MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3422, 9 February 1874, Page 2

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1874

Were it not that the opening of the Athenaeum has been chosen as the battle ground for a struggle that sooner or later must result in the liberation of men from a burden of superstition felt to be intolerable, we should have left the question to the gradual growth of opinion, based upon popular advance in sound knowledge. On all such subjects, the pulpit, as an educational institution, has an advantage. The hearers of a clergyman are generally prejudiced in his favor, and think so highly his judgment and erudition that most of them accept his dictum with equal reverence to the authority he professes to expound. He has the ground to himself, can weave his own theories, lay down his propositions, and illustrate them by arguments sound or unsound, knowing well that only very few in his congregation are sufficiently trained mentally, and sufficiently informed to detect him if he err. Most probably to this, is owing the very generally flimsy style of pulpit oratory. Logical precision not sought after. Sermons that impress are more effective than those that are intended to convince, as well as being much more easy and pleasant to construct and listen to. They commonly deal with subjects on which foregone conclusions have been arrived at ; and as they are not likely to be controverted, the ministry, as a rule, are led into loose habits of investigation, and one-sided-ness of opinion, that they cannot shake off when they endeavor to influence public opinion outside their churches. Whenever they mingle in secular matters, in or out of the pulpit, we are tempted to apply to them Dryden’s lines—

Railing and praising were his usual themes, And both, to show his judgment in extremes bo over-violent, or over-civil, That every man with him was god or devil. Wb were treated this morning with reports of Dr. Roseby’s sermon yesterday, and with a leader on the subject by each of our morning contemporaries. Hie Guardian and Dr Roseby represent one side ; the * Daily Times ’ the other. If any rational being could be supposed to divest himself of all prior knowledge in the matter, and to pronounce judgment as to which of the controversalists conducted the matter in accordance with Christian ethics, he would most assuredly award the victory to the advocates for the opening of the Athenreum. There is at least the avoidance of that clerical blackguardism that so frequently disfigures speeches and sermons. It consists in characterising all who differ from the speaker’s interpretation of a text of scripture as demagogues, socialists, atheists, aiders and abettors of men who spat in the face of a minister and said, “ Eternity was a myth and God a beast.” It consists in ringing changes upon an “infidel Press ” upon violation of the “ public conscience ” —whatever that may mean, if it mean anything— and striving to bring into public disrepute the moral and religious characters of men equally able with the reverend speakers to pronounce a correct judgment upon the meaning of a text. If so severe a penalty was attached to the jocular use of the word “Bumble,” as a jury though fit lately to inflict, what do such wholesale slanderers deserve? But wepassthat consideration as scarcely worthy of a thought: our object is merely to bring home to these men the dishonor which they bring upon the doctrinesthey profess, and to show them that, judged by the difference of conduct, their opponents must even religiously stand higher than they. The articles that have appeared in the ‘ Guardian’ deal with the subject deprecatingly. J udging by the general tenor of their arguments, the writer, or writers, in effect say—“ We do not believe the opening of the A theme um would be any desecration of the Lord’s Day ; but there are a number of good people whose consciences are tender on the subject: do not offend them.” That is to say that those who are condemned by most of the ministry as infidels, having no respect to the obligations of Christianity, who are, according to Dr Roseby, selfish, having no thought but after greed of gain, whom he describes as desiring to make the Sabbath (this from a Christian J) an ordinary day for talking about “ shares, and wool, and flax ’ —those men, thus maligned, we say are called upon to display the highest qualities of Christianity—forbearance, and relinquishing of their own opinions, because there are weak brethren who might be ofiended. That we do not misstate the £ Guardian’ is evident from the following passage : There are a few further points respectin'*- the inexpediency of opening the Athenreum on 'Sunday which we believe are not now receiving the attention which they merit. That institution at the present trnie contains among its inembeis a considerable, indeed we may say a very lar-m section who, regarding the whole affair as°a matter of conscience and principle, object to the proposed opening as a desecration of the Lord’s _Day. J- hesc are the people who probably would be called Sabbatarians. Now, although the view of the matter taken by these persons is not our view, yet recognizing their position as fellow members of one community, formed on the basis of literary and artistic culture, and boheviug m the sincerity of their feelings, we respect those feelings and opinions sufficiently to abstain from doing needless violence to them. Fully concurring in the Christian duty of self-denial rather than needlessly to offend where principle is not concerned, we have yet to learn in such a matter as this, on which side the

self-denial is to be exerted. If the Sabbatarians are superior in mental, moral, and religious attainments to those they so unhesitatingly condemn, how is it that they exhibit it in intolerance of language and conduct? Probably they may take their stand on what they believe to be Scriptural authority; but those who advocate the opening of the Athemeum do not agree with their interpretation of the Scriptures nor of human obligation founded upon that interpretation. Equally able to maintain their opinion on scholastic grounds; equally willing to accept the doctrines of the Scriptures as really contained in them; equally desirous that the Lord’s Day shall be one of profit, rest, and rational enjoyment with those who would reduce it through tradition to a burden not sanctioned by its founders, why should such deference be shown to the tenderconscienced, as if a sound-conditioned, well-instructed conscience did not deserve equal consideration? The very plea put forward is nothing less than advocacy for the tyranny of the weak over the strong. This is opposed to the very spirit of the Gospel itself. No compulsory observance of any religious rite, whether it be connected immewith the service of the Church or particular conduct on the Lord’s day, can be counted worthy the name of worship or religion; and when a tenderconscienced Christian attempts to fetter others by his fears, he steps altogether out of his sphere and commits one sin that he may avoid another : he does not fulfil the law—“ Do unto others as you would have others do to you.” The “ tender-conscienced” Christian asks more than this : he asks his neighbor to act upon the principle and to excuse himself doing so, forgetful that he is not responsible for his neighbor’s conduct, but merely for his own. Dr Roseby’s arguments are fairly dealt with in the ‘ Daily Times’ in a spirit he would do well to imitate. He had better leave the matter to settle itself; for intolerance, no matter in what shape it exhibits itself, rouses opposition. He should know, with Gamaliel, that “if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought, but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”