Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 9 November 1911, Page 2241

Current Topics

The Outlook 'and Father Benson Apropos of our remarks under this heading a fortnight ago, our Presbyterian contemporary says: 'We most willingly and cheerfully apologise if we have unwittingly ascribed to Father Benson anything which is not warranted.' But he is not quite sure that he has offended.... altogether to that degree, because he finds something in an article in the London Nation which—very faintly and distantlysuggests a confirmation of the Outlook's misrepresentation ' of Father Benson's attitude. To which we reply: (1) The Nation is notoriously and rabidly anti-Catholic; and the way in which it twists and misstates the meaning of the Catholic authors whom it reviews, has formed the subject of vigorous comment on the part of our English Catholic contemporaries. (2) Even the Nation nowhere suggests that Father Benson ' advocates the death- penalty as a punishment for heresy.' And (3) Even if it did, the Nation's suggestion would avail nothing as against the plain words of Father Benson himself, in which he expressly condemns the infliction of that penalty as ' so unhappy a policy.' Under the circumstances, our contemporary may safely give full rein to his better instincts, and make his apology quite without qualification . The 'Children's Encyclopaedia' We find, on glancing through this publication, that there is little for us to say, except to entirely endorse the verdict expressed in such weighty and measured terms in the letter from Father Gondringer, published in our last week's issue. The idea and general plan of the work are excellent: and, apart from the anti-Catholic bias so strongly and so frequently displayed, the conception has been admirably carried out. With this element eliminated, we could unreservedly and enthusiastically commend the publication: while this blemish remains, neither Catholic press nor Catholic priest can do other than condemn the work. The proof of the anti-Catholic bias which characterises the book has been drawn out with unanswerable completeness by our correspondent. As indicated by him, the worst offender in the list, of contributors is that grandiloquent phrase-maker, Mr. Harold Begbie. His article, ' The Story of Our Bible,' is literally stuffed with passages like the following: ' John Wyclif, who was born in Yorkshire, when the priests tried to keep the Bible from the people, sent out poor men to preach the story of Jesus. Wyclif was the first man to turn the eyes of the people from the Pope to the beautiful figure of Jesus Christ, and rich and poor gathered to listen.' 'Long ago, when the priests tried to keep the Bible from the people, and when the Bible was only printed in a foreign language, brave William Tyndale wrote the Bible in English so that all might read it.' ' Bibles can now be bought and read everywhere. But think what it must have been for England to hear the Bible for the first time! It was the strangest and most lovely music ever heard on English soil.' It would be difficult to imagine anything more outrageously false or more wildly extravagant. It is not that Catholics* object to the facts of history, so long as they are facts; and it may be readily conceded, that an article on the English Bible which made no reference to Wyclif and to .Tyndale would so far be incomplete. All that is contended for is that the statement of facts should be reasonably accurate, dispassionate, and fair; and, as has been shown by Father Gondringer, a number of the Children's Encyclopaedia articles fail to fulfil any one of these conditions. * With regard to the majority of the articles referred to, we agree with Father Gondringer that 'on the whole, if the work were put into the hands of Catholic experts, it would not require any superhuman skill or energy to make it acceptable to Catholic readers.' But we must except" from this statement the contribution of Mr. Harold Begbie, That gentleman, it may be ad-

mitted, has a certain literary gift and genius as a coiner of phrases but, for the most part, he is not so much a solid writer as a mere showy rhetorician. He is without any sense of balance or proportion and whatever subject or incident he happens to be dealing with at the time is always (to him) absolutely the most tremendous that ever was. He reminds one of the great American lawyer, Rufus Choate, of whom it was said that he could be as pathetic as the grand lamentations in ' Samson Agonistes' over the obstructions of fishways, and could rise into the cathedral music of the universe on the right to manufacture india-rubber suspenders. In addition to this imaginative lop-sidedness, Mr. Begbie is as unfitted, by personal bias, to write with reasonable fairness and detachment on Catholic questions, as would be, say, the Rev. Dr. Horton or Mr. Joseph Hocking. It was, if we remember rightly, Josh Billings who remarked that the only way to make an old mattrass good again was to ' boil it three times in aqua fortis, then heave it away and get a new one.' Some such method of treatment will have to be applied to ' The Story of Our Bible' before it can be made wholesome. With this topic placed in entirely fresh hands, and with certain other historical articles subjected to careful pruning and review, the Children's Encyclopaedia could be brought out in a form which Catholic schools and Catholic households would be not only willing but anxious to avail themselves of, and which would at the same time materially improve the. standing of the publication from a scholarly and historical point of view. But so long as the present blemishes remain, and grave mis-statements and inaccuracies are allowed to disfigure its pages, Catholic children could not be permitted to touch it with the proverbial pole. Another Tract We have received from a Westport correspondent a closely-printed leaflet publication entitled Where are the Dead, which, our correspondent tells us has been sent through the post to him, and to several other Catholics in the district. It is issued, so the title-page informs us, by the ' Brookly Tabernacle People's Pulpit —Formerly the Plymouth Bethel,' of Melbourne. It states, in its own words and fashion, the reply to the above question alleged to be given by agnosticism, heathenism, Catholicism, and Protestantism; and then shows, to its complete satisfaction, that of all the millions of both heathendom and Christendom, the Plymouth Bethel' alone has the true answer. In point of self-complacency and ' guid conceit o' themselves' the Three Tailors of Tooley Street are not in it with the ' Plymouth Bethel.' They are the people, and when they die, wisdom will die with them. Their presentation of the doctrine of purgatory is taken chiefly from Dante's Inferno; and even Dore's illustrations— described in the following passage from the preachment are solemnly put forward as official Catholic teaching on the subject. The illustrations,' says our brother of the Tabernacle, show the torments of purgatory vividly—how the demons chase some until they leap over the precipices into boiling water. They ply others with fiery darts. Others are burned with heads downward; others with feet downward in pits. Some are bitten by serpents. Still others are frozen, etc.' And then, with a sort of ponderous earnestness, he exhorts his readers to get a copy of the poem, bidding them, in particular, to be sure and get the illustrations. The references to the Catholic Church are not specially offensive—he even tries, in a heavy, long-eared kind of way, to be politeand the whole production will evoke from intelligent Catholics nothing more than a pitying smile. * The object of the leaflet is to establish, by a professed appeal to Scripture, the doctrine of conditional immortality— doctrine, that is, that the ' converted ' go to Heaven, but that the souls that die in unrepented sin are simply annihilated. According to this theory, there is to be no opportunity in a future state for the rectification of the inequalities and injustices of this life : and the murderer, the seducer, the sweater, the moral cancer-planter, the corrupter of youth, all, when their

