Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 13 November 1919, Page 14

Current Topics

', Anglican Confusion ~*r.is>! n ::- < 'iUj~sr. ■■t<\3'\k>jm6 G The Church of Christ is : one in r faith; as it is one in its Founder; he who professes the faith must hold what Christ taught and $ two people who believe con- . tradictory doctrines cannot both belong to the Church. The 'Church of England claims { to be the Church of Christ ; and to teach and receive f His 3 faith pure I and incorrupt. Yet we find that the Church of England is" so little- sure J of what the faith is n that Anglican divines may 1 publicly contradict one another as to mat- " ters of doctrine. For instance, when the Bishop of Oxford ; " published a Manual of Christian Doctrine, set- . ting forth exactly what a Christian, ought, according to the Church of England, believe, an : Anglican divine ' who in - testimony of his orthodoxy, We suppose, was later made Bishop of Hereford-, contradicted the Bishop of : : Oxford and practically told him-that he did not know what the faith of-an Anglican should be. Now if two Anglican bishops cannot agree, if one says that we must hold A, B, ; and C and reject D, E,- and F; and : the other says that on the contrary we must reject A, B, and C, and hold fast to D, E, and F, it is as clear to the man of common sense as it is apparently hidden from Angican divines that there is no unity in the Anglican Church, and that consequently the Anglican Church may be something else but it is certainly not the Church founded by Christ. On July 8, in the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury, we had another example of - the rudderless condition Of that particular craft which claims to be the Bark of Peter in England. Men of logical habits of mind refuse to be forever obsessed by words and by the fatal tradition of phrases," and they will insist on looking at things squarely. Consequently : [ it has long been recognised by sincere Anglican students of History and Theology that the Anglican. attitude towards the Mother of Christ was little short of blasphemous. A proposal was put forward that the Feast of the Visitation, should be honored by the introduction of a special collect, epistle, and gospel in commemoration of the Feast. Whereupon, the Bishop of Hereford sprang to his feet and invoked the glorious and immortal memory of the Reformers and denounced the errors and aberrations of Rome in true Bethel fashion. He was mildly supported by my Lord of Exeter, who said he should feel quite sad if they recognised any festitvals connected with the - Virgin. Then followed the Bishop of Truro, who told his audience in plain words "" what their attitude towards . Our Lady meant, and how indefensible it was on all grounds. They were, he said, quite willing to honor ordinary saints, but out of deference to the Reformers who drew the " line at honoring her whom Christ honored most. Finally the matter was put to a vote. The result was that ten voted for the introduction of the liturgical observances, as proposed, in honor of Mary, and eight voted against the proposal. Later, a vote was taken as to whether similar changes ought to be made for the Feast of the Name of Jesus. On this there were eleven ayes and five noes. - A proposal to commemorate Holy Cross Day in the same way was defeated by ten to nine. It is too pathetic to be amusing. A show of . hands decides what is right or wrong in : the liturgy! But perhaps it is more decent that this should be done by bishops' " hands - than to have : it done °by a Welsh '■ Baptist' of no L remarkable claims to sanctity. " Yet, in the" hands of the Welshman lies the appointment of bishops. 'Hereford was one of his shots "-: : Scientific Impostors : ..t&B?; ; -~ One of the greatest charlatans of ; the last century was that German anatomist Haeckel whose works are : so enthusiasticaly circulated by the -Rationalist Press Association. . ; Now the association in question professes to; have the interests of science at heart and to

