Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 912, 26 January 1881, Page 4

The incarceration of the Rev. Mr. Pelham Dale, for ritualistic practices in St. Vedast’s Church, London, to which we recently drew attention, has caused considerable stir amongst the faithful and faithless alike. The general tone of the English Press is condemnatory of the pantomimic adornments with- which Episcopalian Ministers surround the formulae of public worship. Possibly quite right. Possibly quite wrong. Possibly, too, more of the former than the latter, inasmuch as clergymen of the Established Church in England, being paid by the State, are ecclesiastical servants of that State; and having subscribed to, and sworn to obey its mandates, shtmlddo so or retire.. But that is not our contention. We do not uphold the obstinacy of those self-created martyrs, who seek physical immolation on the altar of sacrificial conscientiousness. But, while we do not agree with their canonical disobedience, we decidedly condemn the punishment, and indignity to which these “martyrs” are exposed. No good will come again in the world—without, as before, much more evil intervening—by depriving ecclesiastical transgressors of their liberty, and locking them up in a common gaol, “ to the honor and glory of God.” If the Church is not inherently seeking its own disestablishment, it will rather look to the spirit of the age, and require submission from its recalcitrant pastors, by a more pacific and potent process than the relegation of them to a prison-house. The Church professes to hate these martyrs and yet, with a strange inconsistency it supplies them with the means which sustains their life—namely, the infliction of a penalty, whose punitive effect lays a large, and useless hold on their persons, while it fails entirely to eradicate, or touch, the original error. From all parts of the country, we are “ told addresses of sympathy pour into “ Holloway prison, accompanied by “ thanks to the prisoner, for the stand “ he is making on behalf of the liber- “ ties of the English Church.” And what are the consequences ? Simpl/ this. Mr. Dale and his fellow martyrs to the cause, have been liberated from goal, on their promise not to act in opposition to the monitions of Lord Penzance ! This weakness in strength, is exhibited on account of flaws having been found in the indictment. This church tomfoollery is really too much for the practical toleration, and religious liberty of our time. If the remnants of bygone persecution remain to the extent of deprivation of liberty, why not bring the recusants to trial, or torture, or the stake ? Why stay church malevolence at prison degradation ? Why do we profess to see the errors of the ways of our forefathers only in a limited sense? We do not burn and torture Church delinquents now, because of their sacred office; nor because it is repugnant to the Divine Will, and unholy in God’s

sight; but because we have mercy on our ordinary malefactors, 1 and our clergymen, get the benefit. And in this connection it is quite possible, indeed, we think it most likely, that if the “ Persecution Company,” as this blood-thirsty, ultra-church party are called, had their own way, they would have prepared a more exquisite form of agonising punishment than now obtains for refractory priests, and all in the name of their “holy religion.” Bah! It is this spirit of intolerance that is fast detaching hosts of members from the Anglican Church ; and, although they may not go directly to the Church of Rome, their 'defection will tend to widen the breach between it and other communions ; and lessen materially the army of which it boasts. In writing on this subject, the Church Review says : — “ Why should our consciences be “ dragooned by what any fallible king “ or judge ruled in a half-savage and “ truculent era of English history ? “ Lord Selborne, and Lord Cairns, “ and Lord Penzance, and the rest “ of these old gentlemen, may say “ their own prayers as they like, or say “ none at all; but they shall not order “ laymen, or clergymen either, as to “ their public or private approaches “to the Great Judge of all. These “ lawyers are fifty years behind the “ time. They are too old to see that “ religious persecution is an anachron- “ ism when an Atheist is invited and “ encouraged by the Government of “ the day to sit in Parliament and “ ‘ legislate ’ for the Church of God. “ If that is to be so, we will have no “ less religious liberty than Mr. “ Bradlaugh. Religious liberty ! “ Bible-loving England, indeed ! An “ Atheist may go all over our land “ and say there is no God, while a “ Christian priest must be put in jail “ lest he should preach Christ cruci- “ fied and the Sacrament of His Body “ and Blood ! “ Hereditary bondsmen “ ‘.—-Who .would be free, themselves “ ‘ must strike the blow.’ L ‘ Resist “ ‘ unto blood,’ we say.”