time comes to depart, merely dieafter having had, in many cases, an exceedingly pleasant time of it during: their earthly course. In* support of his doctrine, the 'Plymouth Bethel' representative quotes a large number of verses from Scripture having only a very indirect bearing on the subject—but the two most definite and explicit texts in the whole Bible, uttered by our Lord Himself, he carefully side-steps. The first is Matt, xii., 32, where we are told that 'he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him. neither in this world, nor in the world to conic' The other is Matt, xxv., 41, 'Then shall He say to them also that shall be on His left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire.' We may believe, with some theologians, that the number of the lost will be relatively small, or with other theologians, that it will be relatively great, but these solemn words, uttered by the gentlest lips that ever spoke, cannot be explained away. - The ' Tabernacle' tract-maker, professing to set forth the whole 'testimony of God's Word on this subject, was careful to avoid all mention of these two texts. He left them unanswered, because they are unanswerable. We have no intention of discussing the doctrine of ' conditional immortality ' in any detail—it would be of little interest to our Catholic readers, who know what they believe and why they believe it. We content ourselves with merely suggesting to our Tabernacle brethren that they would be spending their time and energy to much better purpose if, instead of pestering their Catholic neighbors with publications through the post, they devoted it to the objects for which, as a sect,, they were originally established. The 'Plymouth Brethren,' founded about 1830, 'originally stood for a protest against the divisions of Protestantism, and sought to establish a platform on which persons of all denominations might meet.' Let the representatives of the ' Plymouth Bethel' in Westport, leaving their Catholic neighbors alone, start in to heal the divisions between themselves and the nearest other Protestant Bethel that comes in their way. When they are through with that piece of work, it will be time tc go to bed. A Bishop Rebuffed The Right Rev. Dr. Elliott, Anglican Bishop.of Kilmore, is a sort of interesting survival being, as he is, .one of the few remaining representatives of the old ascendancy spirit, which regarded Ireland as strictly an English preserve, and which looked upon the Irish as being made of a different and quite inferior clay to their English 'masters.' The trend and tenor of this antiquated prelate's annual anti-Irish tirade given as president of his synod— become so familiar that the deliverances are looked upon as a mere matter of course, and are for the most part ' taken as read.' In the oration for 1911, however, Dr. Elliott was more than usually vehement and abusive; and when he attempted to have his obsolete notions crystallized into a motion against Home Rule, he brought on himself the • rebuff which his foolishness undoubtedly merited. ' We take our report of the facts from the Irish Independent of September 14 and 15, which an Irish reader has been good enough to forward to us. The Most Rev. Dr. Elliott, wo learn, addressing the Protestant Synod of Kilmore, at Boyle, on September 13, spoke in terms of vehement hostility to the claims of Ireland to Home Rule, and urged the Unionist leaders to be alive to the importance of the crisis which, he said, had now arisen. ' For more than a generation,' said his Lordship, 'we have been.the victims of a senseless agitation, \: which our rulers chose to foster for Party purposes, rather than repress by just and fair government! Chances of war prevail in politics as well as in the shock of armed men. Such a chance has now occurred, which puts it in the power of a disreputable, disloyal, and unprincipled faction to give support to the side most "willing to comply with their demands.' The impending change, he continued, would be to Irish Unionists the ruin of their hopes,, the paralysing of their energies, for "it means oppression in various forms, and to some" it may mean moral contamination or exile from, their native land." He reproached English Nonconformists

