Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XX, Issue 19, 26 February 1892, Page 1

Current Topics

AT HOME AND ABROAD.

BOW AND ITS EXPLANATION,

Thebk has been a row in the Anglican Synod at Wellington. What it waa all about we do not clearly understand, nor do we suppose it greatly imports that we should understand it. But, owing to some slight which bad been offered, or which they believed bad been offered, by the Primate to one of their members, the Dunedin clergy headed by their Bishop marched out of the hall. We conclude that, like the King of France and 40,000 men, they afterwards marched back again, and that they finally made it all up between them. But, in any caße, the matter occasioned much interest, and we learn that visitors to the Synod, who before had been few and indifferent became afterwards numerous and most attentive. It appears, however, that a row in an Anglican Synod is a most excellent thing — a note of Catholicity and a sign of life. So much we learn from a couple of sermons preached on the subject in two of the Wellington churches by the Bight Rev Dr Julius. We do not, however, see the consistency with which Dr Julius rebuked the people for crowding the Synod ball to witness a strife which he hiinsel? found so edifying, and, in every way, so wholesome. Dr Julius, for example, found in the Synod at Wellington an exact counterpart of the first synod of Jerusalem. The Wellcgton paper, by ihe way, from which we quote, assigns the date of that synod as the year of grace 1848— owing to a slip of the intelligent compositor, as we muat traditionally conclude, though if the reporter, and even the editor, were implicated as well, we could for obvious reasons, easily hold them excusable. Here are the memorable words of Dr Julius as we find them reported :—": — " Was the Synod of 1848 one wbit better than the General Synod of New Zealand in 1892 ? In that day the Church was as narrow as a Jewish Beet. A new fact was forcing itself upon iti members — the fact that Christ was not merely the Saviour of the Jews but the Saviour of humanity — and they could not readily take it in. So there were fierce battles and strife in the Synod at Jerusalem. There were heated debates, mutual recriminations — perhaps there was even a President losing bis temper, and Beveral men equally ready to avoid all compromise and insist upon having their own way. Truly they were very like us in this year of 1892." Is not that beautiful in its simplicity 1 Verily, it would be bard to add to its beauties by adding or subtracting a single word. We, therefore, leave it severely alone. But, according to Dr Julius, the whole progress of the early Church was one continuous fight and the early fathers were a Berious impediment in the path, in spite of which the Church grew. The Latrocinium, in fact, is the assembly which the Bishop accepts as typical of progress and life. "There was heat," he says, " because, there was friction ; there was friction because there was movement ; and there was movement because there was life." Let us accept the Latrocinium, therefore, in which heat, friction, movement, and consequently life, culminated, as the prototype of the Synod at Wellington. Nor in doing so are we out of harmony with the tenour of Dr Julius's claims. His Lordship's own comparisons are quite as darin?. Take, for example, that he makes in proving a point brought forward by him, to the effect that everything worthless is eventually swept away by a law of God. "What else," he asks," were the Moslem revolution, the Reformation, and the wars of the great Napoleon than the sweeping away of worthless rubbish from God's earth ? " Truly we do not often find a Protestant divine bracketing the Reformation in a proper place. Our admiration for Dr Julius's frankness forbids our further examination of his argument. Dr Julias makes another remarkable comparison, in which he likens the growth of the Church to the building of Solomon's temple. There waa no noise, he reminds us, heard on the ■ite of the temple, bnt in the quarries and forests, he assumes, perhapi doing infinite injustice to the workingmen of that ancient period, there was " plenty of din, confusion, and bitterness." This he contrasts with what he calls " the silent growth of the Christian Cburch, in Bpite of all the turmoil, vexation, and Bquabbling in little corners here and there." But it was not only in little corners here and there that

