“It is not the King who is responsible for the drafting or the
retention of this detestable Declaration. It is the Ministry, the
Legislature, the Constitution that are responsible for its retention,
and for forcing its acceptance upon the Sovereign. The gravamen,
therefore, lies against the State, not against the person of the King.”
Quite true; and it is therefore against the State that the Vatican
powers must and possibly will be directed.
“And,” went on the Cardinal, “do not devout clergymen swear every day
in good faith to teach the Thirty-nine Articles, and find every day
that conscience and good faith compel them to break their engagement by
submitting to the Catholic Church? When a man fully realizes that by a
promise or an oath he has pledged himself to something that is unjust,
immoral, untrue, the engagement ceases to bind.”
_Ergo_, the English Church, the particular “Faith” which our King
undertakes to DEFEND, is “unjust, immoral, and untrue.”
And, “Could Englishmen see themselves as others see them, they would be
more chary than they are of provoking hatred by such wanton contempt
for the feelings of other nations.”
Well, Englishmen have every chance of seeing themselves as others see
them, when they hear a “Christian” Cardinal accusing them of “wanton
contempt for the feelings of other nations.” To whom do other nations
turn in want or distress but England? From whom do the famine and
fever-stricken in all corners of the world obtain relief? England!
Where is there any Roman Catholic country that has poured out such
limitless charity and pity to all in sorrow as England? And why should
the “conversion of England” be so valuable to the Roman Church? Merely
because of England’s incalculable wealth and incalculable power! Again,
concerning the Declaration Oath, the Cardinal continued:--“Now, should
it ever happen that the King became convinced, by God’s grace, of the
truth of the doctrines that he abjured, of what value would be the
Declaration? Absolutely none!”
Of course not,--he would simply cease to be King, and would enjoy the
complete liberty of the subject.
“By all means,” went on his Eminence, warming with his theme, “let the
majority, if it please, stand by the law, which exists apart from the
Declaration, declaring that to reign over England the Sovereign must be
a Protestant. Retain this law and enforce it; but respect our creed, at
least just so far as to ignore it, and to leave us alone. This, surely,
is not a heavy demand to make upon the spirit of modern toleration.”
Then will _you_ not, my lord Cardinal, “respect the creed”
established in this country,--the religion of the State,--“just so far
as to ignore it,” and to leave those who honour it “alone.” “This,
surely, is not a heavy demand to make upon the spirit of modern
toleration.” It is not the Church of England which has started any
discussion on the Coronation Oath,--the quarrel has emanated entirely
from the Roman Catholic side. And the Cardinal’s speech tends to be
more aggressive than pacifying.
“But if,” he continues, “after all, there must be a Declaration _as a
sop to certain fears and passions_, let there be one to the effect
that the King is a Protestant--and stop there. Should, however, a
denunciation of the Catholic religion be added to a profession of
Protestantism, the whole world will understand it; it will understand
it as a pitiable _confession of English fear and weakness_. And as
to ourselves; well, we shall take it as a complimentary acknowledgment
by our fellow-countrymen of the importance and power of faith--that it
can not only remove mountains, but is capable of _moving even the
fabric of the British Empire itself_. But I should like to conclude
in another strain, and add to these observations a resolution to this
effect:--That the Sovereign of this Empire ought to be raised high
above the strife of all political and religious controversies, the more
easily to draw to himself and to retain the unabated loyalty of all
creeds and races within his Empire.”
With the latter part of the Cardinal’s harangue every one of every
creed and class will agree, but “a pitiable confession of English fear
and weakness” is a phrase that should never have been uttered by an
Englishman, whether “broad” or narrow, cardinal or layman. “English
fear and weakness” has never yet been known in the world’s history.
And as for “moving the fabric of the British Empire,” that is only
to be done through the possible incompetence or demoralization of its
own statesmen,--by shiftiness, treachery, and corruption in State
affairs--and even at this utmost worst, though England might be bent,
she would never be broken.
