OUR HOME LETTER.

Evening Star, Issue 3792, 20 April 1875, Page 3

OUR HOME LETTER.

EvH-ytIKOB point, 111., probability „t the r’* 5 V •'l Llberal P ;l; ty being directed q t i?® 0.-. i.-endowment of the S hurc ; V Mr ?ng. t ha 3 j 'st delivered a speeca to hj..; constituent.-, the whole of which was clcv. .ted to tins question. The me-tin" was hvhi f, lt:„slcy Hall, in BirminghS, and no less than 10.000 persons were present. Mr iii- C<l nmen ««d his address by pleasantly Jitag wtb chMof Ministry, confessing that if too much had been done already, and it nothing m re was to be done, then the action or the constituencies had been wonderfully consistent; for they had placed twelve gentle men on the Treasury lit uch whose special recommendation was that they never did anything, and never even attempted to do anything unu ss it was to prevent their opponents from doing son ething. Wlun asked by a friend how he thought the new team would get on he replied, Pretty w< 11 if they would keep off politics. Certainly it was rather difficult for a Mimst y to keep cle r of politics; but, iustead of tiyu.-i to do so, the present Government had plunged into the most e-tciting and explosive branch of politics--ecclesiastical affairs Alluding to.the Bill for the Abolition of Patronage in the Church of Scotland, he said 't must bo remembered that it bad never suf tered from the remarkable corrup ion which existed as regards patronage in the English Church ; and it was surprising that, whilst the small amount of patronage iu Scotland was tound to be so dangerous, a committee of the House of Lords should have deeded A ’.. 1 the enormous ar.d corn pt i latre" t f * v,. E;,,l is h PI „rob, n „„t 'd ,Miy “ in & f ni ■ eduction. I ..ceding to tho conRnUdlr th !° r V ;ent L Churoh Discipline BUI, and of its alrnoafc enthusiastic acceptance by the House of Commons, Mr Bright said he never knew the House unanimous or enthusiastwj about anything, except at a time when it did not know what it was doing or where it was an occasion was the introduction TitleK BiU fa y John Bussell,—a Bill that was passed by thq most overwhelming nujoiities, and which it was never even attempted to put in force. Another occasion was when the House of Commons agreed to the declaration of war against Russia 1' or his opposition to that measure, there was scarcely a newspape. at the tint that aid not treat him with scorn, eontoiivt, rv, ( | insulfc ■ M.l yet ,hj, „« tl„ j ,Ue di.) L „,„■ pS. e the u.io nature of t*- mistake then made? ‘ u'"?. V u ;s:ioa of the Archbishops ; '■“> ! V*Bht inquired: Who were the persons \ m io y i t ~ tlll: cler gy of the Established Church ? One way of describing them, in contradistinction to dissenting ministers was to say that they were “ gentlemen,” that they were the sons of gentlemen, and had received 1 university education. Further, that they had be-,, accustomed to associate w.th the great wealth and high blood of the peerage, and that they iWIKT" A* y Sta A te as OUl ' instructors Wmd£ lo, \ b ' , £nd yet their own Archbwhops and Bishops, and Ministers of State—came to us declaring that their conduct was so lawless ” that special legislation became necessary to keep them in order. Lertainly there were special cases where special legislation _ became necessary. There was special legislation for publicans; there was special legislation for some other businesses—such as marine stores, and the like. But when special legislation was declaied necessary to curb the “lawlessness” of the State , appointed instructors in religion and morality, then things had come to* a very serious pass, indeed. Special legislation had been directed to put down garotting and similar crimes of buita! violence; but to think that special legislation was required to curb the lawlessness of men on whose consecrated heads the o° p bad been pln ced was dreadful to think of. Speaking of the act of uniformity, passed m the infamous reign of Charles II which caused the expulsion of 2,000 clergymen, Mr Bright declared that it had proved the most biessed secession that had ever happened, for it laid the foundation of that party which has ever since been the consistent friend of freedom and improvement. The apology for the existence of the ehurch of England was that it wj required as a barrier against Rome, and yet it was necessary t° resort to legislatioA to counteract its Boam-h procuvities. Did such tendencies must m the Congregational, the Wesleyan, or the Baptist Churehes? No. It was the Church of England, the pretended bulwark M tbat f : formed the avenue leading to of fklpk’ Wl k I J®!