be impartial.as:-farasireligious problems- are concerned, . but no man of average reading who looks over the list of reprints issued by the association can have the least doubt qas atoi the true aims iof its promoters. HaeckeFs works and MacCabe's = translations of them are among the 1 choice -publications ) of the R P.A., and as The Month (London) said some years ago,"; such ribald stuff as Haeckel utters when he speaks of Christianity is sufficiently confuted by the obvious : fact that it is the venomous product of an unclean mind. *Haec-' kel speaks of the Catholic -■■Church 7 - in words that are those of either a liar or an ignoramus; his incursions into theology, reveal his total ignorance of the subject* and his references to the Popes show that if he'had a smattering of history at all he was a shameless detractor. Haeckel was, as we have said, a good 'anatomist. But nobody but the dupes of the P.A.' ever imagined that because a man knew one subject well he had a right to be heard as an infallible authority on another. Still, it is an argument for the prevalence of fools that a Sir Oliver Lodge, on the strength of his -scientific attainments, is heard as an oracle even on ghosts, and that a well-known fool Chief Justice has licence to lecture on ethics, astronomy, and a thousand other matters in which he is distinguished for ignorance. We have already said that Haeckel was a deliberate forger and that he deceived his hearers as only a low charlatan could. We pointed out also that, on his own confession, Huxley was not aboveparading fancies and theories before gullible audiences' as if they were hard facts, verified and establishd. Yet while it can be said that within the sphere of physical science both Haeckel and Huxley had claims to be heard, there are other writers for the.R.P.A. who have no such claims, and who deserve a hearing on questions of biology or cosmogony as little as an engine-driver would on questions of metre or versification. As two examples of this class we mention Edward Clodd and Grant Allen. In proof of how they were : regarded by scholars let us quote the following from 1 ' the Pall Mall Gazette: - "We have received from the Rationalist Press Association a sixpenny edition of Mr. Grant Allen's Evolution of the Idea of God. We think it very regrettable that a work of this nature should be circulated broadcast in cheap editions. The late Mr. Grant Allen was, it is true, only a superficial student of the origins of religion ; and scholars can read his book with the care and criticism it deserves. It is full of the most baseless and shallow theories, unsupported, as a rule, by a tittle of evidence; but it is written in a dogmatic manner, and may, we are afraid, impose upon and encourage the cheap secularism that is still abroad." '/' That quotation unmasks the R.P.A. and shows its true value. It is quite true to say that, taken generally, the cheap prints issued by this. association have in the eyes of scientists and scholars no value. They do deceive the ignorant who take assertions for proofs and theories for facts; and that they succeed in this sufficiently establishes the guilt of the people behind the R.P.A. The R.P.A. does not tell its subscribers that men of science have denied in toto the pet theories the prints propagate: it never tells what Wallace, Windle, Kelvin, Pasteur, or Bernhard had to say about science and religion and this fact is convincing evidence of the downright dishonesty and anti-Chris-tian bias of that association, which misleads the people * under a sham cloak of science. Some time ago we had a letter from a correspondent 'which clearly proved how people are taken in. This gentleman actually expressed his wonder that we should question Joseph McCabe's claims to be heard on scientific questions and this at \ ah hour of the day when we imagined that everybody knew Joseph for the pot-hunting impostor that he really is. English scholars dismiss Joseph with a smile, : of pity: controversy with him is so far beneath them. But it seems that there are still some among us here I who are deluded by the assumptions of even-.'so notorious I a charlatan. '■--''-■ ■■}'*■ ei )'•—'-'•''■;'*'■ *'- ; - ■ <;.>■? vs^>v '...-. -.-.-;■;■

The Referendum ;o^lt : 7-.; ..uwl . The v referendum ■; means j. the 1 direct appealto ‘ the electorate on a single definite issue. We have had ;it in practice here, and there is no need to delay in explaining its working. Last April the Prohibitionists managed to put the country. to great trouble and expense in order to have it made clear that the men—especially the men who ; fought for freedomwould ; not vote Prohibition. At present:Parliament may or may not grant the right of such an appeal, and the Labor Party are, in their programme, advocating the Referendum as part and parcel of the political reforms they deem necessary for proper democratic control. The Referendum has this against it to begin with : it is not viewed with much favor even in democratic countries; and .dp Switzerland, where it is part of the constitution, it applies only to legislation affecting the constitution which has already passed the Federal Assembly by a -specified majority. To pronounce an opinion on the Referendum as urged by the Labor Party here is not possible until we know definitely what they mean. Between the extremes of such mob-government as the Referendum might mean and an appeal to the people under certain well-defined and specified conditions, there is a very wide range and room for very various opinions. What we can do here, however, is to make plain in what sense we cannot support a Referendum, no matter from what party it originates. As we have made clear before now, we look on direct democratic government as absolutely impossible, and we quoted with approval Rousseau’s words that such a system is fit only for angels. Men and women are not angels, and for that reason anything like direct government by them is sure to end in disaster. We must be careful not to become, as Renan would say, obsessed by words. When we speak of the sovereignty of the people, we speak very loosely and we say something that we cannot possibly mean. The people have the right to determine their own form of government ; they have the right to be governed for their best interests, but it is misleading to speak of them as sovereign. If by Democracy we would understand the sovereignty of the people we have a wrong idea of Democracy. “Sovereignty,” says Bronson, “is that which is highest and ultimate; which has not only the physical force to make itself obeyed, but the moral right to command whatever it pleases. The right to command involves the corresponding duty of obedience. What the sovereign commands it is the duty of the subject to do. r

“Axe the people the highest? Are they ultimate? And are we bound in conscience to obey whatever it may be their good pleasure to ordain ? If so, where is individual liberty? If so, the people, taken collectively, are the absolute master of every man taken individually. Every man, as a man, then, is an absolute slave. Whatever the people in their collective capacity may demand of him, he must feel himself bound in conscience to give. No matter how intolerable the burdens , imposed, painful and needless the sacrifices required, he cannot refuse obedience without incurring the guilt of disloyalty; and he must submit in quiet, in silence, without even the moral right to feel that he is wronged.