they squabbled at the foundation and duriug the growth of the Church of England. The whole kingdom was fall of turmoil and plunder and bloodshed, and bitterness prevailed throughout the land. It need little surprise us if the councils of a Church ao founded and fostered were every one of them conducted as was the Council of Bobbers. But, we say again, the Bishop's rebuke of the Anglican community at Wellington was hardly consistent. If strife and wrangling be the index of so much that is hopeful and edifying in the condition of the Church why should it not be profitable, as well 88 pleasing, to the people to witness it, and more especially if thete things be the necessary accompaniments, as the Bishop tells us they are, of a fresh revelation now taking place ? Surely the people may be allowed to observe the methods and witness the phenomena to that by-and-bye their arrival at strange and unexpected results may startle them the less. A fresh revelation is a stupendous event and should not be permitted to creep unnoticed upon the world. Consis. tency, nevertheless, is a restraining inflaence which perhaps we have no right to expect in divines who adapt the principle of private interpretation also to ecclesiastical history, aud invent its facts and expliin its meaning as suits their needs. The row in the Synod hai been of no particular interest to us. Dr Julius's sermons in explanaof it, however, must interest every one.

Post 7u>c ergo propter hoc.

Sib Robert Stout has written an article in tha Melbourne Age, in which, to adapt an old saying, more in pity than in anger, he argues from the decrease of crime in favour of the superior excellence of the godless Echools. Sir Robert is by no meanß sorry. Ue is jubilant and very glad. He brings forward figures to show that, since the year 1878, in which complete godlessuess entered upon the scene, the percentage of serious crimes has fallen by more than one-half, and he claims credit for the secular schools because such iB the c "Se. People, nevertheless, who denounce codlessness and declare it to be, what it actually is, a nursery of evil and a hot-bed of corruption, do not base their calculations altogether on the number of convicted criminals. The admission dateß at least from Latin philosophy, that learning improves manners, so far as to prevent their rougher developments. But there are forms of wickness and even of crime that do not necessarily make their way into the police-coart, although they still strike at and undermine the foundations of society. Tne research might prove unsavoury, or we could easily give more than one example, As to the great decrease of serious crime, moreover, to which Sir Robert Stout so jubilantly points, is it not somewhat remarkable that it has been an accompaniment of more depressed times, in which there was less money available to be spent in drunkenness and dissipation ? We do not, at the same time, l<->se sight of the well-known fact that extreme poverty is an incentive to crime. Ot one crime, again, wnich most of us will recognise as serious, that is suicide, no record is found in the criminal atatistics. Has Secularism done anything to lessen the number or gravity of such cases ? Sir Robert kindly makes excuse for Irish colonists whose reputation he finds it necessary especially to immolate to his idol. '• It will be observed," he says " that of foreign born people Irtlacd Btiows by far the most." "I believe," he adds, " the hot, excitable Celtic temperament may count for much in this connection, but the lack of education is also not to be overlooked, nor is the misgovernment of Ireland." What Sir Robert Stout does overlook ie the exceeding unfairness of thecompaiison he makes. He compares the foreign-born Iris 1 with tbe fureigu-born English and Scotch— that is, the lower with the upper classes of the Colony — reckoning rank, as the habit in these quarters is, by a monetary standard. Take away your rich and comfortable elements, your plutocratic and fashionable classes, and compaie the Irish with the English or Scotch immigrant m equal circumstances, and see if the sinister proportion still remains with him. At home,sofai as comparative statistics are concerned, the Irishman holda an honourable place. Abroad that place is wrested from him by unequal comparisons, such as that which Bir Robert Stout now makes tor New Zealand. And how, by the way, on Btrictly secular principles, aoes bir Robert Stout account for the decrease, quoted by him, in the number of Roman Ciithohcs among convicted prisoners? In 1886, according to bis figures, they numbered 34.39 per cent, in 1890 their percentage had fallen to 30.94.

