreed with his views, and refused obedience to the unjust and tyrannical laws which he advocated, and was determined to enforce, "was a:i exemplary clergyman, according to the High Church school, and liberal in maintaining and helping the poor." We are told by one (by no means an admirer of tho man), who explains that Laud, being a narrow-minded man, suffered from an

" inability to understand his fellowcreatures, and liad a consequent disregard of thoir rights." laud was virtually tli? chief Minister of Charles I. and so had full control of the Kxecutivc. From 1630 lie was actively, but fruitlessly, employed in repressing Puritanism. The means adopted were not only un-Christian, but detestable— cropping the cars, slitiiug tHe nose, brandiiiff the forehead, lines, imprisonments arc not at any time satisfactory methods of defending any system. With all this ha was a man of great lwrninp, and genuine in the. unselfishness of his devotion to the Church. The Preshvterians in the time of Charles 11, in A.n. 1664, led by their ministers, subscribed to the solemn league and covenant, which was Tory comprehensive, its aim being to brintj about a uniformity in religion, church discipline morals, and conduct, in the three kingdoms, not by means of persuasion, teaching, example, or argument, but by the usual clerical "short cut" of compulsion, legislative enactments, and persecution of all who differed from their i tic as o! what was right or wrong' in religion, morals, conduct, or custom in any particular. a nd who might venture to express their dissent by acts of nonconformity. To show how stringent, far-reach-ing. and tyrannical this celebrated solemn league and covenant was I will quote a portion of it, which clearly defines its object, and from which it will be apparent that its comprehensiveness was such that it would include almost any kind of divergence from the covenanter's idea of a proper mode of life and conduct. This covenant, after a preamble, reads as follows: "That wo shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour tho extirpation of popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, profanpiiess. and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound

doctrine and tho power of Godliness, lest wo partake in other men's sins, and thereby bo in danger to receive of their plagues; and that tlto Lord may be one, and Ill's llama ope in the three kingdoms." Such was this famous covenant, and for a lime it was enforced by civil Dains and penalties, Charles II bavins, been induced to sanction it. But by one of the ironies of fat« tho tables were quickly turned upon the. Covenanters, as tho Clerical party on tho other side soon obtained tho support of the civil power, and the persecuting Covenanters became the persecuted. _ From this period' up to the Revolution the terrible and abominable persecutions and sufferings .which tliev endured in Scotland hove so enlisted our sympathies that wo are apt to forget that they were just as ready to persecute all who differed from them if they had retained tho support of the secular power. Now, we have every reason to believe that the clerical politicians 011 both sides were good and conscienlious men, acting, as thev were nrmly convinced, in tlie interests o'f true religion and morals—from their narrow and bigoted point of view. The two covenants still have a place, I believe, in tho volume which comprehends the " Westminster Confession of Faith." Modern toleration is quite at variance with them, and their supporters vigorously opposed tlie acts of Parliament abolishing religious tests on taking civil office and admitting Roman Catholics, Nonconformists, and Jews to Parliament. The more narrow-minded and bigoted of the clergy of tho Church of England wero also violently opposed to Hlieso just and salutary reforms, but both (hey and the Presbyterians were harmless, lacking tho support of the secular power. I will give one moro instance—perhaps tlie mosj. remarkable of all—showing the danger to liberty, the morals, and best interests of tho Slate and people, which has always ensued upon the ministers of religion entering tho political arena and assuming tho role of political leaders in addition to their religious duties, whenever tlicy contrive to get the requisilo support from tho civil authorities. The Puritans, who suffered great hardships for their principles (from Laud mid other reverend bigots), under which tli l "— groaned, left England in largo hers 11' the New World, where they loped to tind that liberty and peace which ivas denied them in (heir own country. They were a band of sincere, conscientious, and deeply religious men, and have been eulogised both in prose and verse as "a band of exiles " brave and " true-hearted "; and such they wore (ill corrupted by their clergy. One would have thought that. men who had experienced the direful effects of intolerance would have been the last to treat others as injuriously— even far moro injuriously—than they themselves had been treated for a difference of opinion and practice. But what, do we find was their conduct towards all who differed from their views. I quote from William C. Bryant, and J, 11. Gay's "History of the United States," vol, 11, page 187, describing the actions of these fleers from oppression and injustice in A.D. 1556 and 1657:- ' Then, with curious shortsightedness, the men, whose historical vista was crowded with images of the pillory, the brandingiron, and the whipping-post, from whose expansive cruelties they had escaped beyond the sea, concluded to repeat the experiment. . . . The ministers, with the Rev. John Norton at their head, persuaded tho magistrates lo pass a law holding the penalty of death over Quakers onco banished." Tho lievs. Cottons-Mather, John Norton, John Cotton, and Nathaniel Ward had laws drawn up which wero carried out by tliern from a.d. 16tl to 1632. "A glance at some of these laws shows the spirit of their rule, and how infallible their belief was, that, tho world could be made perfect if it w?s only governed enough, and governed in absolute accordaucc, nothing beyond it. and nothing short of it with tho Puritanism which they proposed." At page 192, vol. 11, we find "John Norton preached and gave tho magistrates a pieco of his mind, and putting the cases of tho Quakers on tho ground of tho public danger, and the. damnable injury done to the salvation of souls, he so stiffened up the court" that against its better feeling and judgment sentence of death was pronounced on Mary Dyer and two others. "John Wilson, the minister, was also very prominent in his efforts to Itavo tlie executions carried out." All tho three condemned were banged at Boston. "The cases of these persecutions are too numerous to mention singly, and they all have a revolting sameness—Quakers and dissenters wero imprisoned and persecuted in England, but it was only by the Puritans of Massachusetts that they wero hanged." The pillory was in constant use-thc Hogging of men and women (Quakers and all who dissented from the Puritans' ideal in religion or mode of life) went 011 with sickening severity,—and the executions of these non-conformists were frequent on Boston common. As a sort of by-play, these reverend inquisitors occupied their spare time in hunting out, torturing, and burning witches—mostly harmless old women—nil for the glory of God and the preservation of the moral and social purity of the community. "At last," we read, "the people, surfeited with tho bloody persecutions, rose up and took the power from their reverend leaders." Let no one imagine I am opjxxsod either to religion or its ministers—which is very far from the case. I believe that the priests and ministers of almost every form of religion do good service to humanity while they confine themselves to preaching, and inculcating, the eternal principles which ought to regulate human life and conduct—according to their various lights and beliefs,—but when they aspire to be political leaders, then, as all history and experience shows us, they become dangerous firebrands to the body politic, and ought to be resisted by everyone who has ears to hear, or eyes to see, and leant from the universal testimony of this fact, in all ages, since th» first dawn of history. Human nature remains very much the same as it was thousands of years ago, and tlie same causes will be found to produce similar effects, now, to those which they produced at the first, and which have been repeated through all time Tor our instruction i£ we have the wisdom to learn.