® 1 ’ 61106 to the actual position of the Chuvoh of England, as a political as well m a religious institution, a branch of the Civil Service, in fact, what said Sir William Hareourt on this point, If one set of priests refuse to conform, we shall find others, as we have «• w-n-° re> Wlll obey the national faith ” Sir William did not say ‘ r who will obey their conscience, or “ who will obey the law of God tfonaLf r -fv, d » ifc v' bufc " obey the national faith. Lawyers might think it perfectly easy to fill such positions with men who did not care what their consciences teach them, or what they believed to be truth—men who would ac cept so many hundreds a year and “ conform to the national faith.” Mr Bright then proceeded torefei to the Bishop of Lincoln, who recently refused to a Wesleyan minister the use of the word reverend ”on a tombstone. Sir William Hareourt had called him “ a learned simpleton ; but Mr Bright would not use such lun- * at the bishop did appeared to Mr JBngiit the natural lesult of his position and of the pretens ons of his order. Bishops genefar aa he knew, were excellent men • but this was an ins ance of the arrogance that th . e sacerdotal spirit existing within the Church of England. It was presumption bora of pn viloge. It was not to be wondered at that, with a clergy with its endowments, its perferments, its privileges, and its constantly proclaimed superiority, such things should happen, and that they should despise the humble and hardworking men whose labors had been so wonderfully blessed by heaven, hot who seemed to them to intrude into their privileged Then let them look at that privileged field itself. Look at the confusion and quarrelling that went on within it. Tho other day .Bishop Lolenso was announced to preach in a certain church, Down came an order from the i-j °i? 01 “* e diocese forbidding him. What did the clergyman of the church do ? Why he himself simply read the very sermon Colenso was to have preached. Then came the Bishop of London forbidding Colenso to preach in his diocese, whereupon Dean Stanley offered him the pulpit of M estramster Abbey. All these things mu it bring us face to face with the great faCi, that, a State Church is out of harmony wit a the spirit of the age Wherever the Ohuich o' England was powerful, tlure we found opposition to legislative and administrative reform powerful also. As a body we had received no a.d from the Church of England in all the g ;v.t measures of improvement with which we hj been so greatly blessed dming the past ha t century. Then if we looked at it as a re igmus institution what dia we find? Atone cud salaries that were enoimous and *hS"tb.‘\’ at the ° r !'- eL ' : ’•' L sala| ies so sua.it.y dhat they v; re a disgrace. Prom j lion was 2HJ, by inter, at oud high importunity, ttoferun to the (potion ot disestablishment— Mr Bn. ht said it hud been urge! th t its residuary legatee would be Lie Chuich .1 Romo defen 1 ! ‘'f? 7 Ult l forfc . that was intended to S I t- 5 a ' nßt us - Li conclu„re ,V , said he i.aould regaul it as a grea. cal.mity if the inevitable change were accomplished by violent hatred, or come Hon" \vV?! Pe3l - h j i ke i u h - e tUrWoil of a ievo,ution. n hat he wished his auditory to do was to consider tho qmstim calmly and fully declaring that he thought it would be a great ChHsH I .', T f r, Protestantism ami Christianity, .vhich should witness the full enreX h 8! Se:URUt ° f thc Ghurch within these The Liberation Society has recently held a 6e A ing xr ln und «r the presidency of the Mayor, Mr Joseph Chamberlain. Mr Arch, the leader of the farm laborers was Mr John Morley, the editor of the iortnightly Review.’ Mr Chamberlain remarked that the existence of a State Church was endeavored u> b.- jnstiried as a national re--011 butllu I'°inted out that what the btate uul v. ;s to a. bitrarily select one particular Lecfc, declare it the sole possessor of the truth, and appropriate to its support funds which were intended for the religious instruction of the whole nation. There were good and religious men m the Roman Catholic, the eekyan, the liapt st, and the Congregational bodies, but all ct th< se were excluded from the so-called national recognition of religion.