Was this also a consequence of secularism ? Sir Robert, nevertheless, repudiates the belief that religion is a cause of crime. Tha', he declares, no fair-minded person ever says. " There is no doubt," he adds, " that it tends to help right living." But how, bnch being his belief, can he consistently argue that the exclusion of religious teaching from the education of children has been attended by good moral results? The Age, meantime, in which Sir Bobert'a article appears alludes to the state of things which exists in New South Wales, where crime has increased, as illustrating the futile results of adulterating Secularism with patches of religious instruction in the public schools. This, however, is not an accusation that we are concerned to disprove- as we have always seen and denounced the vanity of attempting to mak« the combination in question, Whether the admission made by the Age respecting the condition of New South Wales will help to fulfil the hope expressed by Sir Robert Stout that the same comparison as that made by him for New Zealand may be made for other colonies, we cannot tell ; — but, were he to prosecute his search with a desire of discovering the truth rather than of making a point in support of a system by whicb, notwithstanding his rather inconsistent admission that religion tends to help right living, he is bent on destroying religion, he would undoubtedly arrive at different results from those he now seeks to establish. Finally, who those religious people may be whom Sir Robert Stout charges with wishing the State, as he puts it, " either to teach or to pay for teaching religion," we do not know. Catholics, for their part, wish to do their religious teaching themselves, and would no more accept payment from the State for doing it than they would permit the State to do it f .ir them. All they claim is, that the State should not impose penalties on them, as it now does, for acting in this matter as their consciences demand. We may add, by way of a post-script, that, even were it admitted, as Sir Robert Stout asserts it should be, that the Secular Education Act had resulted in decreasing the ruder and more violent forms of vice and wickedness in New Zealand— as similar measures certainly have not resulted elsewhere,— anything must necessarily be recorded in favour of godlessness. Its effect in ameliorating the general morals of society would still remain to be proved. There are methods by which a world may perish besides those of murder or robbery— and to the employment of those methods Secular* ism contributes. It may be true, as the ancients held, that the cultivation of the intellect softens manners— but, as we all know, softness oE manners may exist together with no small degree of vice may indeed be the parent and nurse of vice.

ANOTHER POSTSCRIPT.

Saturday evening's issue of the Dunedin Globe, which quotes from the Age Sir Robert Stout's article, gives aa also, probably as an unintentional coincicidonce, the following paragraph :—": — " A boy aged 14 has been sentenced to six hours' imprisonment at Wellington for using obscene language. The convicting Magistrate pointed out that he had rendered himself liable to 12 months' imprisonment. Could not the local police arrest one or two of the Duardin youths addicted to the same immoral habit, and thus assist to put dowu a growing evil? '< — Sir Robert Stoat, we conclude, has seen ihia paragraph. la it not rather a propos, we would ask him, and somewhat sugges'ivef

A GLIMPSE AT BABE.L.

The re'igious returns contained in (he census of the Colony are of considerable interest. The number of Catholics necessarily corcerns us most, and we rind lhat it is somethmg more than one-seventh of the population— the total number being 626,658, and that of the Roman Catholics 85 856. To this, perhaps, we may add the majority, if not the whole, c f the people entered as " Catholic (undc fined) ' and who number 1 416. In any case, >s we have sud, i\ c Catholics ! of the Colony constitute something more than a seventh of the population. The chief feaiure that otherwise strikes us in the returns alluded to is the large and motley collection of denominations mentioned. Every chief divition h.is its stcts, ar.d there are endless sects besides. We have, for example, six different kinds of Presbyterians — how distinguished otherwise than by their various names we cannot tell. Wha*. for example, ie the diff renre between a free Presbyterian and a Presbyterian undefined .' Or by what method of comparison are right conclusions to bs arrived at. Perhaps the case is one in which comparisons are odi us ? Of M?thodists also we have a " charmin? variety," Weslejan Methodist*, Methodists undefined, Primitive Methodists, United Methoriift Freu Churches, Free Methodists, United Methodists. What, by the way, has bicome of our old friends the Baners? Or do they no where erect their stump in New Z aland? Some of t hj se"ts see n Bp;s»re9hive in the titles chosen by them, and some again i-oem charitable. That, for example, wh'ch calls itself the " Cbmtiau Chuicb of EnpUnd," evidently implies by its name that the other Church of England is not Christinn. On the other band, a Beet describing itself as Evangelical Christian?, would seem to admit that there m»y be Chri - Hans who are cot Evangelical. The admission, nevertheless, we confess, may only b 3 in appearance, and moßt probably is so. Possibly we may come to the same conclusion with regard to those who call thenjeelves " Bible Christians." Or do they really acknow-

lege that there are Christians who ha c no association with the Bible ? We hay* brethren who evidautly do not agree that it ia an excellent thing to dwell together in nnity, Christian Brethren — no connection , we may remark in passing, with the Christian Brothers — Exclusive Brethren, Open Brethren, Plymouth Brethren, Evangelical Brethren