• • “Now this, in theory at least, is absolutism. Whether it be a democracy, or any other form of government, if it be absolute there is and there can be no individual liberty. . . . Hence absolute despotism.” Obviously we do not want despotism. Democracy aims at destroying despotism, and it would be a sorry state of affairs if it but set up a new form in place of the old. It is not the despotism of kings, or of aristocrats we object to : it is despotism pure and simple —despotism of the people as well as of the tyrant. At the root of the old despotism lay the old shibboleths of the divine right of. kings, I’etafy.c’estjirioi, and what not. Beware lest we substitute for them another equally dangerous shibboleth sovereignty of the people. Let us not say that under democratic government the people are the State, the State is absolute, and therefore the people may do what they please. That

is exactly the standpoint from : which f f all despotism ; starts. : ' That is the radical .fallacy of 'governments. Such reasoning would make man as much a slave under Democracy as under a Nero. And when we look for s good 'a government ; : we look cfor > it for no abstract thing called "the people/' but for Tom, „Dick, Harry, and every single man and woman of us all. s: Not to "the people," but to you and Tto; me the problem comes home and we are not going to give; any Juggernaut the power to ride rough-shod over us, -. no .matter j what name it be called;[;Wei are not going to be obsessed by words. You and I may become as much slaves under government by the people as we . were under the ..Coalition and it is for ;you.. and,; for me to see that we do not. So far forth for the principle at stake. V; . Now for the application. . Are we. prepared to say that a .majority of votes ought to be allowed to determine what shall become law, and what shall not, -without \ exception If we hold this, then we, are - not -giving the right to govern to the people; we are giving it to a majority, however small, and we are empowering that majority to make slaves of the minority. ,We are disfranchising the minority; we are putting them-under the..heel of King Mob; we are establishing a ? despotism ten times worse than the old forms against which we rebelled. And where will the tyranny stop? Will rights of pro-, perty be respected ? Will , rights of conscience ? Will there be any. safeguard for religion, for the .home, for the family? No; beyond; the variable and fickle will of the multitude there will be none. . ; -,. r^jr Needless to say, we can never lawfully support a Referendum which would give such power to a majorityof voters. To do so would be to acknowledge that the man in the street has the right to dethrone God and to abrogate the Natural Law. For instead of the sovereignty of God Almighty it sets ,up the idol of the soy?j ereignty of the people; and nothing but-confusion: can be the result thereof. Before we could support a Referendum we should be, able to see clearly, what it means. If it even meant that legislation must originate with the people, without inquiring what else it meant,, we would condemn it. The people are not fit for such, a task, precisely because, : instead of being angels, they, are, as Carlyle said, mostly fools. If, however, ..it; meant that legislation framed and introduced by the.; representatives of the people ought to be submitted for approval, our objection might be overcome provided that other conditions were present. Such other conditions, in one word, would be that in all cases God's Law and the Law of Nature should be respected:, that the rights of religion, the rights, of individuals, the rights of families should be sacred and inviolate and for ever above and beyond the power of a Referendum. On such conditions, and on no others, could we support a party which would be likely to carry the Referendum into the sphere of practical politics. In conclusion, remember that the people are no sovereign: God alone is sovereign; it .is the ; way to slavery to concede sovereign rights to. the people, ,or, to any creatures. The true bulwark of freedom is the Law of God and the Natural Law, which safeguard : the individual and. the family and./ religion. And because that is so, we warn all against the extreme Laborites who are introducing an anti-Christian propaganda here, and in their very ignorance and blind conceit are the greatest foes Democracy has to-day,. We want —more than ever it was wanted in , the world, 'beforeall the help , that religion can give how:; ,and they who swallow the,cheap, lies of quacks of the". McCain type, and spread them '] as if.,, they were the truth f in their press are the real .enemies. We ] want, moreover, instruction as to the true limits of the power of' the State, and as to its proper functions. And we want, or we may soon want, men who will stand i fast to death,.if need be rather, than give to Caesar the things that ■] are God's. -,:.,•