with bringing ' this misfortune ' —' if it happens '; with, much more to the like effect. When, however, the attempt was made to foist this fossilised foolishness oh to the Synod in the shape of a motion expressing 'grave apprehension' at the prospect of Home Rule, half of the members flatly refused to give any countenance to the proposal, the voting being 14 for, and a like number against the' resolution. The opposition was, indeed, so vigorous and weighty, that Dr. Elliott himself, making a virtue out of a necessity, agreed to let the matter drop. The spectacle of a Protestant'Synod flouting its bishop on such a question, is deeply significant; and affords fresh evidence of the fact that the Protestants of the North are learning to think for themselves, and to see in what direction their true interest as Irish citizens undoubtedly lies. * The one thing in Dr. Elliott Y address which does call for commendation -and approval, is his word of advice to the arm-chair warriors who prate about • civil war.' ' I cannot approve,' he is reported as saying, ■ of that armed resistance latelv recommended to " the people in the North of Ireland. I think those giving that advice, if it be adopted, will have much to answer for. The Nationalists in Parliament declared that they would advocate armed rebellion to obtain Home Rule, only that the attempt would be hopeless. I .'could understand the Unionist leaders saying the same thing as to physical resistance on our part, for such an attempt would simply be insane. Irish loyalists would be opposed by three forcesthe Nationalists, the antiBritish Americans, who would swarm into the country, and by an English army. For can anyone doubt that the heterogeneous Legislature that imposes Home Rule upon us would hesitate to employ the forces of the Empire to make that imposture a success. I sincerely pray that due consideration may avert such rashness on the part of our friends. To attempt it would be to multiply our widows and orphans, to turn Ireland's Northern province into a wilderness in which "Ulster would be like Rachel weeping for her children.' There is, of course, a great deal of rhetorical nonsense in the above. The ' civil war ' talk is a joke ; and the ' Triple Alliance' hinted at is no more likely to materialise than are the German arms of which we have heard so much. But if the subject is to be taken seriously—as Dr. Elliott insists on doing—at least it is desirable that the advice given should be sensible, and on the right side. Science and the Sou! 'Tell me,' said Napoleon to his doctor on one occasion, you have searched the human frame in all its windings, have you ever met with the soul under your scalpel?' The great Frenchman was not expressing doubt as to the existence of that' immortal part of man, but rather meant to suggest that there were elements in human personality that were beyond the reach of the crucible and the dissecting knife. Masters of physiology today, however, are being forced to acknowledge the existence of the souland of a force or power outside the purely physical realm—even by what they see under their scalpel. One of 'the most memorable addresses given at the annual meeting of the. British Medical .Association, held early in September, was that by -Professor J. S. MacDonald, president of the Physiological Section It was on ' The Eye, Ear, and Mind,' and the conclusions he deduced from his studies as a physiologist compelled him to use the word 'soul,' because it alone described the phenomena observed. He showed first that the eye of man, as perfect an optical instrument as could be designed, can only have been made by 'some externals agency cognisant of all the properties of light. Starting from this study of the eye, ; which is formed before birth, he showed . that similar arguments applied not less forcibly to the brain and mind of man. Its movements and will power suggested that the brain was mysteriously affected by invisible and untraceable 'harmonies.' The influence was, in short, a souland the professor frankly and openly adopted the expression. -

Here are his exact words There was no doubt that the eyeball was developed into a very perfect optical instrument in the absence of light, and they must ask " What is the force that in this case imitates the action of light?" Some force must be held as arranging the several parts of the eyeball in front of the developing retina, and it was probable that before discovering it they would have to refer to the properties of the retina for an answer. Mind in man was associated with the brain. . . There was also the point that even in the case of the brain such phenomena as sleep and deep anaesthesia familiarise us with the fact that the mind was not necessarily always associated with the brain, but only with this when in a certain condition. Now, there was no scientific evidence to support or to rebut the statement that the brain was possibly affected by influences other than, those which reached it by the definite paths proceeding from the sense-organs and from the different receptive surfaces of the body. It was still possible that the brain was an instrument traversed freely as the ear by sound, by an unknown influence which found resonance within it. Possibly, indeed, the mind was a complex of such resonances; music for which the brain was no more than the instrument, individual because the music of a single harp, rational because of the orderly structure of the harp. Consider such a possibility, and the analogy which he had prepared in dealing with the eyeball was seen to have some meaning, inasmuch as an instrument shaped in the embryo by a certain set of conditions might in due course of time become the play of some new influence which had taken no immediate part in fashioning it. He would net dwell upon the point behind this statement except to say that he found it difficult to refrain from using the word "soul." * =-■ Professor MacDonald's reference to the existence of ' some external agency ' is only an echo and a confirmation of an equally memorable utterance made by a former president of the Association. In Sir William Crookes' presidential address delivered at an annual meeting of the British Association some thirteen years ago the following words occur: ' Upon one other interest I have not yet touched to me the mightiest and farthest-reaching of them all. . . Thirty years have passed since I published an account of experiments tending to show that outside our scientific knowledge there exists a Force exercised by intelligence differing from the ordinary intelligence . common to mortals. . . I have nothing to retract. I adhere to my already published statements.' Other scientists may label that intelligent 'Force as they please. We call it God. Physical science and natural theology here join hands.