— brothers alone within their own narrow and separate confines. Of what avail, however, is to pursue the Hat ? Here are simply the fruits of private interpretation, of the principle of disunion, which, once accepted, mast necessarily fill the world with variance and confusion. Bat even tbis long list of sects, beginning with the more refined but rather frigid Anglican and terminating, so far as religious Pro * testantism is concerned, with| the Latter Day Saint, does not reveal a tithe of the differences th»t must and do prevail in sects where every individual is his own supreme authority and the claim of each is allowed to form conclusions for himself. In fact, the Protestant sects may be numbered by the numbers of Protestant individuals. Besides what these returns tell us as to the number of Gatholios in the Colony, their chief importance to us is the manner in which they lemind us of the mischief worked by the prt sumptuous and sacrilegious pretenders who, soma three centuries and three-quarters ago, undertook to reform the Catholic Church.

" BU QUI B'AVA.NCB."

The prospects of the fair sex are decidedly improving. Spiritually as well as politically they bid fair to advance with the times. The late discussion in the Anglican Synod at Wellington was decidedly in their favour, although the final question as to their admission to the franchise has been postponed. The Primate, indeed, expressed himself strongly against taem, and even went so far as to declare that, if tho point was carried, he would resign and clear out on the spot. Bat then we do not know that the Piirnate's influence goes for much , We do not expect, iadeed, however exuberant tne signs of life in hit Church may become, that we shall ever see bis Lordsbip suffer, for example, the fate that overtook Flavian at Ephesus, but we shall be surprised if he does much in the way of ruling the roost. The coast is pretty clear, then, for the advance of the ladies, and do doubt they will know how to use their opportunity. There seemed to be some suspicion that St Paul had something to say adverse in its effect, bat St Paul was easily disposed of. What would be the good of private interpretation, in fact, if that could not be done ? " There's where Paul and I differ." The old cant was an excellent motto for the occasion, and was completely utilised. Sir John Hall argued that St Paul's words did not apply to the present condition of things, and why should the words of any of the Apostles do so when it is not convenient f The Rev R. Coffey said that St Paul's prohibition was "simply addressed to the temporary needs and prejudices of his day." The Bishop of Waiapu was still happier in the point made by him , " He scouted the idea that St Panl was aa enemy of women's right, pointing out that the great Apostle had said, ' In Chiist Jesus there is neither male nor female, bond nor free.' " Is not her Ladyship the Bißhop almost visible to the naked eye ? There is neither male nor female. What office, then, is unattainiDle to the sex ? For our own part wo have never doub'ed that the Anglican mitre would sit as gracefully on the woman's head as on tbat of the man. Who, indeed, possessed of a spark of gallantry or even of just appreciation, could do so? And why in a Church established by a woman, and of which a woman, as her successor, is now the supreme head, women should not exercise the episcopate, it might be difficult to say. It would be a lesser advantage, but still an advantage, that the vexed question of ecclesiastical vestments could easily be settled. The bishop, for instance, could elways appear not only in her apron, but also in her mitre. As we see in p irtraits of her Most Gracious Majesty the Royal crown in miniature adorning her head-dress, so the mitre might be adapted by her ladyship. A thousand pretty little devices might alao be thought of by means of which her ladyship could likewise bear about her person, en evidence, the cope, the pastoral staff, and all the rest. " There is neither male nor female." This abolition of the barriers that divide the sexes, opens before us endless possibilities of which we may be convinced the sex enfranchised will be able most fully to avail themselves. Will they, indeed, under the circumstances, be content merely to vote at parish meetings ? "Not for Jjsepo, if he knows it." TLe Church of England as well as thefiir sex, is decidedly advancing with the times.