But all this has nothing to do with the Christian faith as Christ
Himself expounded it in His own commands. Quarrels and dissensions are
as far from the teaching of the Divine Master as an earth’s dusthole
is far from the centre of the sun. Differences of dogma are not
approved in His eyes. Whether candles shall or shall not be set on
the altar, whether incense shall or shall not be burnt, may be said
to relegate to the “cleansing of the outside of the cup and platter,”
and are not a vital part of His intention--for He has nothing but
condemnation for “forms” and “ceremonies.” And, on this very point,
I venture to say that if the rumour be correct that incense is to be
used at the Coronation of our King and Queen, it will be a most unwise
and unpopular procedure on the part of any bishop or archbishop who
sanctions it. Incense in itself is harmless enough, though it has a
somewhat sickening odour,--it has been burnt and swung in censers from
time immemorial at all the pagan altars of the world,--in Babylon and
Nineveh, in Tyre and Sidon, in Pompeii and Herculaneum,--it has smoked
itself up to the gods Bel and Osiris, it has been used at the “services
of Venus” and the shrines of Apollo and Jupiter, Buddha, Siva, and
countless deities, as well as on the sacrificial stones consecrated
to the worship of the Israelitish Jehovah,--but it is not a part of
Christian worship. And when it is taken into due consideration that
the use of it at the Coronation will indubitably offend and irritate
thousands of the King’s most loyal subjects, it should most assuredly
be entirely avoided. There is something very strange and unnatural
in the provocative spirit which is at present being exercised by
professing rulers of the Church of England against one another; and
there is matter too for regret in the attitude of favour maintained by
Lord Salisbury towards the practices of an almost theatrical Ritualism
in the form of English Christian services. Can it be possible that
the Premier meditates “going over” to Rome? His appointments of High
Churchmen to important bishoprics would seem to imply that his mind
is trending that way; certainly the simple and unaffected man of pure
taste and dignity in Church ritual does not appeal to him, and that
he is preparing the way for a second Cromwell is only too evident. It
is lamentable indeed that any discussions should arise between the
different sects as to “forms and ceremonies,” and those men who excite
fanatical hatreds by their petty quarrels over unimportant “shows” and
observances are criminally to blame for any evils that are likely to
ensue. What Christ commands is “Love one another;”--what He desires is
that all mankind should be friends and brothers in His Name. And it is
from this point of view that I again ask the question of those who may
have glanced through this paper--DO YOU BELIEVE, OR DO YOU NOT BELIEVE?
Are you a CHRISTIAN? Or a SECTARIAN? The one is not the other.
For my own part I would desire to see all the Sects cease their long
quarrel,--all “dogmas” dropped--and all creeds amalgamated into one
great loving family under the name of Christ. I should like to see an
end to all bigotry, whether of Protestantism against Romanism, or
Romanism against Protestantism,--a conclusion to all differences--and
a Universal Church of simple Love and Thanksgiving, and obedience to
Christ’s own commands. “Temporal power” should be held as the poor
thing which it is, compared to Spiritual power,--for Spiritual power,
according to the Founder of the Christian Faith, is the transcendent
force of Love--love to God and love to man,--that “perfect love which
casteth out fear,” and which, being “born of God, cannot rest but in
God above all created things.”
Thus it follows--That if we hate or envy or slander any person, WE
ARE NOT CHRISTIANS.
If we prefer outward forms of religious ceremonial to the every-day
practice of a life lived as closely as possible in accordance with the
commands laid down for us in the Gospel, WE ARE NOT CHRISTIANS.
If we love ourselves more than our neighbours, WE ARE NOT
CHRISTIANS.
If we care for money, position, and the ostentation attending these
things, more than truth, simplicity, and plain dealing, WE ARE NOT
CHRISTIANS.
These ordinary tests of our daily conduct are quite enough to enable
us to decide whether we are or are not of the faith. If we are
_not_, we should cease to “sham” that we _are_. It will be
far better for all those with whom we are brought in contact. For,
thank God, there exist thousands of very real “Christians”--(“by their
fruits ye shall know them”)--doing unostentatious good everywhere,
rescuing the lost, aiding the poor, comforting the sick, and helping
the world to grow happier and better. They may be _called_ Jews or
Baptists, Papists or Buddhists,--but I hold them all as “Christians”
if they perform those good deeds and live those good lives which
are acceptable to Christ; while many church-going hypocrites called
“Christians,” whose social existence is a scandal, whose dissipations,
gross immoralities and pernicious example of living are open dangers
to the whole community, do not deserve even such a complimentary
term as “pagan” applied to them. For the pagans--aye, the earliest
savages--believed in Something higher than themselves; but these sort
of people believe in nothing but the necessity of getting what they
want at all costs, and are mere human warts of evil, breeding infection
and pestilence. And it is particularly incumbent on the clergy of
all denominations at the present juncture to sift Themselves as to
their calling and election while sifting others,--to ask themselves
whether they may not be in a great measure to blame for much of the
infamy which reeks from our great cities,--for much of the apathy and
indifference to that bitter poverty, that neglected suffering which
often gives birth to Anarchy,--for much of the open atheism which
shames the upper classes of society. Let them live such lives as may
liberate them from all fear or hesitation in speaking out boldly to
the souls they have in charge--let them “preach the Gospel” as they
were commanded, rather than expound human dogmas. Sympathy, tenderness,
patience, love for all living creatures, rejection of everything that
is mean and cruel, false and cowardly,--a broad mind open to all the
beautiful and gracious influences of Nature--a spirit uplifted in
thanksgiving to the loving God of all worlds who is brought close to us
and made the friend of man in the Divine Personality of Christ--this
surely is CHRISTIANITY--a Faith which leaves no corner anywhere for the
admission of hate, dissension or despair. Such is the Faith the Master
taught, saying:--
[2]“I have not spoken of myself, but of the Father which sent me; He
gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak.
“And I know that His commandment is life everlasting--whatsoever I
speak, therefore, even as the Father taught me, so I speak.”
So He speaks--but do we listen? And if we listen,--and believe,--why do
we not obey?